If I can't have Obama, I'll take Edwards over Clinton any day. I would even support a Edwards/Obama ticket if I had to.

John Edwards will win the Democrat nomination.
He is making a lot of headway but the press prefers to keep that quiet as they concentrate on their favorite alleged frontrunners.

Don't underestimate John Edwards.

Edwards is gay! Ann the man Coulter said so.....

Edwards is gay!

Then he definitely will get the republican vote.

The funny thing is that according to TonyRoma, this poll came out before Hillary's campaign donation issue did.

If I can't have Obama, I'll take Edwards over Clinton any day. I would even support a Edwards/Obama ticket if I had to.

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-30 03:28 PM | Reply

What is it you like about Edwards (I'm not looking to give you a hard time, I am sincerely interested). Every time I hear the guy talk or one of his campaign people (to include his wife or his bloggers) open their pie holes it's a disaster.

I would have considered voting for Edwards in 2004 because he was a breath of fresh air. All of a sudden heading into 2008 he's turned too sharply to the left. I don't mind a lefty position or 5, but his seem to be disingenuous.

The funny thing is that according to TonyRoma, this poll came out before Hillary's campaign donation issue did.

The polling was done before the Hsu controversy arose, but it was published just this morning.

You only really need to know one thing about Edwards....corporate America hates his guts.
nuf said.

101, the one thing that really turns me off about him is that he is a trial lawyer which means he doesn't believe in tort reform - Obama is pro-tort reform, especially in the class action arena.

I prefer Edwards over Hellary due to the fact that he isn't a Washington insider and doesn't seem to have "political debts" to pay off. I like the fact that he wants to curtail the influence big business has through its lobbying efforts. I must admit that his idea that the feds should prepare your taxes for you is absolutely perpsoterous but that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in becoming law anyway.

Tax,
Thanks for the answer. I agree that tort reform is necessary, but is it really possible? I don't buy the Washington Outsider crap that Edwards or Obama are spewing (sure they may be less so than the others, but not so much so as to make a difference imo).
I wish that Richardson didn't pander to the Hispanics when he announced because from the different shows I've seen him on I liked his delivery and his foriegn policy (not always agreeing with it, but not ruling his view wrong either).



Danni,
Big business hates Edwards because he's an Ambulance Chaser!

Edwards put everything into winning Iowa, basically betting the whole primary on this state.

He's already been a VP candidate once, and I doubt he wants to do it again, so this is his last stand.

He is a fine man and a good candidate, much like Obama.

He'll have a Cabinet position in either administration.

""101, the one thing that really turns me off about him is that he is a trial lawyer which means he doesn't believe in tort reform - Obama is pro-tort reform, especially in the class action arena.""

You really think tort reform is a significant problem compared to everything else going on in this country???? One big question needs to be answered when you deal with tort reform, how much of your right to sue for damages are you willing to give up???? Who sacrifices rights, just citizens or do corporations have to also lose some of their rights to sue????
I rate Edwards up there just below Kucinich.

-Ambulance Chaser!


Did someone bring up Fred Thompson?

Oh, sorry.

101, with the right kind of publicity I think we could pass a tort reform bill and Obama has already helped pass bills regarding class action suits at the federal level.

The problem is at the state level and state courts. I think it will be hard to pass litigation reform in the states themselves.

Being a lawyer my ideas are despised by my lawyer friends, but I think contingency cases are bull shit. If you want to take on the risk of representing a client then you should apply your normal billable rate and if you win for that client then you collect what you billed, not 30 to 50 percent of what the VICTIM should receive for his/her damages (I just find that absolutely despicable). Moreover, I think lawyers should be heavily fined or subject to suspension for frivolous lawsuits - like this judge with the pants. Now someone is going to bring up the McDonalds and coffee suit, but I think that was a legitimate claim.

Did someone bring up Fred Thompson?

Oh, sorry.



Posted by Corky at 2007-08-30 04:09 PM | Reply |


No Corky, we were discussing the Ambulance Chaser Edwards. You know, the guy with the 20,000+ sq ft home built off of a short career ambulance chasing.
He's also the guy that slept with his dead fetus (remember how much you lefties talked about Santorum doing something similar?), but don't tell anyone about that because only John, his wife, John Kerry, me and you know about it.

John Edwards will win the Democrat nomination.
He is making a lot of headway but the press prefers to keep that quiet as they concentrate on their favorite alleged frontrunners.

Don't underestimate John Edwards.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-08-30 03:30 PM

Taxman sez...

