Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Let's be clear --- the same politcians and posters who think this is a great idea are the ones who think punitives are bad and wrong. That's not a coincidence.
Besides, do you really want state legislatures to have an economic incentive to re-write the punitive damages standard to improve cashflow on the backs of out-of-state corporations? Jesus, people, think!
|
You speak of punitives like they're s the god-given right of a lawyer and client to get their part of the big cash award. They're not. The purpose of punitive damages is to punish, not to reward. The client has no claim of right to the punitive damages. The lawyer has a claim only to the extent that his cut creates a reasonable incentive to bring such cases--i.e., fair compensation for time, effort, and risk for handling the case (which is standard justification for a contingency fee).
What you're saying, then, is that despite all the flaws in how punitive damages are actually distributed, we can't change the system because to do so would create massive conflicts of interest. Come on--I've already proposed a way to resolve that conflict to a large degree, as has the governator. I'm pretty sure that PI lawyers, who long ago succesfully argued that contingency fees should not be an ethical violation, will be able to convince the ethics authorities that structuring retention agreements in order to preserve a client's incentive to seek punitive damages despite not actually keeping any of the award also are consistent with those ethical canons.
As for government dipping its hand in the punitive damages till, even the Mississippi and Alabama legislatures recognize the damage their courts' wanton award of punis has done to the business environment there.
