- 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: Prosecutorial Misconduct Reform
Posted on 1/19/24 at 12:35 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 1/19/24 at 12:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:No, it isn't. The defendant pays only what he is obligated to pay to the plaintiff for their damages and their damages only. There is no separate line item on the verdict form for attorney's fees. In fact, they are expressly not allowed by statute in most cases, including medical malpractice.
But it is.
As it it, the winning plaintiff pays her attorney out of her own pocket. The same way the winning defendant pays his attorney out of his own pocket (or out of his insurance company's pocket).
Posted on 1/19/24 at 12:57 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:Of course it is. Were the Chinese bribing Joe Biden if the payola passed by arrangement through Hunter first? Of course they were.
No, it isn't.
Given a contingency arrangement, what is the fee risk to the plaintiff?
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:00 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Given a contingency arrangement, what is the fee risk to the plaintiff?
Again, courts will just use lodestar if they won't accept contingency. It's pretty standard.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:and?
Contingencies are legal and legitimate.
quote:It would still be a contingency, still paid by the defendant, simply calculated differently.
That's why courts could adopt the lodestar method instead, to replace contingencies from the equation.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:So the plaintiff pays his own legal fees if he loses?
Again, courts will just use lodestar if they won't accept contingency. It's pretty standard.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:05 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It would still be a contingency, still paid by the defendant, simply calculated differently.
Sure. Nobody cares except you and the paradigm you're trying to force the discussion into.
We just aren't taking the bait.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:06 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:*To be distinguished from the current contingency fee, which is paid by the successful plaintiff
It would still be a contingency, still paid by the defendant, simply calculated differently.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:09 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:
To be distinguished from the current contingency fee, which is paid by the successful plaintiff
He's trying to create a paradigm that only legitimate attorney's fees are those actually paid (and he's defining this using terms like "risk"). I think that's the communication issue y'all are having.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Right. I *think* he is smart enough to know the difference, but I can't tell.
Regardless, I'm all in for loser pays. Let's do it.
Regardless, I'm all in for loser pays. Let's do it.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:38 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
One thing I don't see being discussed amid all of the talk about overzealous prosecutors charging Trump and J6ers is a solution to that problem.
90% of the problems in the justice system originate from a corrupted and politicized doj and fbi. They are at the top of the corruption pyramid and set the example of how far those below can abuse their power. Until there's a house cleaning, with jail time nothing will change in the united socialist states of america.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Serious question, are you a retard?
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:00 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
Serious question, are you a retard?
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Negative, SFP.
He's trying to create a paradigm that only legitimate attorney's fees
The paradigm, which needn't be created because it exists, is one of contingency driven US tort.
For the plaintiff, it's a system akin to a free lottery ticket. The defendant, on the other hand takes on legal costs from the beginning.
None of this has a thing to do with "legitimacy" of fees. I have no idea where you picked that up. It does have to do with plaintiff risk-reward, and wanton US social litigiousness.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Good Lord!
Ambulance chasers don't typically take cases without clear liability.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
wanton US social litigiousness.
In a perfect world, plaintiffs bringing frivolous suits would be shot. But here we are.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:03 pm to Indefatigable
quote:There are few things Europe does better than US. Injury compensation is one. Our tort system SUCKS! .... except for lawyers.
In a perfect world, plaintiffs bringing frivolous suits would be shot. But here we are.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 5:09 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY
18 U.S.C. § 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.
Unlike most conspiracy statutes, §241 does not require, as an element, the commission of an overt act.
The offense is always a felony, even if the underlying conduct would not, on its own, establish a felony violation of another criminal civil rights statute. It is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment unless the government proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death) in which case it may be punished by up to life imprisonment and, if death results, may be eligible for the death penalty.
Section 241 is used in Law Enforcement Misconduct and Hate Crime Prosecutions. It was historically used, before conspiracy-specific trafficking statutes were adopted, in Human Trafficking prosecutions.
MISCONDUCT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT & OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTORS
18 U.S.C. § 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is not necessary that the offense be motivated by racial bias or by any other animus.
Defendants act under color of law when they wield power vested by a government entity. Those prosecuted under the statute typically include police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prison guards. However other government actors, such as judges, district attorneys, other public officials, and public school employees can also act under color of law and can be prosecuted under this statute.
Section 242 does not criminalize any particular type of abusive conduct. Instead, it incorporates by reference rights defined by the Constitution, federal statutes, and interpretive case law. Cases charged by federal prosecutors most often involve physical or sexual assaults. The Department has also prosecuted public officials for thefts, false arrests, evidence-planting, and failing to protect someone in custody from constitutional violations committed by others.
A violation of the statute is a misdemeanor, unless prosecutors prove one of the statutory aggravating factors such as a bodily injury, use of a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, death resulting, or attempt to kill, in which case there are graduated penalties up to and including life in prison or death. If charged in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 250, as noted below, all sexual assaults under color of law are felonies
Posted on 1/19/24 at 5:14 pm to Jax-Tiger
Drastically reduce the size of the federal government and the corresponding bureaucracy. Return those regulatory responsibilities to the states where they belong. The states can reach agreement with other states when needed.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 6:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Good Lord!
It's true. PI mills will always require the Accident Report to see who is driver #1. Hell, most of the chiros they use won't treat without seeing it, too.
Now if you're talking more advanced personal injury/civil stuff, they don't qualify as "ambulance chaser" status
Posted on 1/19/24 at 6:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
None of this has a thing to do with "legitimacy" of fees. I have no idea where you picked that up.
Weren't y'all specifically talking about the award of attorney's fees for the "loser" in a loser pays?
You're trying to delegitimize contingency fees in the hypothetical "loser pays" system.
But the post I'm replying to makes it seem like you're trying to delegitimize them in all scenarios.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News