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: thames_sider who wrote (15771)	6/6/2001 12:56:30 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I am happy to accept your corroboration. I cannot see capping lawyers salaries. The unintended consequences of tampering with even labor markets too much are often dire. Mechanical equality does not necessarily equal fairness. For example, if the burden of the discovery process largely falls on a company, it needs to hire more lawyers, paralegals, and clerical staff, very likely. Although the contingency system encourages frivolous suits, it also allows access to persons who would not be able to afford litigation on an hourly fee basis. Overall, if we are trying to reduce costs, there are several options: increase the amount of legal work that can be done by paralegals; inject more energy into the arbitration process, to encourage settlement; cap awards, and require a stronger showing of fault, especially in negligence suits. I am sure there are others, like allowing more suits to be heard by a judge; expediting processes like discovery by penalizing fishing expeditions through admonitions and contempt citations; and increasing the purview of the small claims courts.