If I can't have Obama, I'll take Edwards over Clinton any day. I would even support a Edwards/Obama ticket if I had to.

Danni sez...

I rate Edwards up there just below Kucinich

Spud agrees with both.

Spud's list at present runs Obama at number one followed by Kucinich and Edwards with Hill finishing just out of the medals.

Spud would take any of them over the entire GOP slate.

You can bet a buck(eye) on that.

Be Well.

Tax,
I see where you're coming from and I do understand that you aren't basing your vote on a single issue (as Danni mentioned, there are bigger fish to fry). I know you were being brief as opposed to making a laundry list.

Thank the Deity of your choice!

Edwards/Richardson in '08

-Spud's list

Tater,

Is that your list of candidates in order of personal preference or in order of who you think can win in November?

"Big business hates Edwards because he's an Ambulance Chaser!

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-08-30 04:03 PM"

In other words, he puts the rights of individual American citizens to seek compensation for injuries caused by the wrongdoing of others over the interests of the insurance industry. For shame!

(Funny how the "free market" types all of the sudden want gov't regulation when it comes to protecting those poor, poor insurance companies.)

I think tax attorneys charge too much. I'm for the government stepping in and setting a top rate of, say, $35/hour for their fees.

Who's with me?!?!?

Taxman - assuming you litigate, do you refund your clients' fees when you lose? Why not?

It's not the insurance company or the company that got sued that pays Monte, it's us. You and I pay every time one of these douchebags gets some retard that can't tie their own shoes a settlement. Whether it's through higher premiums or the cost of the business' higher premiums being passed down to us.

Frivilous lawsuits need to be stopped. If a Corporation is at fault they should pay. If they were knowingly at fault they should pay dearly. Nobody wants to let big business run roughshod over the average Joe.
But I can't stand the fact that people immediately think pay day when they slip and fall.

Good posts, Monty. You fruit.

Edwards: Americans should sacrifice their SUVs
August 29, 2007 07:46 EDT


LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Call for Sacrifice

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards says he wants people to give up their sport utility vehicles. Edwards told a labor group Tuesday that Americans should drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and called the U.S. "the worst polluter on the planet."

Edwards' campaign concedes he does own a hybrid Ford Escape SUV, along with a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica midsize SUV, but says he uses that less often now.

Edwards was also asked about the apparent contradiction of asking Americans to sacrifice while he lives in a 28,000 square foot mansion in North Carolina. He replied that he came from nothing and worked hard all his life -- saying, "I have no apologies whatsoever for what I've done with my life."

But not his Pacifica or his Ford Escape Hybrid.

How about he gives up his 26,000 sq ft house? How many kids does he have anyway? I know his wife is a fat fuck, but how much room does she need? Maybe he can get rid of some of the sqare footage and that will give her more lawn to graze on?

I guess it's only OK to be rich and enjoy the rewards of your work if you're Republican.

No Corky, we were discussing the Ambulance Chaser Edwards. You know, the guy with the 20,000+ sq ft home built off of a short career ambulance chasing.
Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-08-30 04:15 PM

YEAH!

You sound jealous and full of envy!

It's not his fault you're a bum who picked a go nowhere career!

I guess it's only OK to be rich and enjoy the rewards of your work if you're Republican.

Posted by YAV at 2007-08-30 04:35 PM | Reply


Clearly that's how the limpwristers feel about Cheney's riches right YAV?

How many kids does he have anyway?

I think he killed one of them. His fat assed wife prolly won't make it til the end of the year. He wants to be a single President. If that happens, Bill Clinton'll be appointed Secretary of Poon.

Shhh! Be quiet! We can't have the mainstream media pickup on this. No way that the handpicked candidate(Clinton) could not be winning in Iowa. If Edwards is the nominee, there will be less mud slinging. Means less infotainment. How is the media supposed to sell newspapers and TV ads if there is nothing to talk about.

Wait! Edwards is a lawyer and has a big home, and drives a hybrid! The nerve of him not to make news that entertains the American people.

But Clinton would generate much more entertainment to sell ads. So she has to be the nominee!

Clearly that's how the limpwristers feel about Cheney's riches right YAV?

I can't speak for limpwristers, but personally I feel better about the way Edwards made his money than the way Cheney's made his. It's that nasty taint of the Energy Task Force, Enron, Haliburton, and a stupid war in Iraq that's complicates my enthusiasm for Cheney's fortune.

God damn Lee that'll draw the ire of some posters!

