The Myth of the Frivolous Lawsuit

Download this article in PDF format

INTRODUCTION:

One of the catch phrases of tort reformers is “frivolous lawsuits” – a lawsuit that has no legal basis, or is so petty that the suit isn’t justified. Often, tort reformers cite high profile cases, such as the McDonalds coffee case to try and show that the court system is “broken” and “runaway juries” routinely award ridiculous verdicts in frivolous cases.

Tort reformers promise that the legislation they propose will put an end to frivolous lawsuits by putting up various barriers that will prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.

What tort reformers don’t tell you is that the legal system already has three safety mechanisms in place to prevent, dismiss, and correct frivolous lawsuits. The first mechanism, the contingent-fee agreement prevents frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.

THE CONTINGENT-FEE AGREEMENT:

Have you ever seen or heard an ad for an attorney who promises something like, “No cost to you unless we collect!”? Nearly every attorney that brings a lawsuit for a personal injury case does so under a contingent-fee agreement. While most people understand how the contingent-fee arrangement works, I’ll explain it in detail for those who do not.

Let’s say you’ve had an auto accident and decide to hire an attorney. If you shop around, you’ll find that contingent-fee agreements vary from attorney to attorney. Generally, they will range from anywhere from 25% to 50% of the total settlement or judgment you receive. For simplicity, we’ll say you hire an attorney on a 40% contingent-fee agreement. If you were to receive $10,000.00, the attorney would get $4,000.00 in that case as his fee, in addition to being reimbursed for any expenses he or she incurred in building your case. These expenses include obvious things like court filing fees and office expenses, but there some expenses in many cases that the general public doesn’t know about: expert witness fees.

What is an expert witness fee? Well, in most complicated cases – and virtually all medical malpractice cases – the plaintiff needs to hire expert witnesses to help prove his or her case.

In some states, you’re not even allowed to file a medical malpractice case without first having a report from an expert witness that says, in essence, the doctor in question committed malpractice.

All cases are gambles, no matter how strong the facts may be. When you hire an attorney on a contingent-fee basis, he’s gambling with his time and money. While attorneys are willing to gamble as to when, if, and how much they’ll get paid, expert witnesses generally are not.
Expert witnesses won’t wait until your case is over to get paid – they want to be paid up front, and it’s the attorney who has to pay them out of his or her pocket. As you might surmise, expert witnesses aren’t cheap: they’re highly qualified professionals who generally have high hourly fees.

What kind of expert witnesses might be needed in a given case? Let’s take some real-life examples of experts and what they charge:

Professional Engineers: If you’re suing a manufacturer because you got hurt by a product that you think was poorly designed, you’ll need a professional engineer. One engineer in Garland, Texas charges $225.00 per hour, with a 50% premium for deposition and court time. So, if that engineer spent ten hours reviewing a design, and five hours in court, that would cost your attorney almost $4,000.00. In a complicated design case, it’s not uncommon for several engineers to spend fifty or more hours evaluating the product.

Doctors: If you have a medical malpractice case, or any case where the extent of your injuries is called into question, you’ll need to hire a doctor as an expert witness. Doctors, as you might guess, are expensive. Plan on having your attorney spend around $250.00 per hour, possibly twice that much for a well-regarded specialist. In a complicated medical case, you may need three or more doctors, each of whom may have to spend ten to twenty hours – an out-of-pocket cost to your lawyer of $10,000.00 or more.

Nurses: You’ll probably need a nurse in any case where you need a doctor. While they’re not as expensive as doctors, they’ll still be around $75.00 an hour. Just like doctors, they’ll also probably have to spend ten to twenty hours on a case - $750.00 or more from your lawyer’s checking account.

Surprisingly, finding expert witnesses isn’t easy. Often, a lawyer will have to “shop around” for experts. That means your lawyer will spend time finding experts with the right qualifications for your case. Then, he or she would gather all the pertinent materials and send them to an expert for review. Sometimes, the expert will review the records and say that they’re not interested in the case. Or perhaps they’ll review the records and not find anything helpful to your case. Either way, the expert will still have to be paid, and it’s your lawyer who will have to pay them. It’s not uncommon to go through two or three experts, and several thousand dollars, before the “right” expert is found. Of course, it’s also not uncommon for a lawyer to think his or her client has a great case, only to be told by several experts that the case has little or no merit. In such an instance, that lawyer will be out-of-pocket thousands of dollars, and the client will owe nothing to the attorney – thanks to the contingent-fee agreement.

Now, if you were a lawyer with a contingent-fee agreement, would you be willing to spend thousands of your own dollars and hundreds of hours on a case you’re not confident you can win? If your answer is “no” to that question, then you’ve just seen how contingent-fee agreements prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed.

While contingent-fee agreements prevent frivolous lawsuits, they also do something even more important: They provide access to the courts to everyone. In general, a lawyer’s hourly fee will be anywhere from $100 to $300 an hour. Not many people can afford to pay that kind of money to an attorney for more than a few hours. If you were to have to pay an hourly fee to an attorney to bring a complicated injury case to trial, you might have to spend $50,000 on the attorney. If contingent-fee agreements were abolished, two things would happen: Only the rich would be able to file lawsuits, and attorneys would be far more willing to file a lawsuit that doesn’t have merit; when you’re paid by the hour, it doesn’t matter if you win or lose.

No case is “easy”, and in general, the more complicated the case, the harder it is to win. Contingent-fee agreements are what attract lawyers to the complicated cases. Contingent-fee agreements are what drive lawyers to take those cases to trial, instead of settling for a fraction of what the case is really worth. Contingent-fee agreements are what allow the poorest of the poor to hold corporate juggernauts accountable for their actions in court of law.

Is it any surprise then that some special interest groups are attacking the contingent-fee agreement? They argue that it’s not fair for attorneys to take such a “large percentage” of any recovery of their clients. Their arguments have worked: Some states have put limits on the percentage an attorney can take.

Damage caps and attorney-fee caps work together to make the complicated cases less enticing for lawyers, and the consequence is that those who traditionally receive large jury verdicts – the catastrophically injured, or the families of those who are killed – won’t be able to find attorneys to bring their case to court. The corporate entities that support tort reform won’t be held accountable when they act irresponsibly or unethically, and will instead enter into confidential settlement agreements with those who are harmed by their products.

