Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (43755)	10/7/2000 6:17:38 PM
From: Frank Griffin	Respond to of 769670

As long as you don't stop contingency fee based lawsuits I don't see how you will hurt the consumer. I would like those percentages of 33 to 40% lowered in order to be fairer to the injured party. After costs, many times they end of with 50% or less of the awarded amount. The attorneys would do just fine if they were to share 15 to 25% tops.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (43755)	10/9/2000 2:49:26 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Existing court rules are sufficient to control frivolous suits if the lawyers for the defense demand sanctions and are willing to appeal until they are awarded sanctions. Anyone who files a frivolous charge is liable for all of the costs that the defendant incurs, plus exemplary damages for egregious frivolity. One common problem is that judges cannot dismiss a case sua sponte as long as the plaintiff pays his filing fees -- at least in federal court -- and if the plaintiff is judgment proof there is no sense in wasting even more money to demand sanctions. Every year thousands of frivolous suits are filed pro se and in forma pauperis by prisoners against the state and jailers and are dismissed sua sponte by judges. If the prisoner has $150 to pay his filing fee, he gets his day in court and the defendants must appear.