Is that the kid he confided to Kerry about twice or another kid?

Tater,

Is that your list of candidates in order of personal preference or in order of who you think can win in November?

More of a personal prefernce/ policy thing really.

Nope, the pure policy list goes Kucinich/Obama/ Edwards/ Hill.

The pure electability list goes Hill/ Obama/ Edwards/ Kucinich.

If Hill beat Obama in the battle fer the nod fer the nomination then Spud'll support her campaign against whoever the RT's have selected, vigorously and with plenty of spuddish zingers.

But that's an "if and when" thing.

Obama '08.

Be Well.

101

The one he told The Haunted Tree about twice.

Hey Lee Atwater and Chairpoodle!
If Wobbie Da Poopshoot shows up you guys can have a circle jerk.
You can flip a coin to see who's pivot man...

Lee Atwater..... Only a real asshole would take his screen name from that lying rightwing slanderous pice of shit.
The real Lee Atwater made Karl Rvhul look like choir boy.

Rvhul.
I was going for the Daqnish word for asshole but I guess this format won't do Danish letters.

Thanks Jeff.

Coming from a whack job like yourself, that's a compliment. Your paste jobs are much more coherent. Stick to them.

Daqnish

Whatever the fuck that is. Lunatic.

I hope he does win, He is a colossal phony and a big whimp..What a Loser

Fred will trounce him in a debate

""Fred will trounce him in a debate""

Did someone say phony????

Fred will trounce him in a debate

Fred will put everyone asleep in a debate.

I couldn't believe how boring a speaker fred thompson was when I saw him the other day on C-Span.

He is dead on arrival.

Kucinich would be the best man for America.

Who's ever heard Fred say anything that's unscripted?

Monte,

First I have never had a client pay the original tax assessed by the IRS - pennies on the dollar baby, I am that good.

Secondly, a plaintiff's attorney should evaluate their cases and balance the risk and reward. You lose the case you lose your income. You made that choice to get into that field and no one forced you to take on that case?

Finally, were did I say that fees should be limited? I just said contingency fees should be abolished because they promote shitty lawyering.

John Edwards will win the Democrat nomination.

I hope you are right Chris. Edwards would be easier to beat then even Hillary.

he puts the rights of individual American citizens to seek compensation for injuries caused by the wrongdoing of others over the interests of the insurance industry. For shame!

At the same time taking 30-50% of the damages due to the victim - after he takes out his costs as well.

I could only hope that Kucinich and Paul would be the nominees. Unfortunately, we American's are superficial. Fuckin' JFK and television.

Bowner

Americans will not elect a candidate whose last name most are unable to spell.

Bowa

Still having trouble with those pesky "then" and "than" words I see.

At the same time taking 30-50% of the damages due to the victim - after he takes out his costs as well.

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-30 05:43 PM


It's called capitalism. Don't like it? You are in the wrong country.

BB

Bowner is a product of his environment. Cut him a little sla...ah, fuck 'em.

It's called capitalism. Don't like it? You are in the wrong country.

I couldn't of put it any better, Bob. We agree on something. Son of a bitch!

Taxman - you have no clue what you are talking about. (And you know as well as I do why you haven't "lost." The fact that you are successful in helping scofflaw deadbeats get out of paying the fair share of taxes they owe, and make the rest of us make up the difference, does not mean you are good, and you know it. Not to say you aren't good at what you do, but come on...)

"At the same time taking 30-50% of the damages due to the victim - after he takes out his costs as well.

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-30 05:43 PM


It's called capitalism. Don't like it? You are in the wrong country.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-08-30 05:50 PM"

It's also called the only way these injured people with no ability to pay my hourly rate will ever get their day in court against an insurance company with nearly limitless resources.

""At the same time taking 30-50% of the damages due to the victim - after he takes out his costs as well.""

But don't forget, the plaintiff probably did not have the resources to try the case, the attorney has no guarantee that he/she will win and thus could lose all the expense $$$ which could be considerable. Also, appeals can greatly reduce the damages. If we didn't have the opportunity to get an attorney on a contingency then a corporation or anyone else with the resources to hire attorneys etc. could do whatever they wish and we would have no recourse because we couldn't gain access to the courts with an attorney to try the case.
As in so many things, oversimplification of issues is a good method of misleading people. There have been many important cases tried by lawyers working on contingency that benefited far more than just the plaintiffs in the case.
Tort reform is an issue supported by corporate interests and if done their way would greatly hinder any citizen from correcting wrongs done to them.