The irony is that as those corporate entities take away the individual’s right to a jury trial, they’re doing it under the guise of protecting the public from “greedy lawyers.”

So, what happens if an inept lawyer decides to file a frivolous lawsuit? The second safety mechanism, the Summary Judgment, would be used to dismiss the suit.

THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

Tort reformers say that the courts are overwhelmed with “frivolous lawsuits” – lawsuits that have no legal basis, or are so petty as to not be worth the time of the court system. They say that to protect the justice system, we need to make it harder for individuals to file lawsuits.

But what if instead of putting barriers up that could prevent legitimate lawsuits from being filed, there was a tool that could quickly and easily dismiss frivolous lawsuits? What if this tool not only dismissed frivolous lawsuits, but could also be used to force the plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits to pay the attorney fees of the defendant? This tool not only exists, but has been in use in America since 1937 ; it’s called the Summary Judgment.

The purpose of the summary judgment is to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial. When a party files a motion for summary judgment, they’re telling the court that there is no need for trial because the facts and law applicable to the case would prevent the other side from winning.

We’ll use a fictitious car wreck as an example of how a summary judgment would dispose of a frivolous lawsuit:

Mr. Smith runs a red light and slams into Mr. Jones. Mr. Smith claims the light was green, but two witnesses say the light was red. Mr. Smith is given a citation from a police officer for running a red light. Mr. Smith decides to sue Mr. Jones for mental anguish.

Mr. Jones hires a lawyer. Mr. Jones’ lawyer spends a few hours drafting a motion for summary judgment. At the end of the motion, Mr. Jones’ lawyer requests he be awarded attorney’s fees from Mr. Smith because the lawsuit is frivolous.

The lawyer for Mr. Jones files his motion for summary judgment, and includes with it pictures of the accident scene, affidavits from the witnesses, an affidavit from the police officer, an affidavit from Mr. Jones, and a copy of the police report. All of the affidavits and the police report say that Mr. Smith ran a red light.

In such a case, the judge would most likely grant the summary judgment, and Mr. Smith’s lawsuit would be dismissed. The judge could also decide to order Mr. Smith to pay for Mr. Jones’ attorney’s fees. In the end, Mr. Jones wouldn’t be out any money, and Mr. Smith would have had his day in court.

The requirements for summary judgment vary from state to state, but in general, you need to show the court two things:

1: That the facts clearly support your side. In Texas, for example, you have to show that “reasonable and fair minded people” cannot possibly come to different conclusions about what the evidence shows. If reasonable and fair minded people could come to different conclusions about the facts of the case, then summary judgment shouldn’t be granted.

2: That the law is clearly on your side. A common use of the summary judgment is to dispose of lawsuits where the statute of limitations has passed. Many states have a four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract. So, if you bought a car in 1995 and tried to sue the dealer for breach of contract in 2000, you wouldn’t legally be able to win – the statute of limitations would bar you from recovery – and the judge would grant the car dealer’s motion for summary judgment. In medical malpractice lawsuits, there is a two-year statute of limitations.

Summary judgments have disposed of frivolous lawsuits for decades. They allow a defendant in a frivolous lawsuit to get out of the case quickly and without the expense of a full-fledged trial. Often, the defendants are even awarded their attorney’s fees for preparation of the motion for summary judgment.

The bottom line is that because of the summary judgment, very few “frivolous lawsuits” ever make it to trial. It could even be argued that any case that makes it past summary judgment can’t be a frivolous lawsuit because a judge – not a “runaway jury” – decided that the case had enough merit to present to a jury.

Tort reformers want to make it hard for you to file a lawsuit, harder for you to win a lawsuit, and impossible for you to collect a meaningful amount of money in a case involving serious or permanent injury. To accomplish these goals, they claim that frivolous lawsuits and runaway juries are destroying the justice system. However, tort reformers don’t talk about how summary judgments have been effectively used for over 100 years to dispose of untold thousands of lawsuits.

The next time someone tries to persuade you that we need more barriers to filing lawsuits, ask them why they don’t think the summary judgment is getting the job done.

Let’s assume that a frivolous lawsuit makes it past summary judgment and a “runaway jury” awards more money then they should. Several judicial remedies exist to correct these verdicts.

DIRECTED VERDICTS:

Most people think that a jury can make whatever decision they want. This isn’t the case at all. A judge can issue a directed verdict, which tells the jury that they must make a certain decision. Usually, a directed verdict is used when something comes out at trial that prevents the other side from winning as a matter of law. For example, it could come out that a key event happened so long ago that the statute of limitations prevents the plaintiff from winning. In such a case, there would most likely be a directed verdict for the defendant.

Less often, the evidence in a case is so strong that the judge feels that there can be only one verdict, and he or she would order the jury to return that verdict. One example would be a case where someone caught the auto accident in question on videotape, and the tape clearly shows that one of the parties to the lawsuit ran a red light, and is therefore at fault. In such a case, the judge may direct the jury to find in favor of the person who did not run the red light.
Directed verdicts are more common in criminal cases than in civil cases, because the summary judgment would typically be used to dispose of a civil case before a jury trial. However, directed verdicts can and do dispose of civil lawsuits without merit.

JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (JNOV):

Everyone is familiar with the concept of appealing a decision; if you lose your case, you can generally appeal it to a higher court. However, not everyone is familiar with a Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict (JNOV). JNOV is an acronym for Judgment non obstante veredicto, which is Latin for “notwithstanding the verdict”.

A losing party in a lawsuit can often file a motion with the court requesting a JNOV. A JNOV is one of the ways that a judge can reduce the dollar amount of a verdict. Some states require that an attorney file a motion for a JNOV, while other states allow a judge to issue a JNOV sua sponte, which is Latin for “of its own accord.”

