»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
John Edwards
| The Alley |
|
John Edwards |
|
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA 
|
I'm just curious why some people want to knock John Edwards. Is it because he is rich? Is it because he has taken on big business and pharmaceuticals? Is it because he had a $400 haircut? Is it because he genuinely speaks to the middle class and genuinely cares about what is happening to the Constitution of this country? Why so much bad press -- has the media picked it's golden girl already and Edwards represents the only threat (to the plans of the powers to be? What about the rest of them? Who's real and who's a phoney and how do you go about the process of determining that for yourself? Just curious for your views. [This message has been edited by iliana (09-08-2007 06:00 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2007 J.A.A.Powell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
He is handsome he has a good wife He was a very good trial lawyer Hs is not a sophisticated politician. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Just what we need -- a politician that is not sophisticated! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Somehow he reminds me of Elmer Gantry without the style. . |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Guess that means you don't like him much? Tell me why you think he's a hypocrit, John? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I happen to like John Edwards' platform. I want to believe he means what he says. At least I like him better than Hiliary or any of the Republican candidates so far. I backed McCain when he ran the first time, but have since lost confidence in him. Edwards has won some very big battles in his lifetime and it takes brains and moxy to get where he's gotten. It was not handed to him on a silver plater. He's been the champion for the "little guy" when no one else was. I like that about him. If he wants a $400 hair cut, that is his perrogative. If he accepts money for a book through a Fox-news related entity and then donates it to charity, then I'd say that's a Robin Hood gesture. He is the only one of the candidates either Republican or Democrat that is really addressing the problems the middle class is facing -- in that regard, I think he is at least listening to voters and isn't that what our President is supposed to do? I think people have forgotten that the office of President is supposed to be the representative of the people. He is supposed to be the voice of the people. What candidate do we have that would really run the country the way the majority of the people would want? I'm not saying Edwards has my vote yet....I'm just not buying into the negative news about him. There are Presidents who have changed the office of the Presidency to the office of Chief Executive Officer position and have done their best to give the Board of Directors exactly what they want. Unfortunately, neither you nor I have sat on any of those Boards....the Board is inhabitated by lobbyists and big corporate & banking money and much of that is not even American. So which Presidential candidate do you think has the average American citizen at heart this time around? [This message has been edited by iliana (09-08-2007 06:03 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: All of them, I think. The process apparently doesn't cull the incompetents, but I think it does go a long way towards eliminating blatantly evil people. Each candidate, I believe, cares. Each is necessarily an idealist. No one else, after all, would put up with the crap inherent in public office. quote: None of them, I hope. You might as well ask which babysitter is going to supervise your children the way the kids want? The majority of the people seem intent on bread and circuses and, like those lobbyists and big corporate and banking money interests, want only what they want, not what everyone needs. Selfishness is not limited just to the boardroom, after all. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I don’t buy the millionaire good old boy routine. If I got hit by a bus I’d look him up though. "I want to believe he means what he says." The difference is despite the heart my head doesn't. . |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Aw, John, but there's the rub. You would hire him because you believe he will get YOU what you are due....he would try to win for YOU. And where would you be if there were not people willing to do that? Just because he won some big trials doesn't mean he did not personally struggle to do that. Trial attorneys have to invest their own money in lawsuits....many times carrying the injured party financially. It is a big risk financially. Some 'white knights' take on those risks and are rewarded for it in big verdicts; there is no crime in that. If you invested three years of your life and every penny you had to help someone win their lawsuit, and you won for them and then you take your share (maybe 25 - 33-1/3 percent) of the verdict/judgment -- then that is not too much to ask. Eample: a boy is killed at a railroad crossing because the Union Pacific Railroad train was traveling 60 mph through a crossing in town and the lights and the crossing bucks were malfunctioning/or not working due to lack of maintenance; not only that the train did not blow its whistle and the crossing view (from the vehicle in which