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: jlallen who wrote (577097)	5/20/2004 7:43:42 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769670

On the face of this it would seem to be taking food from lawyers but that's not likely IMO. I think they would get their cut first. This came out today but it's on a premium site so that's it so far. "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger shocked the legal community Thursday with a proposal for the state take 75 percent of all punitive damage awards. The proposal, buried in the governor's revisions to the state's annual budget, would raise an estimated $450 million for the state's general fund. According to the proposal, “The award of the punitive damages ... should more appropriately be awarded to the state where it can be used for public good purposes that are consistent with the with the nature of the award." " edit: here's a comment I found " am an attorney in California, and I represent management in employment disputes. The reason that you should not like Governor Schwartzenegger's 75% tax on punitive damages is two-fold: 1. In those states that have such a tax, courts have been less likely to reduce exorbitant punitive damage awards from run-a-mok juries. Could it be that judges see such a tax as a wonderful way of filling the state coffers, which in turn will hopefully increase budgets for state courts and salaries for court officials (like judges)? Ummmmm, could be . . . . 2. Also, note that such taxes usually come with a "lawyers eat first" provision. Thus, the lawyers take their cut and then the rest is awarded to the state. This is why businesses oppose this tax but the trial lawyers see no problem with it. Sort of contradicts your concern that punitive damages are paid to attorneys, eh? No names please . . . .