A JNOV can set aside an entire verdict, or just parts of a verdict. Here’s a good example of how a JNOV could correct an improper jury verdict:

In many states, if a jury finds that the conduct of a defendant in a lawsuit was “knowing” and/or “intentional”, the court must double or triple the amount of a jury verdict. Let’s assume that in a medical malpractice case, a doctor made an honest mistake. Maybe he transposed the numbers in a prescription, and the plaintiff ended up taking too much medication. But, for whatever reason, the jury found that this honest mistake was intentional, and awarded $100,000 dollars. Because the doctor’s conduct was found by the jury to be intentional, the judge would have to award the plaintiff $300,000 dollars. However, if the evidence was very convincing that this was an honest mistake, a JNOV could eliminate the finding of the jury that the doctor’s conduct was intentional, and the plaintiff would be awarded only the $100,000 dollar jury verdict.

Directed verdicts and JNOV’s are two mechanisms that judges have available to prevent juries from awarding damages when they should not, and to reduce jury verdicts that are clearly excessive. Of course, tort reformers don’t tell the public about these tools; they want to be able to prevent these large jury verdicts from ever occurring, and to prevent the bad press that accompanies the verdicts.

SETTLING AFTER A DECISION:

In many cases, such as the famed McDonald’s coffee case, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit will settle the case for less than they were awarded. In the McDonalds case, Stella Liebeck was awarded $2.7 million dollars, and the judge reduced the award to $480,000. Stella settled with McDonalds for a confidential amount less than $480,000.

Plaintiffs and plaintiff’s attorneys are often motivated to settle because a settlement means they won’t have to go through a lengthy and potentially risky appeals process. This is where big companies have the advantage over individual plaintiffs: A major corporation can afford to spend time and money to drag a case out for years. Settlements are extremely common, and are yet another way that very large jury verdicts are reduced.

APPEALING THE DECISION:

The majority of cases where a jury awards millions of dollars are appealed, and many times, those verdicts are reduced or overturned on appeal. For example, in the Igen case that was discussed earlier, the appellate court reduced the $505 million dollar verdict down to $19 million dollars– a $486 million dollar reduction.

While some verdicts are reduced, others are overturned entirely by appellate courts. It’s important to realize that the judges in appellate courts aren’t overly emotional jurors, but are seasoned judges who place far more weight upon the legal issues in a case then on the emotional issues. As such, incredibly large jury verdicts are rarely upheld by the many appellate courts in our country.

Despite what tort reformers claim, large jury verdicts are the exception, and not the rule. When juries do return large verdicts, the plaintiffs usually settle for less than verdict or see the verdict reduced or overturned by an appellate court.

Our justice system is a system of checks and balances. Before someone can even bring a case, they have to convince an attorney that their case is worth gambling time and money on. The contingent-fee agreement weeds out countless cases that have no merit. Once an attorney accepts the case, a judge will most likely scrutinize the facts and law applicable to the case through a summary judgment. If the judge decides that the case has merit, then the case will be presented to an impartial jury of twelve men and women. If those twelve men and women are convinced that the plaintiff has proven his or her case, the jury will then rule in favor of the plaintiff, and award compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge has an opportunity to modify, reduce, or set aside the jury’s verdict. Then, the defendant has an opportunity to appeal his case to higher courts, and even more experienced judges can then modify, reduce, or set aside a jury’s verdict.

The burden of proof in any case is always on the plaintiff; the deck is stacked in favor of the defendants in both civil and criminal cases. Multimillion-dollar jury verdicts rarely survive the appeals process. Yet tort reformers continue to argue that we need more barriers to file lawsuits, and statutory limitations on how much money can be awarded in the lawsuits we’re able to file. The reason is that the big corporations who push for tort reform don’t want the bad press and public scrutiny that accompanies trials where people are severely injured or killed. Instead, they prefer to enter into confidential settlements that the public never knows about.

Tort reform isn’t about fixing a “broken” justice system; it’s about protecting the public image and bottom lines of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world. Tort reform isn’t about protecting doctors from high insurance rates; it’s about protecting their insurers from having to pay large judgments. Tort reform isn’t about keeping “greedy lawyers” from filing frivolous lawsuits; it’s about keeping those who are severely injured out of the court system and away from the public eye.

Comments

[Marlene]

I filed a lawsuit against Olin corp for religious harassment and retaliation for filing the complaint with the eeoc. The eeoc investigated the claim and issued a determination in my favor that there was"overwhelming evidence that I had indeed been religiously harassed by my supervisor and retaliated against for reporting the harassment.
The judge put a time constraint on the evidence to support my claim regardless that a recent court decision set presidence to allow such evidence into the courts if for nothing but to prove pattern of the harassment.
He also barred all my doctors' from testifying and some witnesses.
In order to appeal these restrictions I had to first go through the trial and then appeal to the appelate court. This judge then turned around and socked me with attorney fees, etc. in the amount of $100,000.00!!! for bringing a friviolous lawsuit to court.
Who was bought off here? With judges like this who needs tort reform? Corruption at the highest level!!!
The language this judge used against me in his determination has put a barrier in even relieving this $100,000.00 judgement through bankruptcy.
My advise is to avoid Judge David Herndon and request a different judge who is not corrupt.

[Chris]

I lost my husband 6 1/2 years ago. After 5 long, sad insufferable days at a shock trama hospital, he finally died of massive injuries, from an on-the-job accident that never should have happened. Had this huge corporation inplaced safety features, and not allowed him near something that was ready to blow, he'd be here right now, and I'd not here writing this.

And what does the state my late husband and I were born in, and loved (at one time) do to us (I say us because when they treat me horribly, they might as well dig him up and tread on him as well), this huge law firm protecting the big corp and out of state insurance company plays a double trick on my ex-uneducated laywers - they place us on a reconstructive bankrupcty life out of state, while working overtime to past a better contributory negligence law.

Now, I'm told no one will care if I write about this. News, media, whatever - I'll be "old news after 2 weeks time." And they want to settle, but no mention of an amount, rather they used mediation which was utilized only to make my lawyer and me think we're not worthy of winning anything and now I'm told that they "want to get this over with before xmas," as I watch them offer a sinfully sad amount to his son. If they're innocent, why offer anything to him?

But me... no, I represent my late husband. The one that's lost in this sad shuffle. I will say this publically, if some "one" does not show me true care and compassion for my poor husband and all the suffering he, and yes I have been through, I will continue to write about it till it makes the bookshelves, fearlessly.

