Frivolous Lawsuits

[babe]

Sounds like it barely did to be honest. Most of it was probably in papers.

Also, I would like to mark August 29, 2011 as the day that Scat and LG98 stated their strong agreement with a socialist policy of the French court system.

socialists have no special claim on common sense. . . .

Mark it down also as the day I agreed with Kicky with only one little mumbling protest.

 

[One Brow]

So the lawyer is against an opinion that reducing lawsuits, ...

What made you think sirkickyass disagreed with having the plaintiffs pay legal fees?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

This read more like an Onion article than actual news.

 

[sirkickyass]

Specifically?

"Loser pays" is a feature of many European courts, particularly in low-merit lawsuits.

]So the lawyer is against an opinion that reducing lawsuits, which might mean we need fewer lawyers, is a good thing. No news there.

I have never been anywhere near a case like this. In point of fact, no one would ever hire me for anything where the stakes were $50,000 or less. It wouldn't be cost-effective. I can assure you that my opinions are not driven by a desire for extra business.

I am, however, a big proponent of universal access to the court system and most "reform" proposals at their core reduce this availability largely at the expense of those who need court access the most.

What made you think sirkickyass disagreed with having the plaintiffs pay legal fees?

This can be ordered in many states at the discretion of the judge. In fact there was a relatively high profile case recently in which a Bank of America branch was foreclosed upon for failing to pay legal fees as ordered by a judge.

https://www.digtriad.com/news/water...orida-Homeowner-Forecloses-On-Bank-Of-America

This seems like a case where if the option was available, it would be reasonable to order payment of legal fees.

 

[LogGrad98]

Reduce the need for a particular profession, no matter the specialties, and the candidate pool for the remaining jobs goes up. If other lawyers who DID go near these cases needed to look for jobs, there would be more competition in other realms of lawyering. Or if there were decreased demand for lawyers, lawyer salaries could be affected.

Also, I never advocated a flat "loser pays" stance in every case, but rather based on the merits of the suit. If it is deemed frivolous then the loser should foot the bill AND be fined to reduce the propensity to bring such ridiculous lawsuits by others in the future.

Glad to see you are for universal access. I think that is important too, but I still think there needs to be some reform. Cases like this highlight that, without thought to the damages done to people like the wife, other than saying "so sue them back". Often this is neither feasible nor reasonable. And why should she be forced to take action that puts her at risk (every lawsuit does to some degree) and takes more of her time and money, that she may not win back, just because some bonehead decided to sue her out of spite? This is where I think we need some kind of reasonable standard for lawsuits so if it is deemed to have no merit the party who brought the suit should have to cover costs and pay a fine or something similar. This is obviously tough to enact as the definition of "reasonable" is something that gets beat up on in lawsuits all the time anyway. Everyone thinks their stand-point is reasonable.

So just out of curiosity, and obviously you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you do much pro-bono work? I know several lawyers who base their fees on the other party's ability to pay (in some but not all cases obviously) and do a fairly solid amount of pro-bono work. It all depends on your sphere as well, I suppose.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Reduce the need for a particular profession, no matter the specialties, and the candidate pool for the remaining jobs goes up. If other lawyers who DID go near these cases needed to look for jobs, there would be more competition in other realms of lawyering. Or if there were decreased demand for lawyers, lawyer salaries could be affected.

Also, I never advocated a flat "loser pays" stance in every case, but rather based on the merits of the suit. If it is deemed frivolous then the loser should foot the bill AND be fined to reduce the propensity to bring such ridiculous lawsuits by others in the future.

Glad to see you are for universal access. I think that is important too, but I still think there needs to be some reform. Cases like this highlight that, without thought to the damages done to people like the wife, other than saying "so sue them back". Often this is neither feasible nor reasonable. And why should she be forced to take action that puts her at risk (every lawsuit does to some degree) and takes more of her time and money, that she may not win back, just because some bonehead decided to sue her out of spite? This is where I think we need some kind of reasonable standard for lawsuits so if it is deemed to have no merit the party who brought the suit should have to cover costs and pay a fine or something similar. This is obviously tough to enact as the definition of "reasonable" is something that gets beat up on in lawsuits all the time anyway. Everyone thinks their stand-point is reasonable.