101 - I may not be able to convince you of this, but we pay a lot more because of insurance companies paying attorneys to raise frivolous defenses than we do because an ocassional plaintiff gets paid off for a frivolous lawsuit. If a frivolous claim gets past the judge on summary judgment, juries are good at punishing them at trial.

Funny, at one point you accuse me of helping people skirt their tax responsibilty which causing others to make up the difference when you have no idea of what I do, yet at the same time you are willing to take advantage of someone's personal injury and try to pass it off like you are some kind of do-gooder. Bull shit. If you really cared about these people you would examine a case, determine if it was worth pursuing, and take on the risk if you so pleased, at the same time charging them a billable rate. If you lose you get nothing and if you win you get the amount you billed.

BTW, monte, I represent innocent spouses whose asshole husbands/wives have committed tax fraud, unkown to the innocent spouse, and leave the innocent spouse with the bill; I represent small business owners who are assessed a 100% penalty on the taxes they owe because some idiot secretary decided she wasn't going to mail out the withholding checks when she was supposed to; I help individual gain knowledge of the tax law to help them lower their burden as provided by the law. It isn't my fault if you don't tax plan but don't make the insuation that what I do is somehow underhanded. I can sleep at night, I don't know how some attorneys do though.

Hell I am all for a law that makes the wrongdoer pay all the attorneys fees, so long as the attorney is charging a billable rate. I just don't like to see the injured party getting fucked by an attorney. Trust me, I clerked for a plaintiff's attorney, I know how it works and it is why I went into tax law.

Sure, Taxboy, everyone of your clients is "innocent! I'm innocent I tell ya!" (Were you on OJ's team?)

Taxman-

How do you propose that people who cannot afford an hourly fee get the legal representation they need after you "ban" contingency fees? What are the benefits of your plan other than eliminating some invalid lawsuits at the expense of many valid ones?

Taxman - are you suggesting that the wrongdoer pay when the plaintiff wins, but if the defense wins the plaintiff does not have to pay? If so, I would agree with that, but I've never heard anyone propose that before. "Loser pays" is a popular solution proferred by insurance companies, but it is a bad idea.

Taxman, while those are heartwarming stories from your line of work, have you ever had a client that was simply looking for ways to avoid paying taxes? Did you reject him and all other clients like him?

Lokisfur is not doing so hot on Rudy Thongs and T Shirt sales I take it. Poor deluded guy.

Larry

Joe, please! Taxman is like the Jesus of lawyers.

How do you propose that people who cannot afford an hourly fee get the legal representation they need after you "ban" contingency fees?

Joe, I have stated that it is up to the attorney, just as in a contingency fee case, as to whether or not they will take on the case. If the attorney does take on the case and win then he should recover what he would have billed not a contingency fee after costs. Really, I would go so far as to say if the plaintiff wins then the wrongdoer should have to pay the attorney fees rather than the plaintiff.

Monte, if you caused the harm you should have to pay; consider it an extra penalty for injurious conduct.

Taxman, while those are heartwarming stories from your line of work, have you ever had a client that was simply looking for ways to avoid paying taxes?

Joe, there is a difference between avoidance and evasion, which one are you talking about? The IRS likes to call tax planning "tax avoidance".

Americans will not elect a candidate whose last name most are unable to spell.

Given that sad state of Education in this country I guess that means nobody will be elected.

Taxman - if your proposal does not include a req't that the injured person pay the defendant's attorney fees if s/he loses, than I would support that. It is a pie-in-the-sky proposal given the powerful interests the would align against it (mainly the insurance industry and Chamber of Commerce), but it would be fine with me. Git 'er done!

"If the attorney does take on the case and win then he should recover what he would have billed not a contingency fee after costs."

Well that's still a "contingency fee." The receipt of money is still "contingent" on a victory since no recovery means no fees. How is taking a lump sum of your billable hours after the verdict any different than taking the percentage of the verdict?

Why do you hate freedom of contract?

"there is a difference between avoidance and evasion, which one are you talking about?"

I am talking about either. You make it sound as though the only clients you work with are planting trees and saving puppies. I was wondering if you have any clients that would not be considered as sympathetic as the ones you listed, since you made that sound like your entire clientele in response to Monte's assertion that you help people avoid paying taxes.

Further, Joe, I have seen avoidance schemes like the Geoffrey structure or the Wal-Mart REIT structure which are clearly abusive and I would never ever advise a client to structure a transaction or re-org whose only purpose was the avoidance/evasion of taxes. I don't take on Geoffrey cases and I don't take on the REIT cases unless the client is simply coming in to settle the case.

