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

quote:

---

If the demand for lawyers' services goes down because there a fewer negotiated settlements and civil trials, all lawyers will be affected, not just plaintiff attorneys.

---

link?

Sort of related--

I wonder just what JBE would give the legislature in exchange for the authority to launch the class action lawsuit he wants to launch against oil companies? He wants to give the lawsuit out on contingency to his buddies--some of whom he elk hunts with. (Thank you Bobby Jindal for making those contingency deals on behalf of the state harder to do and thank you AG Landry for resisting.)

All these leeches watched the tobacco lawyers make fortunes and all want to find a way to do it again. No telling what would be waiting for JBE after he left office in exchange for such a lawsuit---I suspect a partnership for nothing in one of the successful law firms that would happen to get the lawsuit on behalf of the state.

Michigan's system seems actually reasonable rather than assuming loser pays magically fixes things. Though admittedly I haven't read much in the actual impact of that system.

Also again, the demand my services is completely unrelated to torts period.

I do mostly ERISA work. The fees rules are harsh. I can get like a $1 judgment against a contractor for pension/health benefits, then stick them for liquidated damages, attorney fees, and interest. On the other side, I had to defend a class action and the plaintiffs are getting hourly fees, plus their 1/3 take of the pot.

quote:

---

Lower demand for any industry's services won't result in lower revenue for that industry?

---

Link?

quote:

---

quote:
To date no one has been able to give me a halfway intelligent answer.



You've had multiple people in the legal field address every damn "point" you have made.

---

Nah. All I've read here is NO! DON'T DO IT! The idea about lawyers will make more money is total bullshite. No rational person would come close to believing that.

I'm not a defender of the insurance industry. I believe the insurance industry and plaintiff lawyers need each other. Without each other both industries make less money.

What I am is an insurance consumer. And the current system screws insurance consumers because all of those frivolous lawsuits just get built into the insurance companies' rate base by insurance regulators.

quote:

---

Today the goal of a lot of attorneys is to sign up the plaintiffs, settle quick and pocket their fees. I wish there was some study on the number of plaintiffs that settled for much less than they should have because they were represented by leeches lacking the desire and perhaps the resources to actually pursue the case properly.

---

This is largely a correct criticism of our current system. Loser pays doesn't change this.

I will say this once again. Liability is not actually an issue in most of the cases filed in our system. If you call a lot of big PI firms, they will look at the police report immediately. If that report doesn't prove that the other driver was at fault, they probably don't take the case.

When your business model is mostly cases where your fee recovery is never at risk then loser pays doesn't change anything. Whether loser pays comes in or not, Morris Barr (et al) will be turning the same cases the same way.

Neither you nor Russian have provided any substantive rebuttal to this point.

quote:

---

There is no question we would have better legal representation under a loser pay system too

---

That is a completely unsupported conclusion. If anything it is only going to ale attorneys shy away from taking any legitimate case liability is even somewhat in question.

I would hate to see poor people with legitimate cases be prevented from access to the legal system just because they can't afford high priced attorneys.

But there are some people that shouldn't have any business suing for stupid shite. And people that make false accusations should be punished.