re: Does anyone hope that the La. legislature will pass a "loser pays" law?

quote:

---

You've been purposefully obtuse to everything CorporateTiger has said this far.

Seems like everyone has an agenda here.

---

Not me!



From what I can tell: It seems like the vast majority of cases only make trial when the plaintiffs attorneys already know they are going to "win", and it's only a matter of how large a settlement. It would seem, to me at least, that guarantee of "loser pays" for any percentage of attorney fees increases the number of viable cases for PI lawyers, which should increase total number of cases at trial.

Is tha point under contention? It's hard to tell on the first read-through

It's not just the cases that go to trial. Generally speaking the only cases that go anywhere in our current system are (1) cases where fault is easily established or (2) cases where damages are extremely high.

Anything that isn't one or two just generally doesn't go anywhere. Most "cases" (using quotes here because many are never filed) are in category one. As I said before, the firm pulls a police report (which is often the only real "evidence") and sees if it is clear who is at fault. If it is clear then they take the case. There are some good smaller plaintiff's firms that take other stuff, but I am focusing on the big players here.

They then just argue about damages with opposing counsel. Both sides know who "wins." It is just horse trading dollars. If you institute loser pays, when the defense attorney knows he will lose then you only increase the leverage of the plaintiff's bar. For example, defense offers to settle for $50k; plaintiff wants $80k. If loser pays and the defense has to cover $10k of legal fees then the settlements just become $60k v $90k. The defense knows he will get hit with that $10k at trial, so the plaintiff can just ask for it up front.

Sure, maybe there are some difficult cases where the chance of liability shifting helps the defense, but those are buried by the massive number of these automobile injury cases.

As I said earlier, a system the encourages settlement of damages disputes may actually have a positive impact. Any fix that doesn't address dollar figure haggling, though, isn't an actual fix.

quote:

---

If you institute loser pays, when the defense attorney knows he will lose then you only increase the leverage of the plaintiff's bar. For example, defense offers to settle for $50k; plaintiff wants $80k. If loser pays and the defense has to cover $10k of legal fees then the settlements just become $60k v $90k. The defense knows he will get hit with that $10k at trial, so the plaintiff can just ask for it up front.

---

That's not true. The cost is on the plaintiff after he turns down the $50k. If his settlement is not MORE than $50000 then his settlement is reduced by the additional cost he puts on the plaintiff.

For example if the defense offers $50K and the plaintiff refuses and continues the case to court and the defense incurs another $10000 in cost but the court rules the liability is only $50000 then the plaintiff only gets $40000 and is out the additional cost he paid his attorney.

So loser pay is not just about liability. It is about losing and winning the liability amount too. You can't turn down reasonable settlements without incurring the risk of additional cost to the defendant.

By the same token the defense risk paying more and more if the settlement offer is too low.

From WIKI

quote:

---

In the field of law and economics, the English rule (capitalized as English Rule in some jurisdictions) is a rule controlling assessment of attorneys' fees arising out of litigation. The English rule provides that the party who loses in court pays the other party's attorney's fees. The English rule contrasts with the American rule, under which each party is generally responsible to pay its own attorneys' fees, unless a statute or contract provides for that assessment. The rationale for the English rule is that a litigant (whether bringing a claim or defending a claim) is entitled to legal representation and, if successful, should not be left out of pocket by reason of his or her own legal fees. It should be borne in mind that, in virtually all English civil litigation, damages are merely compensatory.

Nearly every Western democracy other than the United States follows the English rule

---

quote:

---

That's not true. The cost is on the plaintiff after he turns down the $50k. If his settlement is not MORE than $50000 then his settlement is reduced by the additional cost he puts on the plaintiff. For example if the defense offers $50K and the plaintiff refuses and continues the case to court and the defense incurs another $10000 in cost but the court rules the liability is only $50000 then the plaintiff only gets $40000 and is out the additional cost he paid his attorney. So loser pay is not just about liability. It is about losing and winning the liability amount too. You can't turn down reasonable settlements without incurring the risk of additional cost to the defendant.

---

Good god, do any of you read? Louisiana already basically has this. It was posted on one of the first pages in this thread. If you make an offer for judgment and they refuse, then if the verdict is at least 25% less than the offer, they have to pay costs.

quote:

---

From what I can tell: It seems like the vast majority of cases only make trial when the plaintiffs attorneys already know they are going to "win", and it's only a matter of how large a settlement. It would seem, to me at least, that guarantee of "loser pays" for any percentage of attorney fees increases the number of viable cases for PI lawyers, which should increase total number of cases at trial.

Is tha point under contention?

---

yes

you create essentially a freeroll for the plaintiff attorney. even if they go to trial and the damage award is less than the attorney wanted, it's irrelevant to him now b/c he can stick the defendant with his bill (instead of using his contingency fee payment structure that he would with a large damage award)

quote:

---

For example if the defense offers $50K and the plaintiff refuses and continues the case to court and the defense incurs another $10000 in cost but the court rules the liability is only $50000 then the plaintiff only gets $40000 and is out the additional cost he paid his attorney.

---

that's not "loser pays" bro

in "loser pays" the plaintiff would only get $40,000 and then the defense would have to pay the entire legal bill for the plaintiff, b/c it lost. you are describing the plaintiff winning as the plaintiff losing and that makes no sense

quote:

---

So loser pay is not just about liability. It is about losing and winning the liability amount too. You can't turn down reasonable settlements without incurring the risk of additional cost to the defendant.

---

you are creating some sort of system where you're defining "loser pays" in terms of the damages and liability. nobody else is using that merged system. also, this is already in place in LA with the offer of judgment

quote:

---

the English rule (capitalized as English Rule in some jurisdictions) is a rule controlling assessment of attorneys' fees arising out of litigation. The English rule provides that the party who loses in court pays the other party's attorney's fees.

---

that is only with respect to liability. that rule has nothing to do with some sort of damage "loss"

quote:

---

Every suit is frivolous except the one you file.

---

Silly statement.

quote:

---

Has anything specific to chiropractors been done in other states?

---

no idea. probably not b/c you may run into constitutional issues

but if they somehow craft a system where chiro treatment wasn't treated as regular medical treatment (or you cut off their ability to treat PI patients in the manner they're treated), the PI industry would implode

i only offered that as an olive branch to Russian to show that i was fully willing to tell him how he should look into actually hitting the PI system where it would hurt it (which loser pays would do the opposite)

2 other ways that the PI industry will die

1. self-driving cars

2. computerized adjusters

it's not a sustainable industry over the long-term which is why i began moving my focus to the sustainable legal avenues. i'll take a small PI case here or there for sure (i have one currently) but it's not my focus

Our governor is a liberal attorney.

Not a chance in hell he signs it if it passed.

another simple way to enact major tort reform that would really squeeze the factory firms is to lower the jury threshold to $0 (Which was proposed recently). they have this in TX and it really hurt the PI industry.

yet another simple change would be to disallow discussing insurance coverage during trial and/or removing the direct action statute that allows plaintiffs to sue the insurance company directly. again, TX did this