Still having trouble with those pesky "then" and "than" words I see.

Bob, Not as much trouble as you are having with your tin-foil hat. have you found one big enough yet?

How is taking a lump sum of your billable hours after the verdict any different than taking the percentage of the verdict?

I personally believe that plaintiffs lawyers know they have their clients by the balls so they feel they can charge outrages contingency fees, where else are the injured going to go. I guess I would be in favor of limiting contingency recovery to 5% for settle before trial 10% for settle during trial 15% for winning the case and 20% for appeals. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Who's ever heard Fred say anything that's unscripted?

I did. he did some town hall type meeting that was on C-Span the other day.

he was a big snore....really boring. No wonder he is having trouble raising money.

"I personally believe that plaintiffs lawyers know they have their clients by the balls so they feel they can charge outrages contingency fees, where else are the injured going to go."

That's called business. What does having your clients by the balls have to do with promoting shitty lawyering? You seem to have the two concepts confused.

I don't think your percentages sound reasonable, because I don't think anyone should be limited as to how much they may earn if someone else is willing to pay them.

Furthermore, I think your suggested percentages would violate freedom of contract provisions in our constitution. Unless you can show that somehow allowing lawyers to charge more is detrimental to the public interest. I still don't think you've established a link between charging a certain percentage contingency fee and the ridiculous legal climate of America.

I personally believe that plaintiffs lawyers know they have their clients by the balls so they feel they can charge outrages contingency fees, where else are the injured going to go. I guess I would be in favor of limiting contingency recovery to 5% for settle before trial 10% for settle during trial 15% for winning the case and 20% for appeals. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

My flipside argument would be to allow the plaintiff attorney to keep track of billable hours and if the plaintiff wins have the defendant pay the fees on top of the damages awarded. Again, I just hate seeing injured people losing their damages becuase they had no place else to go in the first place.

I still don't think you've established a link between charging a certain percentage contingency fee and the ridiculous legal climate of America.

You don't think if we abolished contingency cases there wouldn't be a drop in frivilous cases?

"I guess I would be in favor of limiting contingency recovery to 5% for settle before trial 10% for settle during trial 15% for winning the case and 20% for appeals. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-30 06:30 PM"

You're crazy, Taxman, or at least not thinking as clearly as you normally do. There is no law that requires PI attorneys to charge a particular percentage. The market works. If it were profitable or made sense to charge what you propose than lawyers would do it, advertise the fact, and corner the market. If you really feel that way, do it yourself. Charge those rates (or even bump each category up 5%) - you will have much lower rates than the rest of the attorneys, and you'll get tons of clients. Let us know how long you stay in business.

Taxman - over 90% of the cases in our courts are family law and businesses suing businesses. if you got rid of all personal injury cases, the "legal climate" would barely notice.

If you really feel that way, do it yourself. Charge those rates (or even bump each category up 5%) - you will have much lower rates than the rest of the attorneys, and you'll get tons of clients. Let us know how long you stay in business

Litigation is too easy and very boring, I'll stick with the tax law and transactional stuff.

Also, the percentages are a pipe dream, just my opinion. I will say it again, I am tired of seeing plaintiffs being harmed by a tortfeasor and then getting screwed on the back end by some outrageous contingency fee.

Taxman - than stick with your proposal that losing defendants pay the attorney fees of the injured person. Your other idea sucks, and it would close the courthouse doors to injured people.

I won't even address your rather laughable opinion that litigation is easy. Sitting in your office filling out forms is easy.

And boring? Litigation? Are you sure you aren't getting the two fields mixed up? I mean, how many movies, books and tv shows are about trial vs. about tax lawyers counseling their clients? Taxman, step slowly away from the bottle...

I guess I would be in favor of limiting contingency recovery to 5% for settle before trial 10% for settle during trial 15% for winning the case and 20% for appeals. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-30 06:30 PM

And
There is no law that requires PI attorneys to charge a particular percentage.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2007-08-30 06:43 PM

In California there is on Med Mal cases, it is called MICRA and limits, on a sliding scale, what a PI lawyer can recover in those types of cases. What it has done is driven the skilled Plaintiff's lawyers into "leg-offs", dead baby and Class Action cases and left the Med Mal market to the bottom feeders.

IMHO, the insurance defense bar is just as bad as the PI lawyers, they will run up a bill because, well, the system allows them to with imputiny.