the boy was riding or driving) was obstructed due to lack of maintaining the vegetation/trees and shrubs near the crossing. Now obviously, the railroad is responsible because the engineer was supposed to blow his horn, was supposed to only be going 20 mph or less (or whatever the standard is), the warning signals were not working and the crossing view was obstructed -- nobody's fault but the railroad's. Now, say you, as an attorney, invested $300,000 in getting that case ready for trial (the $300,000 includes your travel expenses, depositions, expert testimony, and things directly associated with the prosecution of the lawsuit -- not your own salary) and then you win and the railroad is required to pay a verdict of $1,000,000. Sounds like a lot of money, right? (Oh and that's if you win. If you lose, you're out three years of your life, $300,000 of your own money in expenses you invested in the case, not to mention the other expenses you pay to run your office. And you don't always win and especially since tort reform and the mass media propoganda to do away with lawsuits and because of phrases like ambulance chaser, etc. (which in some cases is true, but not nearly as many as one might think as there are laws against that)). Well, you the attorney, spent three years of your life on that case, invested your own money and now you get your payoff. After you deduct the $300,000 of expenses that first have to be reimbursed to you and to the Courts and pay off all the associated bills, that leaves the victim's family with $700,000. Of that, let's say you get 33-1/3% -- rounded, that's about $233,000. Roughly about $100,000 per year you've earned. Wow, nice income. Oh, but wait, I forgot the cost of your office space, office equipment, and your secretary -- well that's about another $75,000 a year at least. Hmmmmm......$25,000 -- well, I guess that's still above the poverty line. All I am trying to say, is that before you go knocking someone like John Edwards, you need to realize how very hard he has worked to get wealthy. And why does someone really take on a challenge like that? Is it to get rich -- well, yes and no. From my 30+ years experience working with both sides (actually longer with the defense side) of civil litigation, I've found that the ones on the Plaintiff's side get addicted to the feeling of helping out the victims more than the money they may or may not earn. (And by the way, I do have considerable experience interviewing attorneys on a regular basis on both sides of the bar -- on the average of over a 100 a month for the past 7 years; prior to that I worked as a paralegal for defense lawfirms for about 20 years and then a Plaintiff's lawyer for about 5 years.) And why on earth would a man like John Edwards want to be President? He certainly doesn't need the money. I actually believe that he has a sincere desire to help people, to serve people and perhaps it's because he's addicted to that great feeling it gives to be able to make a positive difference in people's lives. [This message has been edited by iliana (09-10-2007 02:35 AM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
John, I forgot to mention that in that scenario above.....where "you" won your lawsuit as a Plaintiff's attorney and got the $25,000 a year for three years of work -- that is true, if and only if, the case is not appealed. That's another bunch of money out-of-pocket if you have to deal with an appeal. Also, I found this rather interesting reading and you might, also, if you are open-minded enough (which I believe you are) to read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards [This message has been edited by iliana (09-10-2007 04:31 PM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0743244974/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/105-0518355-8945238?ie=UTF8&n=283155#customerReviews I have not read this book yet, but I think I will. What I thought was quite interesting about the link I have provided are the reviews. Read a few...they offer much insight. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wow! I feel like I just watched a star Trek episode reading your legal example, both of which have equal believeability.  Lawyer: I'm taking your case on a contingency basis. client: What's contingency? Lawyer: If we lose you don't pay anything. If we win you don't get anything.  |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Very funny, Mike. Do you really not understand the example I gave.? Actually, that is exactly what happens -- it's not a hypothetical. Believe it or not, I am considered an expert in my field which is accumulation of legal data, specifically civil litigation. There are approximately two dozen companies such as mine in the U.S. and they are used by the legal enviroment to evaluate cases and watch legal trends. What do you not understand and why do you believe what I told you is far-fetched? The case I actually gave you was an actual case with only a slight embellishment (that there was foilage blocking the view of the vehicle that was hit by the train) -- and the verdict was only $500,000, not $1,000,000. Oh, and, the Union Pacific is appealing the case. Granted, commercial litigation is another story. That, generally, is not handled on a contingency basis, rather by the hour or on a retainer. Now, what don't you understand...that the lawyer really didn't make that much money? His client made 70% of the million after