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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (9710)	3/25/2001 10:20:34 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You are wrong (what is new?). Law firms often take these cases without retainer- with the hope that they will get a piece of the settlement. Since I am not sure you can read, rent "A Civil Action." That movie based on actual events sets out what can happen to a law firm when they take on such cases. (the practice of taking cases for no money up front is called taking a contingency fee- this is the definition:A fee, as for an attorney's services, that is payable only in the event of a successful or satisfactory outcome. Many times the plaintiffs have no money so they could not possibly pay court costs or anything else.) Now - on to your piece on India. Why India? Who knows. I am not familiar with Indian law, so I do not know if it is possible to sue the Indian government. If it is possible to sue the government they have a case. Unlike a corporation the government is frequently not trying to make money when it hurts it's citizens- so it's more analogous to a negligence case than a cost of doing business case (imo). It's still horrible when people are injured whether through a risk/cost calculus or through negligence. There may be no difference in how one pursues the case, but imo, the philosophical slant is different. I've no idea what your point is. I think you've got a lock on being the cover boy.