Ironically, its only when you get into the high-stakes business to business litigation that you get cost pressure from the GC's where the free market really controls.

Litigation is too easy and very boring,

Really? Ever done a 6 week jury trial with over 100 million dollars at stake?

Never a dull moment.

Right-O is right-o, again.

"In California there is on Med Mal cases, it is called MICRA and limits, on a sliding scale, what a PI lawyer can recover in those types of cases."

I assume this is an upper limit, not a lower limit? If so, I stand on my previous answer, counsel.

"You don't think if we abolished contingency cases there wouldn't be a drop in frivilous cases?"

I don't know - what have you told me that would lead me to think so? Tell me what the connection is.

If getting your billable hours is still "contingent" on whether or not you win, I don't see what your point is. The same level of risk is involved, and I don't see why you think allowing lawyers to retain less of a percentage of the verdict will somehow keep them from litigating frivolous suits. How does allowing contingency cases benefit the frivolous lawyer?

Tater says

Nope, the pure policy list goes Kucinich/Obama/ Edwards/ Hill.

The pure electability list goes Hill/ Obama/ Edwards/ Kucinich.


Tanks, Tater.

Same page, great minds, and all.

;^D

Corky-
The pure electability of every Republican in the nation NOT running for president is increased by the nomination of H. Clinton. Even in the presidential election, Clinton is one of the only possibles who could lose.

Do I owe you a nickel?

I don't mind paying for Repube advise, even their (extremely) common "wisdom", as long as I only pay what is worth.

it's worth

And btw,

It is a long time until the election.

Hil's negatives, which are not soley, but are mostly the work of the "VRWC", and who's effectiveness would be an admission of a defeat by Dems and a victory for the slimiest kind of Rethug politics over teh last 15 years against her, were it allowed to stand, can still be overcome with a good candidate and a good campaign, by a political machine that won, twice in a row, over a now futilely fractured GOP.

If you think any Dem won't have high negatives after the entire year of Swift-boating that is to come, sadly, you are mistaken.

If Edwards win the nomination, then there will be a surge in donation to the Republican contender by medical doctors who were harmed by Edwards lawyering.

Let's see, his wife lamented that Edwards is disadvantaged because he is not female and not Black. Maybe her rhetoric is working.

Libs and Dems do have a sense of humor. hehehe....

I misspoke yesterday when I didn't preface "litigation" with "tort". Litigation can be fun, there is nothing like getting in the court room and sticking it to the IRS or another state taxing entity. Of course, when I worked for the LA Dept. of Rev. I used to love sticking to abusive corporations as well. I guess I just love the whole advesarial nature of it, as I assume the rest of the attorneys here do.

Sitting in your office filling out forms is easy.

That's what accountants are for. I wouldn't know the slightest about filling out taxes aside from what I do with the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program.

Joe, my point is that you won't have as many schister attorneys filing frivilous suits because the low hanging fruit won't be there for them.

Taxman argues as if attorneys who work on a contingency basis will pursue any case presented to them regardless of the merit of the case which is nonsense. Why would an attorney invest his $$$ into expenses if there was little or no chance of winning the case. Also he say that an attorney should take a "contingency" case and receive only the "billable hours" in compensation. Why??? Why would he take such a risk?? No, there has to be a motive for him to take a contingency case and high profit is just that. When you really consider what he proposes it is that we do not allow attorneys to participate in a free market. He proposes that they be prevented from making contracts with clients based on the conditions both parties decide. Utter nonsense. Me thinks he has been influenced a bit too much by the corporations that he says he argues tax law for.
Tort reform is a lie, it isn't a reform, it is the end of the average person's ability to bring cases to court, which is exactly what the corporations who favor it want.

Me thinks he has been influenced a bit too much by the corporations that he says he argues tax law for.

I don't work for big corporations danni and if you don't see that my interest lie with the injured party who can't afford to pay a billable rate so they have to go to an attorney who is going to take close to 50% - after taking out their costs - of the damages awarded to the injured party, then I can't help you.

"my point is that you won't have as many schister attorneys filing frivilous suits because the low hanging fruit won't be there for them."

And I don't see how you've made that point. How will disallowing contingency fees based on a percentage, or lowering that percentage have any effect on the types of lawsuits filed or not filed?

How will disallowing contingency fees based on a percentage, or lowering that percentage have any effect on the types of lawsuits filed or not filed?


If the money isn't there, then what is the point?