There's more to it. But hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

It's not the plaintiff's lawyer that's greedy, nor the plaintiff. It's big corporations/businesses and their circle of high ranking friends from insurance companies, legislatures/politicians, and yes, even their own law firm members that have seats in local appeal courts.

Talk about "thinking" they have it all wrapped up, and I've yet to ask for a dime.

One very sad widow on the East Coast that refuses to give up.

[Maureen Allen]

Was impressed with this website. Will direct my corporations and bankruptcies writing instructor to this website.

[Dave G.]

I love this site. Most of my opinions are already formed, well supported, and sometimes, although rarely change drastically. The case of the McDonalds coffee lady, however, is one time when my opinion is completely changed. Where before I was quick to dismiss her as clumsy and whining about hot coffee causing her minor discomfort, and thinking this was all a frivilous lawsuit, I was wrong. What my media sources failed to mention was this was an ongoing problem, the severity of her burns, and a few other facts I learned form this site. Outstanding job explaining all of this to the world!

[Brenda]

Are you people serious? If you spill coffee on yourself, you spill coffee on yourself. If you're dumb enough to put your RV in Cruise and go to the back and expect it to keep to the road, you're the one to blame. These lawsuits need to stop before people are afraid to go outside for fear of getting sued for running into someone and causing them to bruise their finger. It's ridiculous. People are way too lazy and greedy and should be turned down the moment they bring up cases like the ones above. What happened to people's morality? I'm extremely disappointed.

[Melanie]

I was a legal assistant in a personal injury law firm for four years. While there, I saw son sue mother, brother sue brother, co-worker sue co-worker.

I remember cases like a man who sued his landlord because he said part of the bathroom ceiling collapsed on him while he was taking a shower. But his son testifies that he heard a loud crash and when he went into the bathroom he found his father on the floor, fully dressed. How can you be fully dressed if you are taking a shower? The man was obviously lying in order to get a settlement from the landlord.

A son sued his mother-in-law because he slipped on her ice covered steps. Stupid, it’s you own fault for walking on steps covered in ice!

The very fact that attorney fees and expert witness fees are so expensive is why many insurance companies, instead of fighting frivolous lawsuits, simply settle. IT IS CHEAPER TO SETTLE THAN TO PAY WHAT IT COSTS TO FIGHT A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT IN COURT. THAT IS WHY SETTLEMENTS ARE SO COMMON. Not because of any of the so called “checks and balances” you talk about. Insurance companies pay off frivolous lawsuits, and pass the cost off onto taxpayers through increased premiums. People hear about someone winning a huge amount of money in a settlement and believe that they can sue too, for any ridiculous reason, thus the problem perpetuates itself.

I would see injured clients come into the office, acting as if they had won the lotto, because they knew they were going to receive a big settlement. Even if the lawyer did get his cut, an attorney once told me that they always start the claims at $1,000,000, since anything less than that would look suspicious to a judge. And even if the attorney took half, (1/3 for attorney fees, plus court expenses), $50,000 is still a lot of money to the average human being who doesn’t even make that much money in an entire year. Even receiving a settlement of $6,000 is a nice hunk of change for some people.

On the other side of the spectrum, I knew of a man, whose hand was permanently damaged while on the job. His supervisor had ordered to him to do tie down a cargo bin into a flatbed with a strap. He did not normally do this, since he was a driver and it was not part of his job to secure cargo. The strap flew off the cargo bin and the buckle part caught his hand, injuring it to the point where he can not use it. However, since he could not prove that the cause of his injury was the strap, he could not sue the manufacturer of the strap. He could not sue his job for lost wages since he could not prove it was his job’s fault that he was injured. However, the doctors have told him he will never be able to use that hand again.

I was so sickened by seeing these kinds of law suits every day I finally had to quit my job as a legal assistant.

The whole system is screwed up. I do not think putting on a cap in jury verdicts would help, because some people are genuinely injured and deserve the money. However, you also have people who abuse the system and get away with it, and that is how the system fails.

[Ben Glass]

Hey, this is a terrific website. Those who support tort reform can go to our site, www.tort-reform.com and get a form they can use with their doctors. Go ahead and sign up if you all think tort-reform is such a great idea. Read the form carefully before signing!

[Lee]

Estimates are that 48,000 to 96,000 people are killed every year through medical negligence in the United States. That's killed, not merely maimed or injured.

Any discussion of tort reform should include suggestions for reducing the malpractice! Perhaps a review panel of doctors, lawyers and victims who have the authority to pull a doctor's license.

I have seen suits that are "built up", but in 12 years of defending personal injury cases, I have seen maybe one "frivolous" lawsuit. As you state, lawyers just aren't willing to take them. Plus, in my state, there are no frivolous medical malpractice suits. The barriers are too high for the plaintiffs.

Keep up the good work.

[Frank]

The people paying for this website and advertising campaign are only interested in profits and money. Any lawyer can build up their case with hack expert witnesses who will say anything for money. Any lawyer with experience knows dozens of expert witnesses, and there are many Lawyer Resources which will find the best witnesses for any kind of case. The Tort System is a whole lot of Fraud. Lawyers routinely rehearse the testimony of the witnesses, and malingering is encouraged. Nobody makes any money if the victim gets better.

[Justinian Lane]

First off, the "people" paying for this website is one college student - I'm not affiliated with, or working for a lawyer. I've also yet to receive one cent in revenue, let alone profit from this web site.

Second, the comments you make about lawyers apply equally to defense lawyers. In fact, defense lawyers usually end up hiring the "best" expert witnesses because their clients can pay for them.

And finally, you obviously have no idea how personal injury lawsuits work: You claim malingering is encouraged. Lawyers don't file lawsuits until the injuer party gets better. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a concrete figure for economic damages, and there wouldn't an appropriate frame of reference for noneconomic damages.

It's usually - ok, always - defendants that want to draw out a lawsuit. After all, the "greedy plaintiff" wants to get his or her money asap.

[RC]

[note i am not a doctor or lawyer] Tort reform is not a scam, and cannot be dismissed as a such; it is an issue that involves a variety of situations. I'd like to put into perspective a few issues regarding medical malpractice. Doctors all over the country have seen the rates for medical malpractice insurance skyrocket. At first glance this does not seem like an issue that is worth sympathy. But it has important repercussions, as physicians are being forced to relocate and it is driving away the the best and the brightest from the the field. Especially for the vast numbers of doctors that provide care for the indigent. Often 50% of a physicians patients do not have insurance, especially in the poorer states of the south.

