- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does anyone hope that the La. legislature will pass a "loser pays" law?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:11 pm to NIH
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:11 pm to NIH
i'm not even trying to play "gotcha"
hell even if the LA Association for Justice is against this, it's just b/c they haven't thought about it thoroughly
i'm legit giving them the playbook for how this is in their favor
i mean yeah it would basically kill slip and fall suits, but those are mostly dead anyway. the "rear-end" cases would become worth a LOT more and it would be more than worth the offset
hell even if the LA Association for Justice is against this, it's just b/c they haven't thought about it thoroughly
i'm legit giving them the playbook for how this is in their favor
i mean yeah it would basically kill slip and fall suits, but those are mostly dead anyway. the "rear-end" cases would become worth a LOT more and it would be more than worth the offset
1
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Read the OP again. The Alaskan "loser pays" law shifts part of the winning side's attorney's fees to the loser, not all of the fees. So the plaintiff and the defendant will have a financial incentive to get the fees agreed upon up front and both sides will have a risk if they lose.
No longer will the Morris Barts of the world tell potential clients there is no attorneys costs to them unless they win.
No longer will the Morris Barts of the world tell potential clients there is no attorneys costs to them unless they win.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
The plaintiff attorney advertising in this this state plus insurance lobbying gives the public a much worse impression about what really goes on
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:15 pm to LSURussian
You are still just handing the plaintiff's bar another chip to use in negotiations to settle.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:16 pm to NIH
I honestly wonder what most of this board would do if they or their loved one were actually seriously injured by someone else's negligence or recklessness.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:17 pm to CorporateTiger
Start a thread on the OT asking which lawyer to hire
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:18 pm to NIH
So you think I'm in the insurance business?
I'm the insurance PAYER.
And if you need a list of silly lawsuits that get settled simply because the defendant wants to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit then you're not acknowledging the real world in Louisiana.
I'm the insurance PAYER.
And if you need a list of silly lawsuits that get settled simply because the defendant wants to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit then you're not acknowledging the real world in Louisiana.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:19 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The Alaskan "loser pays" law shifts part of the winning side's attorney's fees to the loser, not all of the fees.
ok so it's not a complete freeroll but it's still very +EV
quote:
So the plaintiff and the defendant will have a financial incentive to get the fees agreed upon up front and both sides will have a risk if they lose.
but with clear liability, one side already knows it's going to lose. i hope you agree with that part
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:20 pm to NIH
Wait I thought all companies just always make people they hurt whole and lawsuits aren't needed.
I mean the people who exposed everyone to asbestos certainly did that. Same for suppressing information on tobacco's effects.
I mean the people who exposed everyone to asbestos certainly did that. Same for suppressing information on tobacco's effects.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:27 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:I 100% disagree.
You are still just handing the plaintiff's bar another chip to use in negotiations to settle.
A plaintiff attorney who convinces a client to sue when the attorney knows he has a weak chance of winning would be a fool. Now he knows he can tell a client there's no risk if their side loses and just hopes a defendant will settle for a relatively small amount just to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit.
This thread has vindicated my opinion that a loser pays reform law would absolutely reduce attorney's compensation just from the fact that the attorneys on here are screaming bloody murder opposing the idea.
Thanks.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:30 pm to LSURussian
quote:
This thread has vindicated my opinion that a loser pays reform law would absolutely reduce attorney's compensation just from the fact that the attorneys on here are screaming bloody murder opposing the idea.
Or it could be that you have no idea what you are talking about.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:30 pm to LSURussian
quote:
A plaintiff attorney who convinces a client to sue when the attorney knows he has a weak chance of winning would be a fool.
This almost never happens now. The game of PI is churning a lot of "no liability question" cases.
quote:
Now he knows he can tell a client there's no risk if their side loses and just hopes a defendant will settle for a relatively small amount just to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit.
Except he is still exposed on his wasted time. Also the notion that corporations just settle nuisance suits is very outdated.
quote:
just from the fact that the attorneys on here are screaming bloody murder opposing the idea.
