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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (14646)	1/2/1998 1:06:00 PM
From: Jack Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Bill: I did indeed get your point about the sleazy lawyer. Where do morals fit into the equation? Ethics? Right and wrong? I can understand the legal position of having to defend a scumbag on criminal charges -- he has a constitutional right to a defense. But to offer to sue an innocent person is unconscionable, regardless of whether or not that person is insured. I can personally attest that going through a lawsuit takes a toll on the defendant, even if his insurance company pays for it. There is loss of current income and incredible psychological trauma to endure. They know this and file suit for smaller amounts in expectation that they will be settled out of court as a nuisance. We should have the English system -- loser pays for both parties, no contingency fees allowed. With the amount of money the trial lawyers donate to (especially) Democrats, but Republicans too, how much chance do you think there is of our getting the English tort system established here? Jack