Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The trial lawyers want A and not B. The Doctors want B and not A. Both would be good, but as usual, there is no interest group pushing for both.
|
An easy solution would be to make lawyers bringing frivolous cases liable for costs of defense. And I mean really liable... not just some tootless frivolous litigation statute no judge will ever enforce. I think we should create a separate cause of action under which a successfully defended doc can sue the lawyer who sued him, as well as the lawyer's expert, and any expert doc who provided a certificate of merit saying the lawyer had a good malptractice case (which is req'd in many states).
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Seems fair to me. We'll never rid this country of its litigation fixation unless we start making litigants pay for those reckless pulls on the slot machine arm. Potential loss of costs of experts and time invested are not enough. A good plaintiff's lawyer has absorption of multiple losses of such costs built into the business model.
ETA: A fair legal market allows everybody who plays the game to get sued. Its an operating cost, just like a developer has to set some cash aside to deal with union problems and zoning issues.