So just out of curiosity, and obviously you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you do much pro-bono work? I know several lawyers who base their fees on the other party's ability to pay (in some but not all cases obviously) and do a fairly solid amount of pro-bono work. It all depends on your sphere as well, I suppose.

What was your username on the board previously? Before it's reincarnation?

 

[LogGrad98]

LogGrad98. I may not have capitalized the second G. Loggrad98 maybe.

Who do you think I was?

 

[sirkickyass]

Reduce the need for a particular profession, no matter the specialties, and the candidate pool for the remaining jobs goes up. If other lawyers who DID go near these cases needed to look for jobs, there would be more competition in other realms of lawyering. Or if there were decreased demand for lawyers, lawyer salaries could be affected.

I am occasionally made fun of for once referring to the bimodal salary distribution curve for attorneys. That same curve illustrates a wide gulf between types of attorney jobs. The market for attorneys isn't perfectly competitive with no barriers to entry and moves that affect one part of spectrum are not necessarily correlated with a different attorney market. You're defining the attorney market, particularly the market for wages and high-end work, too broadly. If cases like this one were to suddenly stop being available the lawyers that handle them aren't suddenly competing for my job: they have the job they have because they were never competitive for my job in the first place. The long and short of this is, I am not in any real competition with people who handle these kinds of suits, nor does their existence affect my salary, any more than employees at Goldman Sachs are in competition with the teller at your local bank.

Also, I never advocated a flat "loser pays" stance in every case, but rather based on the merits of the suit. If it is deemed frivolous then the loser should foot the bill AND be fined to reduce the propensity to bring such ridiculous lawsuits by others in the future.

This power is presently within judge's discretion in many states and federal court.

So just out of curiosity, and obviously you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you do much pro-bono work? I know several lawyers who base their fees on the other party's ability to pay (in some but not all cases obviously) and do a fairly solid amount of pro-bono work. It all depends on your sphere as well, I suppose.

I don't set my own fees (and I only get about 25% of what the firm charges for me on an hourly basis). My fees are set according to class year at the firm (i.e. all first year attorneys are billed at the same rate and so on up the chain).

I do a fair amount of pro bono work in the immigration field and the occasional public interest matter, like the San Francisco circumcision ballot measure that we discussed on this board. Most of my pro bono work would upset a great many members of this board since I tend to help persons who came to this country illegally gain legal status.

 

[Scat]

I do a fair amount of pro bono work in the immigration field and the occasional public interest matter, like the San Francisco circumcision ballot measure that we discussed on this board. Most of my pro bono work would upset a great many members of this board since I tend to help persons who came to this country illegally gain legal status.

So you defend those that have already broken at least one federal law and most likely have also added identify theft to their dossier? What is the defense for these defendants? At least they haven't killed anyone?

 

[babe]

One positive thing about illegals who want to become legal is just this. In this very act they are showing a desire to amend their ways.

I'd say no illegal who is a murderer would risk taking this step, especially if he is already being "looked for" by authorities. Probably applies as well to the "mules", the street name for drug runners, and other offenders. Might also be an indicator that these individuals are not exactly in the La Raza set.

Taking this step is also an indicator that they are moving off our welfare system, and that they indeed have some marketable job in their sights.

 

[sirkickyass]

So you defend those that have already broken at least one federal law and most likely have also added identify theft to their dossier? What is the defense for these defendants? At least they haven't killed anyone?

The most frequent cases I take involve U-Visa and VAWA petitions. They are victims of crimes during their residence in the United States and many VAWA petitioners are here under color of law without independant legal authority to remain. I know, I'm a real jerk for helping these people for free.

To my knowledge none of my clients have "added identity theft to their dossier." These people have real and legitimate paths to legal residency under existing federal law. Some of us believe immigration law is too difficult for immigrants to navigate on their own and that it is too difficult to obtain legal residency. It's a practical reality that they are here and if they have a legitimate right to stay we help them stay. I prefer that outlook to moralizing over a relatively arbitrary federal law.

 

[DutchJazzer]

also funny that a laywer has an avatar of the questionable Saul Goodman


good work