- 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: Do auto accident lawyers on TV commercials represent guilty parties?
Posted on 10/26/17 at 8:42 pm to udtiger
Posted on 10/26/17 at 8:42 pm to udtiger
quote:
Loser pays would solve a lot of these problems.
Actually, it would solve almost none of the issues. The vast majority of plaintiffs like the vast majority of the population is judgment proof.
2
Posted on 10/26/17 at 8:47 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Actually, it would solve almost none of the issues. The vast majority of plaintiffs like the vast majority of the population is judgment proof.
Please. Everyone has something to lose.
Posted on 10/26/17 at 9:31 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Actually, it would solve almost none of the issues. The vast majority of plaintiffs like the vast majority of the population is judgment proof.
That is why you make their lawyers responsible if the client can't pay.
Posted on 10/26/17 at 9:37 pm to Jim Smith
quote:
Please. Everyone has something to lose.
Please. Try to recover on a civil judgment against an average Joe and get back to me.
Posted on 10/26/17 at 9:45 pm to udtiger
quote:
That is why you make their lawyers responsible if the client can't pay.
First, a plaintiffs attorney is already on the hook for lots of time and money if a case loses including sanctions for frivolous actions.
Second, the chilling effect is arguably against the public policy of justice.
I get the whole tort reform movement but having been involved from both tables I can honestly say I say just as many people under-compensated than over-compensated.
Posted on 10/26/17 at 9:47 pm to udtiger
The mills are only keeping clear liability cases and I’m only keeping a case I know with reasonable certaintity I can win, so how does loser pays solve that?
Offer of judgment solves the discrepancy in the amount of damages within litigation, but loser pays won’t solve the rear end bump, $4,000 settlement the mills are built upon...
Offer of judgment solves the discrepancy in the amount of damages within litigation, but loser pays won’t solve the rear end bump, $4,000 settlement the mills are built upon...
This post was edited on 10/26/17 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 10/26/17 at 9:55 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
he mills are only keeping clear liability cases and I’m only keeping a case I know with reasonable certaintity I can win, so how does loser pays solve that?
Offer of judgment solves the discrepancy in the amount of damages within litigation, but loser pays won’t solve the rear end bump, $4,000 settlement the mills are built upon...
I disagree. It would give defendants an incentive to fight bullshite cases rather than pay "cost of defense."
It would also make defendants think twice about defending shaky cases.
OOJs don't work if you "zero" the other side. That's the case in state and federal court.
This post was edited on 10/26/17 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 10/26/17 at 10:55 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The mills are only keeping clear liability cases and I’m only keeping a case I know with reasonable certaintity I can win, so how does loser pays solve that? Offer of judgment solves the discrepancy in the amount of damages within litigation, but loser pays won’t solve the rear end bump, $4,000 settlement the mills are built upon...
Boosie... I like you, but this isn’t accurate.
Posted on 10/26/17 at 11:04 pm to ksayetiger
“Guilty” refers to a criminal case. In the context of a civil case it is “liable”. So I’m not sure what your question is.
If you’re asking whether they represent guilty parties in criminal matters - not likely
If you’re asking whether they represent parties liable for the accident, absolutely, though i imagine they try to weed them out. But clients lie. All the time
ETA: ah I see you are referring to the Defendant In a suit? If so, then no
Your question is poorly worded
If you’re asking whether they represent guilty parties in criminal matters - not likely
If you’re asking whether they represent parties liable for the accident, absolutely, though i imagine they try to weed them out. But clients lie. All the time
ETA: ah I see you are referring to the Defendant In a suit? If so, then no
Your question is poorly worded
This post was edited on 10/26/17 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 10/26/17 at 11:13 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
Oh, and I guess defense lawyers, insurance companies, and big business don't contribute to judges' campaigns. You are an idiot if you don't know that. Or a liar If you do.
Posted on 10/27/17 at 7:54 am to Elleshoe
Well go ahead and tell me why it’s not
This post was edited on 10/27/17 at 7:56 am
Posted on 10/27/17 at 8:11 am to udtiger
quote:
Loser pays would solve a lot of these problems.
Broke dicks on welfare with no assets would not be slowed by that rule.
But those of us with jobs and homes and such would be afraid to sue even on meritorious claims, lest a goofy judge or jury reject our claim (or our own lawyer fricked it up) and saddle us with a huge debt.
Posted on 10/27/17 at 8:35 am to Jim Smith
quote:
Mr. Smith is just tired of personal injury attorneys working cases up that have no merit, and is disappointed that certain doctors have sold their souls to personal injury attorneys.
And plaintiffs lawyers are tired of adjusters denying claims that have merit and also lying to claimants.
Plaintiffs lawyers are also disappointed that certain doctors have sold their soul to the defense bar
Posted on 10/27/17 at 10:27 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Oh, I have no idea either, but I fear I am about to have to learn. A doubled-with file where I have liability and UM. Plaintiff's vehicle garaged in Tx.
Nope. Not licensed in Texas. Fill me in.
Posted on 10/27/17 at 10:29 am to theronswanson
quote:
certain doctors have sold their soul to the defense bar
Posted on 10/27/17 at 10:29 am to AlxTgr
Only thing I know about Texas is they don’t pay shite unless you have the surgery and then once you do they pay much more than surgeries in Louisiana.
But let us know if there any interesting quirks in Texas that we could try here.
But let us know if there any interesting quirks in Texas that we could try here.
This post was edited on 10/27/17 at 10:34 am
Posted on 10/27/17 at 10:39 am to udtiger
quote:
Loser pays would solve a lot of these problems.
We have been though this so many times. So, what do you do when a case is a win on paper, but essentially a loss as it is only worth a few bucks ? Or, sometimes you know, it turns out you don't know about the merits of a case until after discovery. Pretty sure boosie or SFP have discussed the La. equivalent of this, but Mich has a pain the arse thing that works out kind of well where you have to pay the other side's post-discovery costs/fees if you don't do 10% better than the award your case evaluation panel puts on a case.
This post was edited on 10/27/17 at 10:42 am
Posted on 10/27/17 at 10:41 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Well go ahead and tell me why it’s not
If you think the mills only keep clear liability cases you’re wrong.
And if you think the average fee is 4,000 or they keep their lights on with 4,000 dollar cases you’re woefully wrong
Posted on 10/27/17 at 10:45 am to boosiebadazz
quote:The plaintiff was in course and scope as well. I may have to go back to school for this one.
But let us know if there any interesting quirks in Texas that we could try here.
Posted on 10/27/17 at 10:46 am to Elleshoe
This is correct.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News