Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There's no obvious answer to teh question of whether current punis law over or under-deters, and whether reducing the plaintiff's actual collection of that money would change the level of deterence. But I am fairly confident that random awards of punitives are a fairly inefficient mechanism of deterence, and to encourage that method of enforcement is misguided.
|
I think AG is arguing his points because it is in the best interest of contingency-fee plaintiff's attorneys. That is his reasoning and that alone.
My beef is with his notion that keeping 25% of punitives won't be incentive enough to pursue them. Take a look at other areas where contingency fees are capped, like worker's comp or social security disability claims. They are capped at like 10% or something low like that. Yet there are plenty of attorneys willing to do this low-margin work.
It is just false that no one will do low margin work. AG is just angry that he may be relegated to doing lower margin work.
Liberals like AG are such hypocrits. They are for making as much money as they can and everyone else paying taxes.