When a doc is found to have been "negligent" there are two rewards, economic and non-economic. The economic rewards are fair, they are calculated by past and future lost wages, etc. and are often very high. But the non-economic damages are completely arbitrary, they consist of the amount equal to the "pain and suffering" of the plaintiff. This is what the reformers want to be capped, generally at $250,000. Caps of this nature are already in place in many states but they are to protect public institutions for the good of the public. However most surgeons that work in a public hospital are under a private practice, and the consensus in the medical community is that they should apply to them as well. (joint and several liability is often used to drag private doctors into suits against public hospitals) This would remove uncertainty and help keep insurance costs down as they would be better able to approximate future law suits.

I'd like to give a few insights into what a malpractice suit is like from a doctors perspective. The "expert witnesses" are always from out of state, and are paid very well. They are not subject to local peer review and thus are inclined to present the viewpoint that favors the plaintiff. Lawyers are very skilled at what they do and the system works greatly to their benefit. A general discourse goes something like this, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a civil case. We are not saying that Dr. Smith is guilty of a crime, but rather feel that the plaintiff, deserves compensation for his hardships. This doctor has malpractice insurance for situations just like this, he will not lose a dime, but will go back to work Monday morning. But the plaintiff will not." Evidence of this is seen in the fact that the highest number of malpractice suits are against ob/gyn. Childbirth can be very emotional and is very effective in garnering the jurors sympathies. Oftentimes the doctor is said to have birthed the baby too early or too late, etc. And the experts can be found on both sides of the fence. But the jurors will always side with the child that has a birth defect, even if the doctor follow all standard procedures. Obstetrician/Gynecologists have the highest med malpractice rates because lawsuits are so easy to win and lawyers have such an emotional advantage. The argument that malpractice suits are for the good of the public and increase the quality of health care is not valid. Most cases of obvious negligence are settled out of court and never go to trial. The cases that do go to trial are not beneficial to the public good, medicine is not an exact science and so these cases generally could be argued either way by the medical community and involve lots of what-ifs. However the system is greatly weighted against the medical community.

I think that corporate tort reform is very different than medical malpractice tort reform. Doctors do not withhold information like tobacco companies and are completely different than a corporation, they never involve class action. They simply want to practice medicine and it is amazing how difficult that is becoming. I think the public has a misconception on how wealthy doctors really are. The average general surgeon makes less than a plumber per hour. Medicare and Medicaid barely cover administrative costs, the added burden of malpractice insurance that is 40% of what a doctor makes per year is not fair and not in the interest of the public Our country's physicians, do not deserve to be treated so poorly by the courts.

[craig]

The one thing that proponents of tort reform refuse to look at is fact. Reading some of these comments left me baffled. It is amazing how poeple can be so passionate about something like tort reform and not even know the facts. Frankly, they do not have a single clue as to what they are talking about. Brenda lets talk about your comments. You speak of morality and laziness. How ethical or "moral" is it to deny an American citizen's Constitutional right to trial by jury? How ethical, and lazy for that matter, is knowingly giving a person a cup of scalding hot coffee that is not humanly possible to consume without 3rd degree burn and doing nothing about it? Coffee so hot that it mutilates the flesh causing it to stick to your clothes so that it peels off when the clothing is removed? RC, have you looked at one statistic regarding Doc's premium's? In States where strict caps have been enforced on non-economic damages, doctor's insurance premiums instead of going down, go up, i.e. Texas.

[Seth]

The bottom line is that it is impossible to put a price on a human life. To even think that money can replace what a child, a wife, or husband loses is a very sad comment on our society. The people who push for tort reform represent a side of this country that is becoming stronger and more frightening everyday. A group that tries to quantify everything in dollars and cents. Also I would venture to guess that not one of them has ever had a family member lost in a neglectful act.
This is not an issue of right and wrong. Tort reform is simply wrong. It is an issue of money. I don't know of any person that would trade their wife, husband or their children for any amount of money. The money that is given to these people in these lawsuits is given in order to help the family cope with the situation and to punish those responsible. It is not viewed as a big payday worthy of the loss endured by the family.
Insurance companies are not your friends. This goes to any doctors out their too. Your malpractice insurance is not your friend. They feed you with lies of runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits in order to raise you premiums. There are many procedures that stop this from happening. From appeals to attorney fee awards. A lawyer does not make money with frivolous lawsuits. Insurance companies thrive on your fear of the worst happening and when it does not wanting to help. They are powered by one thing and that is money, to think that they will stop raising premiums ever is ridiculous.

[Maggie]

Lets say I was cooking and on accident I knock the hot pan off the stove and the hot oil burns my foot pretty bad. So now I decide I am going to sue. So now heres my problem do i sue the stove maker because it caused the oil to get hot, or do I sue the maker of the pan because I was able to knock it off. I know Ill sue both even thought I have been cooking 30 something years and know that hot oil will burn me just like coffie will. But yet out of my own stupitiy and knowing it was hot I still can blame someone else for it and make money at the same time. What this boils down to that people are no longer willing to stand up and take the blame and admitte they were at fault. The only thing i see missing in this law suits is common sence

[David Tompkins]

1) Lawyers are not allowed in any jurisdiction to argue to the jury that a doctor has malpractice insurance. Rather, the Doctor gets to complain that he will go bankrupt if the award is large.

2) To all those that do not trust juries to adequately evaluate what "pain and suffering" is worth, why do we allow the SAME JURORS to determine who lives and who dies in criminal cases involving the death penalty. These same jurors are capable of putting a man or woman to death, to condemn a person after hearing the facts, but they cannot determine how much a person killed at a negligent doctor's hand is worth? Our county was founded on the jury system (civil and criminal) as a bedrock of liberty (we trust our freedom to our neighbors not to the government.)

3) The litigation explosion everyone refers to is an explosion of inter-corporate lawsuits (Kellogs suing Texaco over the use of a Tiger logo, sheezz...) The number of personal injury lawsuits has remained relatively stable over the years.

