Comments for

Comment on Smug Los Angeles restaurant insults customers on Twitter by Craig

Craig — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:12 +0000

I want to make a reservation with them just to get called out on their Twitter feed…

Comment on If Loser Pays is So Great, Why Not Have it In Criminal Cases? by Justinian

Justinian — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:01:45 +0000

Yes, I can explain why we have to allow frivolous lawsuits to be filed. If we try and restrict the filing of lawsuits, who will make the decision as to whether a lawsuit is frivolous? An unelected and low-paid clerk? A judge who took campaign contributions from one of the parties? No matter who you propose, it’s a system ripe for abuse. So the next best thing is to let any lawsuit be filed but let opposing parties ask the court to dismiss them.

With respect to the pants lawsuit: If I recall correctly, the dry cleaner lost or damaged his pants. So he sued. The only thing frivolous was the amount of money he wanted. If a dry cleaner loses a $10 dollar shirt they should be liable to replace it, and if they don’t, we turn to the courts.

Comment on If Loser Pays is So Great, Why Not Have it In Criminal Cases? by Oscar

Oscar — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:30:47 +0000

As I said, and you didn’t deny, tons of frivolous lawsuits are filed every year and why not? Can you explain to me why a rich judge should be able to sue a mom and pop’s dry cleaners over a pair of trousers and mom and pop have to pay legal fees to defend themselves against an idiot? This happens frequently where completely idiotic, frivolous lawsuits are filed, and the innocent poor or middle class fellow or small or even medium business owner and sometimes even big business (breast implants) are FORCED out of business. But I am relieved that you have a good reason for doing this: so that lawyers also try and [sic] make money!!! (That’s try TO make money.)

I also appreciate your candor. Here on this public forum, you have explained the difference in how businesses make money and how lawyers make money. Businesses do research and development and after a considerable investment, they offer a product. Consumers buy it and they get something in return. Lawyers earn money by suing people who make products. Lawyers serve so many good, noble, moral purposes. Unfortunately, now there are too many lawyers making money by punishing the productive members of our society.

Comment on If Loser Pays is So Great, Why Not Have it In Criminal Cases? by Justinian

Justinian — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:53:41 +0000

All of the other civilized countries also have single-payer socialized medicine, too. Many folks only hire an attorney because they are concerned about getting their medical bills paid. If your medical bills are already taken care of, a lot of people won’t be interested in filing a lawsuit.

DePuy’s agenda in selling hips was to make money. The company accepted that some folks would be hurt by their products, but on balance, they decided the risk was worth it. So why shouldn’t lawyers also try and make money?

Comment on If Loser Pays is So Great, Why Not Have it In Criminal Cases? by Oscar

Oscar — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:13:11 +0000

That’s what the manufacturer said. It’s not hard for me to believe after the breast implant debacle. Seriously, what you guys did to Dow Corning over silicone breast implants made me suspicious of the agenda of lawyers in general. And, sure enough, ridiculous law suits have continued ever since; some win ridiculous settlements, and even the frivolous ones like a dry cleaner losing a judge’s trousers waste billions every year even when the innocent party is ultimately vindicated. Further, is America so much smarter than almost every other civilized country? Are all the other countries stupid for having loser-pay? Loser-pay is so obvious to any rational or even simple person. Only a lawyer can talk people out of the logic of loser pay!

Comment on If Loser Pays is So Great, Why Not Have it In Criminal Cases? by Justinian

Justinian — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:19:28 +0000

I’m skeptical that a hip system that was safer than the metal-on-metal hips was not brought to market due to concerns over liability.

Comment on Trial Lawyers Can’t Fix Regulatory Capture by More on the NHTSA Recall Shenanigans | - Product Liability Lawyer Justinian C. Lane, Esq.

Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:50:49 +0000

[...] For more about regulatory capture, check out Trial Lawyers Can’t Fix Regulatory Capture. [...]

Comment on If Loser Pays is So Great, Why Not Have it In Criminal Cases? by Oscar

Oscar — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:24:04 +0000

Seriously??? There is no perfect system. But not having loser-pay is RUINING companies, bankrupting them, putting people out of jobs, and depriving the American public of GOOD products that will do good for millions of people. I need a hip replacement. There was a far-superior artificial joint that never made it to market because they knew they would be sued if anything went wrong with one person’s joint. So, I don’t get to have that great product which is pretty important, wouldn’t you say. So, thank you, thank you so very much that thanks to lawyers like you, I don’t get to have the best artificial hip possible!

Comment on What Is Tort Reform – And Why Is It Bad For The Public? by Oscar

Oscar — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:18:46 +0000

Can you be serious? Regardless of how much the judge lowers the initial judgment, let’s not pretend opponents of tort reform are about the little guy. When you add up lawyer’s fees on both sides, it is the lawyers who get most of the money. That’s why lawyers are against tort reform. I bet you’re against loser-pay also. Nearly every other country in the world has the common sense to have loser-pay. But oh how many lawyers that would put out of business. I’m praying I’m wrong and that you have the integrity to be in favor of loser-pay.

Comment on 5 Ways Lawyers Screw Their Clients by Justinian

Justinian — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 03:49:42 +0000

Call the insurance company. They’ll tell you if they paid a claim.