expenses (in the example I gave). Of that money, they paid the contingency -- and they would have netted about $466,666. Expenses are the client's responsibility; the client would have to pay that amount if he did the case himself. That is not income for an attorney. The only income the attorney made was what I spelled out. What is not fair about that? I guess what would be fair is if when someone or some entity wrongs someone else, they make it right without litigation. But, that is not how things work. [This message has been edited by iliana (09-10-2007 07:43 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Whereas the family is just out the life of the boy? Since we have an expert available, I think the next question should be an obvious one. As you described it, this case could probably have been won by a trained chimpanzee. The negligence was palpable. But how many contingency cases, in terms of percentages, are actually lost? How many lawyers take on expensive law suits they think they can't win? How many personal injury lawyers go out of business each year? Any? By the way, Mike, you should probably lighten up a bit on the lawyer jokes. Lawyers likely don't believe they're very funny and, of course, other people don't believe they're jokes. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"Since we have an expert available, I think the next question should be an obvious one. As you described it, this case could probably have been won by a trained chimpanzee. The negligence was palpable. But how many contingency cases, in terms of percentages, are actually lost? How many lawyers take on expensive law suits they think they can't win? How many personal injury lawyers go out of business each year? Any?" Ron, if you wish, I can mail you the details of the case which are not quite as simple as you might think. I made it sound simple. These types of cases are actually very difficult to win. As far as PI attorneys going out of business, in Texas the number has been increasing since 2002. Many actually changing professions, closing their solo practices and partnering up sometimes. I do not keep track of these statistics. My expertise lies in reporting trials (not court reporting). If you are interested in understanding that, then you can take a look at the national association to which I belong: http://www.juryverdicts.com/ . Email me with your email address and I will send you the case in .pdf at no charge as long as you honor the copyright. *smile* Also, the particular attorney involved as the Plaintiff's representative in this case was extremely emotionally invested in it. Don't think for one minute he didn't want to win more for the parents. In fact, when the time comes, it would not surprise me if he does not forfeit or reduce his fee, as he has been known to do. Percentages of losses -- don't have those figures either but I am able to estimate based on the cases I am able to acquire. It appears about 98% of medical malpractice cases in the area of Texas I report (about one-third of the state's litigation) are defense verdicts. In fact, very few med mal cases are even filed anymore. Boutique firms (a couple of them) are springing up now which specialize in taking on the risk for other attorneys and splitting expenses because no one wants to try those cases any more because they generally lose. Of the Auto/Personal Injury type cases, I would say, the percentage of wins is about 60% defense; 40% plaintiffs. And usually, when the plaintiffs win, 80% of those cases do not even return a verdict of the entire medical expenses. The bulk of personal injury cases involve motor vehicle collisions. Death cases from product liability cases show wins of about 40%/60% (40% being plaintiff's win). Asbestos and toxic tort cases used to win as there is no dispute to whether or not a person will die from mesothelioma once they have it and those cases used to always win; however recently even those cases are losing in Jefferson County, Texas, which is considered the hell-hole of litigation in Texas. Anymore questions, Ron, I will have to charge. *wink* [This message has been edited by iliana (09-10-2007 11:47 PM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Here you go, Ron: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_02/b4016001.htm I would recommend reading some of the comments to that article, too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Now, say you, as an attorney, invested $300,000 in getting that case ready for trial (the $300,000 includes your travel expenses, depositions, expert testimony, and things directly associated with the prosecution of the lawsuit -- Those expenses are the interesting part. You mean expenses like charging the client 10 dollars for every photocopy they make related to the case? Or maybe the hundred dollars per phone call the client makes to talk to them? After all, the lawyer has to pay the phone bill, right?, and needs a secretary to answer the phone and then, of course, an intercom so that she can relay the information to the attorney in his office that there is a phone call waiting for him, not to mention the valuable time he spends talking to the client when he could be doing something else...right? Out of that 300,000 example of yours, I would guess the actual expenses could possible reach 50,000, at the most...the rest is gravy....a lot of gravy. we had a case recently down here that made the news of a woman getting an 80,000 settlement and actually received less than 4,000 after the lawyers deducted their cuts and expenses. Don't expect tears for the lawyers....Shakespeare was right. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, from my personal experience in this state and in the state of Ohio, the only ones who charge for phones and office photocopies are the defense lawfirms. (I've worked for four different ones.) At one point, I worked as a law firm office manager/administrator so I attended an organization of legal administrators where I found most of the defense firms worked the same way with regard to expenses. The plaintiffs' firms I have been associated with never passed on ordinary photocopy charges or phone calls to the client (though I cannot speak to the practices of all plaintiffs' firms) -- we only billed out copies we had to pay for or blow-ups of prints; for example, a copy job much too big for our staff to do. That is expense that someone has to pay for, no? Do you want a plaintiff's attorney who works for free -- well that would be grand if our system enabled that, but tell me, who would pay for the expenses? The client would still have to pay or it would not get done. Until you actually work in that field and have been exposed to both sides of the coin, you will probably hold on to your beliefs. Or until you are actually injured and find out how unfair the system can be unless you have legal representation, you may never know the truth. I can tell you the truth about what I have experienced. I have nothing to gain by not telling you the absolute truth as I have seen it. I have plenty of stories I could share, plenty. But my common sense tells me, I'm better off not to do that because as a business person now I strive to not produce a biased product or to take a side, that is with regard to the product I produce associated with my business. The opinions I have expressed here are off-the-record observations. The pendulum in the legal world swings both ways. Tort reform, however, has swung it so far to one side that the scales of justice are completely tipped (in this state) favoring big business. The little guy is the one who gets hurt and the little guy's advocate gets hurt, too. Things are so out of wack here that the defense bar is suffering, too, as evidenced in the article I provided, because those guys need lawsuits in order to stay in business. And if you got sued, you would certainly want legal representation to defend you. There is currently a proposal circulating through our state government to require a claimant to pay money if they lose their lawsuit. If that passes, justice for a wrongly injured person will no longer be possible (unless that person just happens to be a rich, injured person). As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...... As for your lady down there in Florida. Things like that do happen. Bad attorney, no doubt. Can you send me the article, please? I did not say there were no bad apples in the barrel. Or, it could be that the expert witnesses charged so much to testify that it ate up all her profit and many times you need an expert in order to win or settle. I'd be curious to know all the facts behind your scenario, Mike. Ah....and oh.....$10 a copy? Wow, now that sounds kind of absurd. The most I ever saw working for the defense was 25 cents a copy. 'Course that was 10 years ago and well, you know, inflation....*chuckle*. FYI, defense firms do charge by the hour usually in quarter hours or tenths of hours being the minimum for any task, including phone calls. They do distribute expenses of in-house copying, postage, deliveries, and phone calls back to the client. There have been cases within the past 15 years that I am aware of that these defense firms were called to task on overbilling. However, that has been more closely monitored by the insurance carrier clients and competition is so tight to get clients (in the defense world) that those problems do not exist like they used to. In-house counsel has also eliminated much of the legal expense and overbilling problems. Mike, sounds like you got burned somewhere along the way. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
About that lady again -- or, it could be the attorney paid off all her outstanding medical bills which is required (in this state) when a lawsuit settles if he has signed an agreement with the medical provider or if there is a subrogation pending and that does happen a bunch. Or, it could be the attorney upfronted her money to help her get through -- that is not unusual either. Again, without knowing more detail, it is hard to really know if this woman was gipped or not. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Here's a few mentions: He voted for the war in Iraq then apologized He voted for the Patriot Act then attacked Ashcroft He's against predatory lending but worked for Fortress Investment Group whose subprime subsidiary is Green Tree Financial. He's a bit fickle, but at least he admitted he was wrong about the war & he admits his mistakes, which I haven't heard many do. That doesn't make him my Guy for prez, but I appreciate him more as a person, I suppose. Being rich is awesome, but being rich & constantly uninformed with your own vote or investments while running for prez racks up goof points after a while, no matter how rich you are. No one's perfect and they all have their good points and bad points, though I have trouble finding good ones with a few of the candies. we need someone that will never make Bush look intelligent or sweet. |