4) Would Vioxx have been pulled but for the threat of litigation? The answer is absolutely not. This corporate entity lied to regulators and hid faulty data to get the heavily hyped drug to the masses. Regulators cannot handle these matters, they must be addressed directly between victims and the corporations.

[James M. Ryan]

I found this site to be very informative. I did not know as much about tort law as I thought and am rethinking my attitudes about tort reform. I am a retired physician.

However, I am still a bit cynical about the tort/contingency fee system not because I am a retired physician but because I was a plaintiff in a personal injury suit.

First, as a bit of background, while I was working full time for the VA Hospital in Albany, NY, I had a problem with which to deal which affected my status as a physician. I consulted an attorney for advice. He gave me advice and charged me. I had more problems a couple of years later and again consulted this attorney. I told him I would write up my situation, bring it to his office for his review and asked him to get back to me. He agreed to do so, with the understanding he would charge me for his services. After I left my write up at his office, he never got back to me.

In late November of 2000, my wife and I were involved in a violent rear end collision. We were stopped at an intersection signalling to turn left. In back of us was some 17 year old who thought she could speed and talk on a cell phone at the same time. She kept speeding and talking on her cell phone until she rammed the rear of my van. I suffered a head injury which resulted in 3 major surgical procedures on my head, a post traumatic seizure disorder, permanent post traumatic cognitive and motor defecits. The kid inflicted a lot of mayhem on my life and on my wife's life the cost of which we could not cover. We decided to file suit and looked for an attorney to represent us. Considering the circumstances, I believe that any attorney in the Albany NY area would have believed the chances of recovery were excellent.

The attorney whom I had earlier consulted called me and offered to represent me. Basically, when I had become a plaintiff in an easily winnable personal injury lawsuit, when whoever I retained to represent me had an excellent chance of collecting a big contingency fee, I became much more desirable to him as a client. I turned down his offer of representation.

I retained another attorney, a partner in one of the more prestigious law firms in the Albany NY area, on a contingency fee basis. When we reached the deposition phase, my attorney called me and advised me to agree to a request by the Defense attorneys, to postpone depositions indefinitely. He said, the defense attorneys admitted liability and were ready to settle. Before making a settlement offer, they wanted to review my medical record and satisfy themselves that my injury was due to the accident. They wanted to save their clients the cost and hassle of the depositions. My attorney assured me there would be a settlement offer within a few weeks.

Four weeks later, after we had heard nothing from my attorney, I called his office. I was told he had not heard from the defense attorneys. For the subsequent four weeks, I made repeated calls to my attorney who in turn said he had made calls to the defense attorneys which had not been returned. To get the case going again, my wife and I had to very forcefully insist that the depositions be rescheduled. My attorney kept advising us to wait for a settlement offer. I learned subsequently that the defense attorneys had no intention at the time of making a meaningful settlement offer.

After my wife and I were deposed, I received a letter from the senior partner in the firm. He said he would be taking over my case, once all depositions were taken. Shortly thereafter there was a notice in the Albany Times Union that my original attorney was leaving the firm, along with two other attorneys, to set up their own firm.

My opinion of what happened is this. When my original attorney decided to go on his own, the senior partner told him he would not be taking my case to his new firm. My original attorney decided, if he was not going to collect the 6 figure contingency fee for his firm, he was not going to devote much time to his clients, my wife and me. He put the case on the back burner. He hung my wife and me out to dry.

The senior partner did represent us effectively. Defense attorneys settled the case rather than defend it and we recovered a significant award. But, I now wonder just how much trial lawyers really care about a client's injuries. My attorneys seemed to care mainly about how much my injuries would profit their law firms.

[Trial Attorney]

I am proud to be a trial attorney. I have read the comments on this board and have mixed feelings. I am completely opposed to tort reform efforts, but at the same time, disappointed by some of the comments posted concerning people's personal experience with other trial lawyers and the tort system.

I oppose tort reform because it is bad for families. The only one that benefits from tort reform is big business and insurance companies. Not one aspect of tort reform is good for families. Simply because people have had a bad experience with the tort system does not mean the whole system needs overhauled. Overall, the system works. There are people who try to take advantage of it. I want nothing to do with those people, whether they are lawyers or fraudulent claimaints. Those people make it difficult for me to get my clients fair compensation when they are legitimately entitled to receive it.

However, tort reformers want to throw out the baby with the bath water. That's not the answer. There is no way to enact wide spread, pro-business and pro-insurance legislation without hurting families that have been legitimately devestated by someone else's neglect.

Caps on damages are not the answer. I can say from my years in practice that I have never represented a client that got paid too much. The opposite is normally the case. All of my clients would willingly give back the money they received in settlement if the tragedy that caused them to receive the settlement could be undone. Unfortunately, those stories are apparently not press worthy. You only here about the McDonald's coffee cases of the world and you only hear a very distorted view of what really happened in those cases.

In my view, the cost one family has to pay for falling through the cracks of tort reform and being left in the cold for the rest of their life is not worth any alleged benefit that tort reform would bring. I see this very similar to the criminal system. Though I am a trial attorney, I have very conservative views of the criminal justice system. I believe those who commit crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and those deserving of death, should receive that as a sentence. However, when push comes to shove, I would rather see a guilty person set free than an innocent person put to death. The same is true of the civil justice system. The system has numerous safeguards to guard against frivolous claims. Despite those, some may still get compensated. However, there is no way to weed out the frivolous claims by simply enacting laws that apply across the board. The lawyers, judges and juries have an obligation to weed them out. I believe that generally happens.

For the person that said lawyers encourage malingering, I would say you need to turn those lawyers in to their Bar Association. Lawyers have an obligation and duty to be candid with the court. I always encourage my clients to get back to work as soon as they possibly can because if they don't, the jury will hold that against them. Despite what some might have you think, juries are very critical of personal injury plaintiffs. If they suspect the plaintiff is trying to pull one over on them, they send them home with nothing, as they should. Additionallly, doctors are very keen at identifying malingerers. Remember, in every personal injury case that is filed, the defense has a doctor examine that person and testify. Those doctors have no reservations about telling the jury if they suspect malingering. From what I have seen over the years, if a doctor credibly tells the jury a person is malingering, the jury gives that person nothing, not even their medical expenses.