"Joe, my point is that you won't have as many schister attorneys filing frivilous suits because the low hanging fruit won't be there for them.

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-31 09:15 AM"

Then your point doesn't make any sense. If a case is frivolous, it doesn't involve low hanging fruit. Whether you get paid a percentage of the recovery or your attorney fees get paid only when you win, either way you are only going to pursue cases you feel are winners, and unless you are insane you don't feel frivolous cases are winners.

The system works. Lawyers who bring frivolous cases will lose almost all of them. Since they won't be paid a dime in those cases, they will eat the time spent on them, and have to write off the costs they fronted. They will soon be out of business, or practicing tax law. And it works without gov't regulation. Voila!

Monte, how is it that a person can go to one attorney, an upstanding one at that, and that attorney won't take on the case because he feels the person doesn't have a claim, yet that same person can walk down the hall to a different law firm and another attorney will jump all over it?

"Spud's list at present runs Obama at number one followed by Kucinich and Edwards with Hill finishing just out of the medals."

My list would be, in this order (with some "I hope they run"'s)...

Gore, Edwards, Kucinich, Clarke, Obama, Dodd, H Clinton.

"Spud would take any of them over the entire GOP slate."

Completely agreed. I cannot think of any reason whatsoever to vote for anyone who affiliates himself with the Republicans at this point. The only close to acceptable candidate as I see it is Ron Paul. Romney is awful and a complete fake (had enough of him in Mass), Guliani would be worse - I am amazed at how he took the 9/11 disaster (and by that I mean how much his "leadership" had hurt the firefighters and police and cost lives) and turned it into some kind of success, Gingrich is nauseating - there simply isn't anyone on that side that is remotely electable in my opinion.

Taxman - because that's a judgment call. And, in areas of law where you are only paid when your clients prevails, the attorney who makes the correct judgment more often will continue practicing that those who don't will have to leave the field. It works great.

It is a better system than other fields, where hourly attorneys are fiscally rewarded for dragging out a case, and selling their clients sunshine.

por favor, strike one of those s's, ese.

It is a better system than other fields, where hourly attorneys are fiscally rewarded for dragging out a case, and selling their clients sunshine.

I have a problem with those guys too. You wonder why our insurance premiums are so freaking high.

Agreed. (Unfortunately, that include the insurance defense guys I go against. They don't admit liability until the morning of trial, always want to do depos, etc., even where the defendant was clearly at fault. In my field (and maybe others?), they call it "churning a case.")

Monte, the funny thing is that insurance companies know their attorneys are churning yet they don't do anything about it.

And monte, churning happens on the tax and transactional side as well. Hell, it happens at accounting firms too.

Taxman argues as if attorneys who work on a contingency basis will pursue any case presented to them regardless of the merit of the case which is nonsense. Why would an attorney invest his $$$ into expenses if there was little or no chance of winning the case. Also he say that an attorney should take a "contingency" case and receive only the "billable hours" in compensation. Why??? Why would he take such a risk?? No, there has to be a motive for him to take a contingency case and high profit is just that. When you really consider what he proposes it is that we do not allow attorneys to participate in a free market. He proposes that they be prevented from making contracts with clients based on the conditions both parties decide. Utter nonsense. Me thinks he has been influenced a bit too much by the corporations that he says he argues tax law for.
Tort reform is a lie, it isn't a reform, it is the end of the average person's ability to bring cases to court, which is exactly what the corporations who favor it want.

Posted by danni at 2007-08-31 09:32 AM

It must be tough not to have a brain (yet still believe the things you say). In a contingency case the plaintiff/counter claimant also typically pays hefty expenses on top of the percent they give up to the contingency fee. Like fees for outside experts, the recorder at deps, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. But, your comments are just DanniDrivel(TM) so no biggie.

"Monte, the funny thing is that insurance companies know their attorneys are churning yet they don't do anything about it.

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-31 01:23 PM"

The unfunny thing is that insco's do that b/c it is so easy to simply pass those costs onto their policyholders. Insco's should not have protection from anti-trust laws that govern just about every other industry (except baseball, of course... ha.)

That is the overriding problem with the system. Get rid of anti-trust protections, and many of these problems will go away.

"It must be tough not to have a brain (yet still believe the things you say). In a contingency case the plaintiff/counter claimant also typically pays hefty expenses on top of the percent they give up to the contingency fee. Like fees for outside experts, the recorder at deps, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. But, your comments are just DanniDrivel(TM) so no biggie.