||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
So where do we go for lawyer jokes? I like 'em. If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Someone once said if it weren’t for lawyers we wouldn’t need them. PS: Can anyone come up with a way by which a lawyer could sue holding someone other than the driver responsible? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295945,00.html . |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Someone also said "95 per cent of all lawyers give the rest of them a bad name." |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
The trains did not hoot. There was no block Bar There was no red blinking light show trains are coming. Doctors feed her wrong medicine that morning. (those kind of crazy woman... if she was lucky this time, she would kill her children in other crazing driving act. ) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Iliana, I cannot send an article because it was a news story on tv. Believe me, the news station was livid at the way the person had been treated so I seriously doubt any of the scenarios you offered happened or it could have been explained. The only comment the news reporters got from the lawyer in the case was, "No comment. No, I haven't been burned seriously but singed a little. The time the lawyer called me to ask me something that was basically inconsequential and then stuck the phone call on my bill stands out in my memory, though. As far as your state passing that law...good luck. Not that long ago one of the senators was on Face the Nation and that topic came up. The senator declared something like that would never happen because it would make people afraid to sue. Although I think the accusers SHOULD be held accountable for frivolous lawsuits, I can also see the other side. If I wanted to sue a large company, for example, knowing that they would have top notch legal firms representing them, even if I were in the right, the thought of having to pay all of the expenses in case their lawyers were better than mine would make me pause. It;s a problem either way. I will certainly not try to debate thse issues with you because it is obvious you are very professional and well-experienced in this field. Im just speaking as a guy who doesn't know much but calls it the way I see it, based on what I have seen. I understand that the good lawyers don;t get the publicity that the bad lawyers do. I just don't know why there have to be so many bad ones. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"Although I think the accusers SHOULD be held accountable for frivolous lawsuits, I can also see the other side." Mike, laws have been on the books in this state for well over 20 years to punish (financially) anyone filing a frivolous lawsuit, particularly the attorney who files it. Wonder if they don't have that law in Florida, too. One just never hears about the other side of the coin much because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, big corporations, insurance and pharmaceutical industry, big builders/construction, railroads, all of them have dumped huge amounts of money into the massive advertisements in all forms of media (including privately held publications) to tilt the scales in their favor. The goal is to do away with any risk of doing business, a situation that both you and I, as private business owners, would love. However, you and I (at least I know I won't and suspect you would never consider it either) would never lower our standards, products or ethics for the almighty buck. The problem with that (taking out any risk of doing business) would be (and is in some cases already) that once the bridle (the potential for litigation) is taken off, the horse runs wild; e.g., OSHA standards are not met, industry standards of production are not met, etc., etc. Shareholders always want a better bottom line. Mike, I wanted to add, that I was blind to all these things before I got involved in the field, myself.....so....I do actually understand where you are coming from. *smiles* [This message has been edited by iliana (09-12-2007 03:02 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
hmmm...I wonder if that lawyer fellow who tried to sue the cleaners that lost his pants for 50+ million paid for the costs? It doesn't get more frivolous than that but, last I heard, the cleaners customers were trying to pitch in to help them with the legal expenses incurred... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I thought that was actually a judge. And, yes, I agree with you that was a stupid case from what we've heard. You know, judges (many of them) get god-complexes, don't you? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18471265/ Sounds like he was trying to make this a class action lawsuit, too. And here is how it ended. Justice prevails. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html You know, Mike, if the dryclearner had just reimbursed the guy for his pants to start with, then this wouldn't have happened. But as the old saying goes, "You never want to make a Judge angry."[/URL] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just reimbursed him for his pants? He offered him 12,000 bucks!  |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