I would like to address a couple of other points made on here. One point is that trial attorneys always hire out of state experts in med mal cases because they are willing to say anything. I disagree. Every attorney I know that practices med mal makes every effort they can to find a local doctor to testify in their case. However, the truth is that you cannot get a doctor in the same state to testify because of either an unwritten code of ethics that prevent doctors within the same community from testifying that one of their colleagues was negligent or you have a situation where all of the doctors in the state are insured by the same malpractice carrier, which strongly discourages, if not prohibits, the doctors it insures from testifying against another doctor that is insured by the same med mal carrier.

The next point I would like to make is that I am sickened every time I hear pro tort reformers repeat lies that they have been fed. If I were a tort reform proponent and found out that all of the horror stories I had heard about that caused me to feel so strongly were false, I would be angry. I say this because of the reference above about the Winnegago case where the guy sued because he set the cruise control and walked to the back of the RV, which resulted in the RV crashing. I hate to tell you this, but that story is an absolute lie. It is an urban myth. I hope you are just as outraged at the people promoting that lie as you were at the tort system when you thought it was true. If you are a fair minded person, you should be. There are a number of stories like that one floating around out there that are absolute lies. They have absolutely no factual basis and are being circulated by tort reform advocates with hopes that people will be outraged by the frivolous nature of the allegation and lash out at the tort system.

One thing I always find interesting is that as a lawyer, I have to prove my client's case if they are going to win. However, the tort reformers who scream about all of the frivolous lawsuits have no proof. All of their claims are exaggerated, at a minimum, or total lies. If their case for tort reform was taken to court, assuming they could find a lawyer willing to handle the frivolous suit, it would be thrown out by the judge when they produced a bunch of myths to support their case.

For example, insurance rates haven't surged the last five years due to frivolous lawsuits. They are rising because insurance companies make money off the stock market. When the stock market went bad, so did their returns, which required them to seek rate increases. If you want the truth, go look at the documents the insurance companies filed with your state insurance commissioner's office seeking a rate increase. They will clearly reflect that the rate increase is needed because they didn't get the expected return on their investments and because of unusually high catastrophic natural disasters such as hurricanes and, unfortunately, the fallout from Sept. 11.

Idealistically, I would love to live in a perfect world where we could hook up people to a fool-proof truth detector and have the machine analyze each claim and give the perfect result in every case. That will never happen, but I believe our current system is as close to that as we can ever achieve. The alternative is to enact laws that would unfairly penalize those with legitimate claims. Thank you for your time.

[Trial Attorney]

I forgot to include a link to "prove my case" concerning the Winnebago story.

Here it is:

www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050203/COLUMNIST36/502030625

[RICHARD M. STEWART]

AS A PARALEGAL FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS, IT NEVER FAILS TO AMAZE ME HOW IGNORANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE DISHONESTY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OTHER "BIG BUSINESS." HOWEVER, THE SUCCESS OF THE TORT-REFORMERS IS THE FAULT OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO GET THE ABA AND OUR STATE AND LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS TO EFFECTIVELY COMBAT THE SO-CALLED TORT-REFORMERS.

ATTORNEYS ARE REPUTED TO BE EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE AT EDUCATING AND CONVINCING PEOPLE, BUT THEY HAVE FAILED MISERABLY AT EDUCATING AND CONVINCING THE PUBLIC THAT TORT-REFORM WILL HURT, NOT BENEFIT OUR CITIZENS. IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS, EVERY TIME I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO ASSIST IN PICKING A JURY, THE QUESTION OF THE MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE IS BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF THE VENIRE AS AN EXAMPLE OF A RUNAWAY JURY. WILL SOME ATTORNEY PLEASE GO ON NATIONAL TV/RADIO AND TELL THE REAL FACTS OF THAT CASE. I TAKE GREAT PLEASURE IN HAVING MY "CONSERVATIVE" FRIENDS READ ONE OF SEVERAL ARTICLES REGARDING THE FACTS IN THAT CASE, PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT MCDONALDS' WITNESSES WERE CAUGHT IN LIES ON THE STAND. THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS BEATEN US INTO THE GROUND AS FAR AS GETTING THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY OUT TO THIS NATION. UNFORTUNEATELY, MOST OF THIS NATION IS SO UNSOPHISTICATED THAT WHOEVER GETS THERE FIRSTIST WITH THE MOSTEST, GETS THE PUBLIC'S VOTE OF APPROVAL.

AS THE ANTI- TERRORISM ACT HAS BEGUN TO CUT AWAY AT OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, TORT-REFORM IS YET ANOTHER CUTTING TOOL BEING USED TO UNDERMINE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

AS STATED BY ANOTHER WRITER, THE INCREASES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE PREMIUMS IS THE RESULT OF GREED = MISTAKES IN INSURANCE COMPANY INVESTMENTS WHICH WENT DOWN THE TUBES. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THIS SURGE IN TORT-REFORM IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED ONE OF THE WORST DOWN-TURNS IN THE HISTORY OF THE STOCKMARKET.

IN THE ELECTION OF 2004, FLORIDIANS PASSED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE MED-MAL LAWSUITS IN FLORIDA UNDER A MILLION DOLLARS UNFEASIBLE. THE WAY THE LAW READS, THE CLIENT GETS 70% OF THE FIRST TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($175,000) AND 90% OF THE NEXT TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($225,000). THUS THE CLIENT GETS $400,000 OF THE FIRST FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. THE PROPONENTS OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE INSURANCE AND MEDICAL LOBBY REALLY PULLED THE WOOL OVER THE EYES OF OUR CITIZENS. WHAT A GREAT IDEA THAT NOW THE CLIENT WILL GET MOST OF THE MONEY AND THOSE GREEDY LAWYERS WILL NOT. HOWEVER, EVERYONE WHO PRACTICES MED-MAL KNOWS THAT IT COSTS FROM FIFTY THOUSAND TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PLUS TO PUT ON A DECENT MED-MAL CASE. SO, THIS AMENDMENT WILL EFFECTIVELY RAISE THE ASKING PRICE OF A MED-MAL CASE OR A POTENTIAL CLIENT WITH A CASE WORTH LESS THAN $1,000,000 DOLLARS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FIND LEGAL REPRESENTATION. IT WILL NO LONGER BE FISCALLY SOUND TO TAKE ON A MED-MAL CASE ASSUMED TO BE WORTH UNDER A MILLION DOLLARS. THE VOTERS CUT THEIR OWN THROATS. MY BOSS AND A COLLEAGUE OF HIS GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT THESE FACTS OUT TO A COUPLE HAVING LUNCH IN THE SAME RESTAURANT. THE REACTION OF THE COUPLE WAS THAT THEY WERE DUMBFOUNDED. THEY EVEN APOLOGIZED FOR BEING DUPED BY THE INSURANCE AND MEDICAL COMMUNITY. OH WELL, YOU ARE FORGIVEN FOLKS, BUT ITS TOO LATE NOW.