Look, I make my money structuring commercial joint ventures in a different state. I have no skin in this game at all, but maybe just maybe you should listen to people who have experience with this stuff.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
Why do I need an attorney if I know there is "clear liability" on the other party's part?
The other side will be more willing to settle for a fairer amount if it means he's otherwise going to avoid having to pay a part of those grossly inflated attorney's fees you said he would be responsible for paying.
The other side will be more willing to settle for a fairer amount if it means he's otherwise going to avoid having to pay a part of those grossly inflated attorney's fees you said he would be responsible for paying.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:33 pm to LSURussian
quote:
fact that the attorneys on here are screaming bloody murder opposing the idea
I do not think that is what is going on.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Why do I need an attorney if I know there is "clear liability" on the other party's part
quote:
liability
you don't have the first clue on how to prove this
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
A plaintiff attorney who convinces a client to sue when the attorney knows he has a weak chance of winning would be a fool. Now he knows he can tell a client there's no risk if their side loses and just hopes a defendant will settle for a relatively small amount just to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit.
and yes these suits would likely decrease in volume
but they're a very small % of the system and you're increasing the value of clear liability scenarios (the majority of cases)
quote:
This thread has vindicated my opinion that a loser pays reform law would absolutely reduce attorney's compensation just from the fact that the attorneys on here are screaming bloody murder opposing the idea.
i'm not screaming bloody murder. i'm explaining how this policy has major potential to increase insurance costs
i think the issue is that people have a very skewed perception of how the pie of litigation is sliced. the vast majority are car wrecks with clear liability. many are small (and often without real damages) that get run up higher than they theoretically should be (often by chiropractors that don't get paid util settlement). 99%+ of these cases settle before court (and most are small)
firms like Morris Bart rely on quantity and not quality. they also rarely directly litigate cases (the cases that require trial often will be farmed to another firm). they make a million small licks a year in a factory-like settlement factory. they take a million small cases with clear liability and keep on chugging along
this law would do nothing to stop the Morris Barts of the world and may make them more money
i'll tell you how to stop this industry: make it easier to target chiropractors or make it illegal for them to defer payment until settlement. if you want to really affect PI law, this is how you do it. it's the headshot
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:36 pm to LSURussian
quote:
By "loser pays" I mean the system Alaska has enacted: It requires, in almost all every category of civil cases, the loser of the lawsuit to pay a portion of the winner’s attorney’s fees.
frick that noise.
That is a law just begging for more ambulance chasers to move here to this state to get rich off of suits against companies who actually provide gainful employment to people here.
I would be fine with a very very limited version of it concerning cases that don't have a high monetary value on it.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:37 pm to NIH
Or it could be the Alaskan loser pays system works to control the number of frivolous lawsuits and their settlement amounts which is why lawyers will do everything, including making up false reasons, to keep loser pays out of their states.
And that means I do know what I'm talking about.
And that means I do know what I'm talking about.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:37 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Why do I need an attorney if I know there is "clear liability" on the other party's part?
you probably don't
some people are worried they'll be taken advantage of by the adjuster (which does happen). my ex tried to handle a claim herself and the adjuster told her that when she accepted the settlement (less than medicals. no chiro and legit doctors and PT), THEN he would pay for the meds (a lie)
other people have no idea to make their case valuable. again, i told you what to attack: chiropractors. those are the engine that make PI valuable, b/c most of these cases do not involve major injuries. these firms make major money churning out small cases constantly and not big licks. those cases are rare...fruitful, but rare. you can't keep a PI firm going on waiting for death cases
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:42 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Or it could be the Alaskan loser pays system works to control the number of frivolous lawsuits and their settlement amounts which is why lawyers will do everything, including making up false reasons, to keep loser pays out of their states.
And that means I do know what I'm talking about.
I'm glad you've got this all figured out even though you have no substantive rebuttal to the fact that most cases involve clear liability.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News