Apparently you can sue for just about anything

[URY914]

Yesterday I had Taco Bell for lunch.
Today I took a crap and stopped up the toilet.
Tomorrow I'm suing Taco Bell.

[MRM]

By the logic on this board, they would blame the lawyer for your decision to sue Taco Bell.

[speeder]

I'm preparing a lawsuit against several members here for repeatedly starting frivolous threads.

[Burnin' oil]

Originally Posted by MRM

By the logic on this board, they would blame the lawyer for your decision to sue Taco Bell.

If a lawyer took that case, heck yes I'd blame him/her. Lawyers that take crappy cases are at least partially to blame. Without lawyers, crappy cases would either never get filed or would not last too long.

[speeder]

A lawyer will wind-up in a welfare line in a hurry taking cases that have no merit. I know that it's a fantasy here, (and elsewhere), that any scrub w/ a law degree can just sue anyone for anything and then sit back and count the $$. Total BS but it plays well at the rural diner or wherever people here get their info...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by speeder

A lawyer will wind-up in a welfare line in a hurry taking cases that have no merit. I know that it's a fantasy here, (and elsewhere), that any scrub w/ a law degree can just sue anyone for anything and then sit back and count the $$. Total BS but it plays well at the rural diner or wherever people here get their info...

Oh, I don't know. My insurance co. went wobbly and paid off the lady who claims I hit her in a crosswalk, even after her lawyer dropped her case. Seems to me, the lawyer could have gotten 1/3 of her settlement by having his paralegal send off a single letter. Insurance companies who are quick to settle are just as much to blame.

[Burnin' oil]

Originally Posted by speeder

A lawyer will wind-up in a welfare line in a hurry taking cases that have no merit. I know that it's a fantasy here, (and elsewhere), that any scrub w/ a law degree can just sue anyone for anything and then sit back and count the $$. Total BS but it plays well at the rural diner or wherever people here get their info...

So what are you saying? That lawyers don't file frivolous cases?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by NotaBRG

If they win, or it settles, was it frivolous?

Cases settle for one reason only - the defendant makes a business decsion that it's cheaper to settle than to see the whole process to the end. Might be that they're gonna get killed by a jury award, but it's often just a matter of being cheaper to write a check and be done with it than to make another lawyer rich by fighting it.

[Burnin' oil]

What if they lose? My point is that there are frivolous cases and that the lawyers that file them are part of the problem. I am not saying all cases are frivolous or that lawyers are solely to blame.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Burnin' oil

So what are you saying? That lawyers don't file frivolous cases?

No. Lawyers file frivolous cases all the time. Most are tossed-out post-haste. I am involved in a non-frivolous lawsuit right now and believe me, defendants have rights that you could not dream about if you do not know the system. Like completely ignoring service, failing to appear at any hearing, having a default judgement entered against them and then having it set-aside so that the whole thing can start all over again. All of what I describe above does not require paying any lawyer one cent with the exception of getting the default set aside.

Facts are kryptonite to a lot of people here. They treat them like the clap. It's so much easier to just get your (mis)education on the internet or (?)...

[speeder]

If a suit is decided to be frivolous by a judge, (happens all the time), the plaintif in many cases can be liable for ALL costs incurred by the defendant. Suck on that one for a while before filing any BS lawsuits.

[MRM]

Originally Posted by Burnin' oil

So what are you saying? That lawyers don't file frivolous cases?

Do guns kill people or do people kill people with guns? Lawyers don't create the claim (except in class action cases where they really do). People make the claims. Lawyers represent them. You can disagree with what lawyers do, but their job is to represent people.

As in Rick's case, people bring their cases with or without lawyers. And if I recall correctly from Rick's "I hit a pedestrian" thread, he did hit a pregnant woman in a cross walk who was fortunatly uninjured. Whatever the insurance company gave her to close out her claim was cheap insurance against a catastrophic claim some day in the future when she decided something abut the accident caused little Charlie's ADD.

I agree that insurance companies and corporations should defend claims more vigorously, but there' often larger issues that they're worried about where settlement makes sense to them but not to someone looking at it from the outside. The cost to defend claims is always a consideration. It's one reason I like the fee shifting proposal discussed above following the Canadian model. The problem there is deciding who won the case. If you sue for a million dollars and get $500,000, are you a winner or loser? If you demand a million but are willing to settle for $500,000 but the other side won't pay a penny and you end up with $400,000, who's the winner? Whatever way you look at it, tort reform is a serious issue but doing it right is complicated.