No, they didn't offer anything until the lawsuit was filed. "On May 3, he brought in a pair of pants that he planned to wear three days later. But on May 5, they were not ready, and the day after, they were nowhere to be found. What happened next is perhaps the most significant factual dispute. Pearson claims that the pants still weren't at the cleaners May 7 and that Soo Chung promised to keep looking. When he returned a week later, Chung tried to give him what she said were the missing trousers. But Pearson said they were not the pants he had left to be altered. Not only was the pattern different, but the pants proffered as his also had, of all things, cuffs. Only once in his adult life, he said, had he worn cuffed pants, and never, he suggested, would he have so altered his treasured Hickey Freeman suit. Pearson wrote the Chungs, demanding $1,150 to buy a new suit. When the Chungs did not respond, Pearson swung into action, filing a lawsuit that would eventually make him the talk of the town and fodder for late-night comedy." [exerpted from Article referenced above] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," Manning said. "This has destroyed their lives." That's a comment from your link. How can they be out a lot of money if they won the case then? Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the Chungs' court costs -- likely to be a few thousand dollars -- to cover fees for filings, transcripts and similar expenses. But even bigger troubles loom. She said she will consider making Pearson also pay the couple's attorneys' fees arising from the two-year legal battle. With the legal costs likely to exceed $100,000, however, the Chungs aren't counting on Pearson being able to pay, Manning said That is from your second link. Justice prevails???? I hardly think so....I'm sure the Chungs don't either. She's going to "consider" making Pearson pay? First , there should be nothing to consider. Second, if she were going to do it, she would just do it, not talk about considering it. As Ayn Rand claimed, "Delay is the past tense of denial". (when asked what that meant by a reporter, Rand said "I'll tell you later", smiled and walked away ) |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
The cost of the legal defense. Like I explained before, defendants usually have to pay by the hour and it is the defense attorneys who charge that way, rarely the plaintiff's attorney (except in commericial/business litigation). The article goes on to say that the Plaintiff Judge Pearson will probably be required to reimburse them for the legal fees, and definitely all costs of the litigation -- so he is the one who is going to be out of pocket more than $100,000, not the defendants. I guess that's what some people pay for the price of ego -- least that's how I see it. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
The way it works, Mike, is if the Judge rules that Judge Pearson has to pay the legal fees, which I bet she would if she inkled that way; then a judgement for that will be entered with the court. That judgment lets the plaintiffs off the hook as to paying their defense attorney and then it is up to the defense attorney to collect the debt. If this defense attorney collected that money in advance from his clients, then he should reimburse it, plain and simple, at least the way I see it. However, not everything is plain and simple in this business. I joked about this case with an attorney a few weeks ago, actually. We both agreed we would not be surprised if the plaintiff in this case wasn't paid under the table by some tort reformer entity to make this big stink just to draw negative attention to litigation once again. I doubt that that is what happened really....that was just a joke. *smile* Oh, and btw, every state's laws are different to some degree. In my state, the loser in this case would most probably have been bound to pay all costs and attorney's fees in a case like this. Actually, in my state, this lawsuit would never have made it to Court to start with. I don't know the laws of the District of Columbia ('course not a state at all, but probably has it's own set of laws). There are attorneys who do pro bono work. This is a case that someone should have taken on pro bono, no doubt in my mind. With as much press as surrounded this case, I just have to wonder why no one stepped up to the bat and offered to take the case for the defendants pro bono or why they did not go through legal aide. Maybe, they had big egos, too, and thought they would get a better defense if they paid for it? And the moral of this story is: Caveat emptor. (For both the consumer who chose the wrong place to get his pants altered and the drycleaners who hired an attorney who charges such fees that would bankrupt them.) PS: In the legal field, when a judge says they will "consider it" usually means a positive outcome, at least from what I've seen. It also can mean that this is a separate ruling which she has to take under consideration, meaning that this element has to be done separately after her review and is simply a procedural thing. If she had said, "no comment" or nothing at all, then it would be bad news for the defendants more than likely. I'd be curious how this turned out. PPS: This is what happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Stupid, stupid lawsuit really. We can agree on that. [This message has been edited by iliana (09-12-2007 11:39 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