Posted by ride_on at 2007-08-31 02:05"

What the fuck are you talking about, Ride On? Please enlighten us on how paying expenses (which go to entities other than the attorney, and are simply paying back costs that the attorney fronts on behalf of the client) has something to do with this? I don't think even taxman is going to come to the defense of that asinine statement.

Please, go back downstairs to your Atari and let the adults talk.

If you don't want anyone educated about the further farce of "contingecies and you only have to pay if we win" go ahead. When that attorney loses your case and you get stuck with the expenses your attorney ran up on your behalf have fun fighting it. Why don't you help educate Danni before she gets stuck with the bill (advance the payments my foot, the attorney just runs up the bill on your behalf without disclosing to you what he/she is doing). Or are you an attorney and you'll just let her think she got a good deal until you lay that expensive (to her) tidbit at her feet?

Ride On - if that is what you are talking about, fine. In Oregon, the client is only obligated to pay those costs to the extent of their ability to pay. If, like 99% of the people out there (moreso with injured people), they basically spend what they make, those costs are written off.

Either way, this has nothing to do with contingency fees and whether they should be outlawed, etc.

OK Mr Attorney. But, it has a LOT to do with "
contingency fees". Especially due to the fact that "contingency" cases involve a lot of other expenses that complainants don't understand they will pay. Just like you are "lawyering your language" now....they pay those costs to the extent of their ability to pay....my ass....so they sell their assets, house, etc. to pay the bills the attorney has run up with his or her chosen "expert witnesses", etc. Funny how you want to parse words about what the complainant will or won't "have to pay". Written off my foot...after much cajoling, taking of money, etc. The normal person is at the mercy of a lousy system that the lawyers and courts are in control of. The little guy doesn't have much recourse when screwed in "your" system. You know it....that's why you so readily said "-if that is what you are talking about, fine." Ya bozo.

The unfunny thing is that insco's do that b/c it is so easy to simply pass those costs onto their policyholders.

Exactly.

RideOn

You're full of crap about recovering fees.

Secondly, attorneys don't take cases without enough merit to win, and cases don't ever reach court if they're frivolous to begin with.

Thirdly, tell all the homeowners who's roofs were blown off by wind during Katrina that they don't need to sue their insurance companies who sent adjusters more concerned about their Christmas bonus than being 'Good Neighbors' and the "You're in Good Hands' people, and denied payment because of 'flooding' BECAUSE the wind blew off the roofs to begin with. Tens of thousands of them. Or, doctors who were drunk and nicked someone's spinal cord and left them with a life of pain like happened to a friend of mine.

As a Republican, I pray that John Edwards wins the Democrat nomination. If this happens, ANY Republican candidate will crush that $1,200 haircut ultra feminine hypocrite.

UTASTAFF -- Good points. If it's Edwards vs. Romney, it'll be a contest of "pretty boy" egomaniacs. Their self-absorbed fascination with their self-proclaimed good looks is a bit embarrassing. Time for Edwards to get on the news driving a tractor with his hands and clothing dirty and his hair mussed up. Slopping around with a few North Carolina pig farmers or Central Valley California Turkey ranchers might help his image, too.

Edwards may not have deserved the dig from Ann-the-man-Coulter, but he does have a metro-sexual image problem. If I were his image consultant, I'd get him into coveralls with Jimmy Carter and have him spend a FULL DAY really lifting tools and swing a hammer and learning how to build a house. I'd have him in South Carolina learning from timbermen about the tree harvesting business, and in New Mexico working in the mines. Otherwise, he'll be stuck with the Coulter-tag, of a fancy-pants trial lawyer.

At least JFK had a manly image to offset his youthful looks. He was photographed sailing and playing football with his family. He had the Navy hero thing going for him. And he had the Kennedy clan ruthlessness wrapped in silken smoothness. Nobody in Boston ever thought JFK would be a pushover.

My fear about Edwards is that unlike Al Gore who couldn't carry his own state, Edwards wouldn't carry any of the Carolinas or Tennessee. I think he'd only be able to carry Louisiana, and with so many displaced by Katrina, the state may be far more likely to vote GOP than ever.

Clarification on the above --

My fear about Edwards is that unlike Al Gore who couldn't carry his own state, Edwards wouldn't carry any of the Carolinas or Tennessee. I think he'd only be able to carry Louisiana THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH, and with so many displaced by Katrina, that state may be far more likely to vote GOP than ever.

In national polls Edwards beats any of the Republic candidates by double digits.
Edwards/Obama 08