<p>The idea that there are legions of ‘frivolous’ lawsuits being filed targeting innocent corporations is a complete fantasy.</p>
<p>Nitrox - Your statement is supported by what? Mine is supported by 30+ years of experience. I don’t work for a consumer products Fortune 500 but I can extrapolate that if we see so many frivolous suits, I can’t imagine how many frivolous suits are filed against consumer product companies, retailers, health care providers, etc. I noted your prior posting about law being full of malignant personalities…sounds as if you have a personal ax to grind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is indeed reality. Many, many lawsuits are filed against corporations seeking quick settlements for the “nuisance” value of the lawsuit – in other words, simply to make it go away and to avoid legal fees.</p>
<p>sakky,</p>
<p>You actually bring up an interesting point about lawyers and creation of demand, but then we must wonder whether or not the demand increase is generating a net deadweight loss for society or not.</p>
<p>Even if the lawyers are making work for themselves doesn’t necessarily mean that we have any sort of Pareto optimum (if those even exist.)</p>
<p>nitrox:</p>
<p>Allow me to introduce you to Milberg Weiss:</p>
<p>[Milberg</a> Weiss indicted for allegedly paying $11.4M*kickbacks - November 13, 2006](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393127/index.htm]Milberg”>Milberg Weiss indicted for allegedly paying $11.4M�kickbacks - November 13, 2006)</p>
<p>30+ years of experience as what? Have you ever picked a jury? Tried a case to verdict? Operated your own plaintiff’s practice? From your responses, it seems unlikely. Moreover, in an era of pure comparative negligence, your assertion is quite astonishing - to actually have found large numbers of cases in which the corporate defendants are - in fact - completely free from any blame! Not even 1%!! And without even doing any discovery!!</p>
<p>FYI - I have no ‘personal axe to grind’ - merely many, many years of first hand experience helping out in a plaintiff’s trial office. This granted me the opportunity to watch and observe first hand the actual practice of law - and not the pencil-pushing of “litigators” who have no idea what PJIs are, but could rustle up a nice 27 page memo on some obscure footnote in the Caroline Products case. I very much enjoy it when lawyers preface their responses as you have - i.e. " Mine is supported by 30+ years of experience." Its a real hoot to have someone try to belittle or bully based on supposed superiority. I always enjoy the ‘are you a lawyer? Well I am’ posturing. :D</p>
<p>Yes, Nitrox. I actually began my career as a trial lawyer (although I would like to believe that none of my suits were frivolous). </p>
<p>Your perspective on frivolous suits and your understanding of comparative negligence appears to be somewhat limited. I didn’t realize that your negative perceptions of corporations and the legal practice were based only on observation and assistance to lawyers in a plaintiffs’ firm. This thread would probably make for an interesting discussion with the attorneys in that practice, who should certainly understand both the ethical and practical pitfalls of frivolous litigation and the fact that such litigation can erode coverage limits that nonfrivolous litigation may seek to tap. The law of comparative or contributory negigence varies by state, so that 1% is not always actionable. This is, however, off-topic. No one posted that all plaintiffs’ cases are frivolous and the majority of lawyers do not have malignant personalities as you posted previously.</p>
<p>The original point made by Sakky (to which I agreed) was that the legal profession “makes work” for themselves in some small part through frivolous litigation (which would include conducting extensive discovery in the hope of finding something that might support a case, to elicit a nuisance settlement offer).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLAri, let me ask you: WHY? The increase in the demand for lawyers is always a good thing once I finish law school. I couldn’t give a flying rat’s ass its effect on society at large.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Spoken like a true lawyer.</p>
<p>Darn you Sakky. Darn you for taking the words right out of my mouth.</p>
<p>This surplus in lawyers should be allocated to developing countries in order to aid in the protection of legal contracts specifically entailing property rights: the basis to strong incentive for self-determination and private sector enterprise at the grassroots level.</p>
<p>Just my $.02</p>
<p>TheAjay89,</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that futurenyustudent take a pay cut to actually generate social welfare and benefit humanity?</p>
<p>How repulsive!</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Then again, there exists a degree of principal-agent moral hazard as his agenda clearly differs from that of society as a whole, so I do not know how feasible that would be.</p>
<p>In this scenario, lawyers should be acting as agents for the populace. Apparently, this does not reflect the ideology of futurenyustudent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a nice thought, but without the backing of a system of courts where contracts may be (reasonably) quickly enforced and a system of laws that makes contracts enforceable, qualities missing in many developing economies, contracts aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. In fact, when contractual arrangements may not be enforceable as a matter of course, and when governments step in and invalidate otherwise good contracts (e.g. privitazation of assets), many foreign investors/companies will decline to take part in those economies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on which end of the rifle you’re on, of course.</p>
<p>If you’re in favor of allocating surplus lawyers, then there are areas in this country where there are not enough lawyers. My parents live in a very rural area and they have a hard time finding capable counsel to even handle simple estate matters - without traveling quite a distance to do so. There is very little opportunity for legal counsel in many impoverished areas in this country.</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t fit my ideology, if I had one. Why should I act as an agent of the populace? I (well, my parents) paid for undergrad, I (well prob my parents) will pay for law school, without a cent of aid from the general populace. Logically I’m not obligated to give them a cent of my help.</p>
<p>Just like any profit-seeking entity in a capitalist system, my function is to maximize my own profit. After all, you can’t give to charity if you have nothing to give 
I may use my wealth to benefit humanity later on when I have gobs of money lying around (aka when I can afford to). Until then, **** humanity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better start paving your own roads, building your own hospitals, growing your own food, and making your own Internets, then. :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. But that doesn’t mean you aren’t a deadweight loss to the rest of us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, if only that mattered to me. ;)</p>
<p>Better start on those roads, then.</p>