FOR 14 YEARS I HAVE LISTENED TO ADJUSTERS LIE, CAJOLE, STALL, THREATEN, AND ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR COMPANIES BOTTOM LINE. THIS COUNTRY IS IN A DOWNWARD SPIN. MONEY HAS BECOME AMERICA'S GOD. IN THE MINDS OF A SHOCKING NUMBER OF PEOPLE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS NOW THE ALMIGHTY. WHEN A SOCIETY PLACES PROFIT ABOVE THE WORTH OF A SINGLE LIFE, WE, LIKE ROME HAVE COME TO A STATE OF DEGRADATION AND MORAL CORRUPTION FROM WHICH WE MAY NEVER RECOVER. GOD, PLEASE SAVE THIS COUNTRY FROM ANY MORE REFORM EXCEPT POSSIBLY ELECTION SPENDING REFORM.

[Patrick Colbeck]

I appreciate your site and the information presented. Unfortunately, I believe that it misses the point that folks such as myself are attempting to make in regards to tort reform. Even if the current checks and balances were to work with 100% effectiveness in removing frivolous lawsuits, the system is broke. It is not broke due to the greed of corporations or doctors that is of concern to me, it is the greed of lawyers and plaintiffs in the form of deep-pocket-seeking lawsuits. Like many businesses seeking to earn profit, lawyers are willing to invest a large cost of sales (i.e. expenses from expert witnesses, etc.) if they have reason to expect a large return on the investment. The result is a subset of the legal community that have moved on from ambulance chasing to balance sheet chasing. Find the largest pot of money, wait for the owners of that pot to slip up, play up the role of victim and cash in. We live in a get rich quick society. The worst facet of this approach to life is that a large group of folks that seek to get rich not by improving the quality of life of their neighbors by providing new products and services but by parasitically attaching themselves to those that do. Tort reform is not about padding corporate bank accounts. Tort reform is about stemming the current tide towards a more and more litigious society where every human mistake is viewed as a chance to win the lottery rather than an opportunity to work together to improve the quality of life for all of us as well as demonstrate compassion and forgiveness.

[creditmonitoringsucks]

With all due respect Patrick.

You talk about all the humanistic -- we need to be compassionate rehtoric you want, corporations are not human nor are they compassionate. They may employ humans but they only act to the requirements of the law. And they only will pay if forced to by litigation.

You can take your tort reform and stick it. Cause I am not buying. Society is litigious because businesses only fix major mistakes when sued. That has been my personal experience. Other wise it is business as usual.

[Patrick Colbeck]

Let's not forget that lawyers tend to form legal entities akin to corporations. Unless you can convince me that PLC's are significantly different in their ethical leanings from corporations, I believe that the same courses of action that you emphasize in dealing with corporations should also be applied to the legal community at large...most notably the observation that they only act to the requirements of the law but otherwise try to get away with anything that they can in order to earn a buck. The fact is that they have been "sticking it" to businesses for quite some time in the interest of their own profit under the often false veil of the common good and its about time that the pendulum started to swing back the other way. If we don't, the economic forces that have made us the exceptional country that we are will stall and stagnate.

If you really want to be realistic about the course forward, I think its important to realize that a team of the best lawyers in the world could draft legal statutes or contracts filled with legal jargon that when printed out could pave a path from here to the moon but there will always be loopholes of which an equally brilliant team of lawyers could take advantage. When is the last time that you witnessed a class action lawsuit against a law firm that failed to protect the legal interests of a set of their former clients? If it has happened, it has not been well advertised. On the other hand, frivolous lawsuits have been practicing "legal" extortion towards any corporation or individual professional that prove that producing a quality product or service 100% of the time is a pipe dream. We are all human. I believe that it's time to recognize this fact in our legal system and "stick" a few Post-It reminders to this effect on the foreheads of our legal community.

[Trial Attorney]

Patrick, you sound like a very articulate, educated individual that is repeating what you have been told by the tort reformers. They love people like you because you are intelligent and predisposed to believe into what they are telling you. You can influence people because of your status. Unfortunately, you have fallen victim to their lies. Your posts are full of opinions that have no factual basis. Are you capable of providing some real life examples or facts to support this statement:

"The fact is that they have been "sticking it" to businesses for quite some time in the interest of their own profit under the often false veil of the common good and its about time that the pendulum started to swing back the other way. If we don't, the economic forces that have made us the exceptional country that we are will stall and stagnate"

Do you have any support for this statement:

"Find the largest pot of money, wait for the owners of that pot to slip up, play up the role of victim and cash in"

Patrick, turn your anger towards those who have misled you about the need for tort reform. You are capable of influencing those around you. Form your opinion based upon facts, not what you have been told by those with an agenda, like me. As a trial attorney, I obviously have an agenda. My agenda is to protect individual rights. Do your research and then come back and post again. If you still feel the same as you do now, post the factual basis for your beliefs. I am always open to consider facts.

[Patrick Colbeck]

Fair enough...I'll do some more systematic research on the points that you cited.

In the meantime, I ask you to consider the "corporate" nature of law firms and apply the same standards that you ask of the rest of the business community to the legal community.

[Creditmonitoringsucks]

I don't know about you but none of the lawyers I have been exposed to in my case are "corporate" and the only ones bringing the "corporate" lawyers to our party are the defendants.