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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (23338)	1/7/2004 1:48:23 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793689

The primary abuse, it seems to me, is compromising good cases for pennies on the dollar in order to get the gigantic legal fee payoff. ******************** Defendants benefit the most because they've figured out ways to insure that if you pay off the lawyers, they'll go away and never come back. Don't agree at all. Non-meritorious class actions generally have the following characteristics: 1.- They are before plaintiff-friendly judges in plaintiff-friendly venues; 2.- The number of defendants that have no real exposure to liability is often enormous. Each of those defendants has to defend itself, at enormous legal expense; 3.- Rather than focus on the merits of the plaintiffs case, which are often next to non-existent, the defendants (not the plaintiffs) seek settlement because of the enormous costs inherent in defending them. If they try the case and win it, the victory is Pyrrhic. Because of the sheer number of defendants that can be sued and who are able to contribute cost-of-defense settlement amounts, the total settlement can be huge, as are the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Who said alchemy is not good science? The process I've just described is akin to turning poop into gold. If the class action cases are meritorious, as they can sometimes be, e.g., the early asbestos cases in which mesotheliomas and serious lung disease were seen, the plaintiffs' attorneys push them hard, extracting top dollar. The Ness, Motley firm is a prime example. Their resources in pursuing a suit are legendary, on the par of those of most Fortune 500 corporations. In fact, Ron Motley is suing the Saudis for 9/11. The cost of litigation on either side is no object in that kind of case. Plaintiffs' lawyers with a class action don't generally throw in the towel if the case is a good one or, if not, nonetheless presents the opportunity to sue a lot of solvent defendants. If the lawyers do not have the resources to pursue these kinds of profitable cases, they associate the big guns who do and share the fees. As far as paying off plaintiffs' lawyers so they never come back, I'd like to see how that can be done. It is unethical to require as part of a settlement agreement that the plaintiffs' attorneys agree not to represent others who might have a similar claim as the one being settled. I'm afraid that John Grisham has done the legal profession more harm than unethical lawyers have done in decades. He makes dramatic reading, but his sensationalism is over the top. Unfortunately, a lot of laymen think that what he says is the gospel-truth--it's in fact a far cry from reality.