[Burnin' oil]

If Jane Doe comes to you with a "claim" that you recognize as frivolous, will you represent her? Don't lawyers have some kind of ethical obligation not to pursue frivolous claims? "Frivolous" is the key word here - usual definition.

[MRM]

"Frivolous" is a legal term of art. It means something different to the people on this board than it means to the courts. That's part of the problem with the debate. It's not about whether frivolous suits should be allowed, it's how to define frivolous.

Of course a lawyer has an obligation not to take on a frivolous case and he has a duty to withdraw from representation as soon as he realizes that he has a case that is no longer supported by the law or facts. No lawyer deliberately takes a frivolous suit, except for the real crazies. There are crazy lawyers out there just like their are crazy anything else. They need to be eliminated. I agree that it's too hard to do but that's a different issue.

Any lawyer who files a frivolous suit is sanctioned fees and costs and the lawyer is responsible to pay them. The problem is that the standard for frivolous is very high (or low) in the US. So when you're complaining about lawyers or people bringing frivolous suits, you're really arguing about what the standard for frivolous should be, not what it is.

[Nathans_Dad]

While I agree that people ask the lawyer to represent them, that does not mean the lawyer has no responsibility in bringing the suit. The lawyer is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Too many are just out for a buck and will throw anything against the wall and see if it sticks.

An analogy from my profession is the Jackson case. Jackson wanted the propofol, he would have fired Dr Murray had he refused to give it and would have found someone else. Despite this, Murray had an obligation to say no to Jackson and now he is facing manslaughter charges.

I wonder if frivolous suits would drop if lawyers were held to the same standard.

[dad911]

The way the system is, it would cost more to bring on a frivolous lawsuit than you can recover. Long story, been there, Judge actually told me if I came back with a frivolous suit I would win, in front of the plaintiff. When you do the math, it just isn't worth the money and time.

I know, We've easily spent a GT3 RS in legal fees (defense) in the last 10 years, without having a judgement against us. Just glad it's over.

[Nathans_Dad]

I also don't buy the argument that if the defendant (or insurance co) settles then the suit was warranted. Once the suit is filed it just is a game of chicken between the lawyers. Lawsuits are more about who blinks first and is willing to spend the $$$ than who is right or wrong.

Insurance cos will often just settle for a small amount vs spend more $$$ to fight the case, frivolous or not.

[Hugh R]

15 y/o I sold my last house to a newly minted lawyer. In the disclosure I identified a dozen deficiencies in the house like "sliding door doesn't lock, use stick" and a bunch of other stuff. The home inspector identified the exact same stuff. He sued me for "sliding door doesn't look, use stick" and all the other stuff I identified. Including stuff I gave him money back for in escrow. I said I'd never settle, $35,000 worth of legal bills later, I settled for $5,000 to make him go away. I was looking at $100K in lawyer bills and another $100K in "expert witness" fees to pay during depositions to his buddies. I went to a judge for a summary judgement and the judge told us those were matters of "fact" for the jury to decide, not matters of "law" that he could rule on, like did the plaintiff miss a legal filing date. I will never sell a house to a lawyer again. Oh, and we had lived in the HOA for 10 years, the POS threatened to sue us because we stuffed the mailboxes of the 450 houses in the HOA with a copy of the legal summons on what he was suing us for with a statement about whether they really wanted his kids over at their house to swim in their pools?

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by URY914

Yesterday I had Taco Bell for lunch.
Today I took a crap and stopped up the toilet.
Tomorrow I'm suing Taco Bell.

actually, your plumber should sue Taco Smell

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by doug_porsche

Here is my favorite lawsuit.

Alton attorney accidentally sues himself
3/11/2005 9:57 AM By Steve Korris

Alton attorney accidentally sues himself | Madison/St. Clair Record

My favorite lawsuit is a guy who tried to sue "Satan and His Staff."

The Judge (or his clerks) had a lot of fun with it and the opinion is published. Any guesses on the outcome and why?