Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
By the way, I don't know if you cited Holy Joe for the "one of your guys believes this too" effect, but if you did you may want to rethink that.

No, I cited it because his article ran today and he is a name that both sides, at times, respect, as a relatively sober politician (except when he's running for VP or Pres).

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
(ETA: A lawyer must always ONLY be pursuing her client's claim, and depending on that effort to produce her reward. As soon as a lawyer has her OWN claim, one that the client does not have, the lawyer can no longer be trusted to counsel on such things as settlement. At that point, their interests diverge, and are adverse.)

See, someone gets it. Bilmore, you are one smart motherfucker. I take back all the bad things I say about you daily in PMs to my lefty west coast friends.

Confidential to Bilmore: Check your PM box for a new set of nasty things about Ty. Fuckin' back-stabber.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I cited it because his article ran today and he is a name that both sides, at times, respect, as a relatively sober politician (except when he's running for VP or Pres).

No way man. Leiberman is a comple....wait, I can agree with that. "Sober" it is. Somber, even.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Confidential to Bilmore: Check your PM box for a new set of nasty things about Ty. Fuckin' back-stabber.

Nope. I checked. Just the daily one from Ty about you and various small mammals. I don't even read 'em any more - they're just getting too outrageous, and unbelievable.

Well, okay, outrageous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

As I tried to say to AG, either by PM or in a post, I wasn't intending to create the conflict between the lawyer and the client. Let's say that the client still gets the punitives, but that the state takes 3/4 of the money before the client sees any. For purposes of any agreement between the lawyer and the client, the client will not have an interest in the 75% taken by the state, so the lawyer's fees will be calculated as if the award of punitives is a quarter of what the jury awards.

The client and lawyers still have the incentive to seek punitives. Defendants who do bad things still get whacked. The state gets some money so that Not Me can pay less taxes. What's wrong with this picture.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I tried to say to AG, either by PM or in a post, I wasn't intending to create the conflict between the lawyer and the client. Let's say that the client still gets the punitives, but that the state takes 3/4 of the money before the client sees any. For purposes of any agreement between the lawyer and the client, the client will not have an interest in the 75% taken by the state, so the lawyer's fees will be calculated as if the award of punitives is a quarter of what the jury awards.

The client and lawyers still have the incentive to seek punitives. Defendants who do bad things still get whacked. The state gets some money so that Not Me can pay less taxes. What's wrong with this picture.

So it's just a 75% tax rate on the client's income from punitives, pure and simple. Which side of the Laffer curve are we on, incentive-wise? Can we please have a 75% tax rate on all windfall income? You know, just so it doesn't look like we're just taking it from Nicole Brown Simpson's family, but also from Mel Gibson?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So it's just a 75% tax rate on the client's income from punitives, pure and simple. Which side of the Laffer curve are we on, incentive-wise? Can we please have a 75% tax rate on all windfall income? You know, just so it doesn't look like we're just taking it from Nicole Brown Simpson's family, but also from Mel Gibson?

OK. And let's not define "windfall," but let courts hash it out through the development of new common law.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What's wrong with this picture.

The state gets much of its value already, if you consider the people to be the state. I bet BMW never, ever again screwed around with a paint job. Insurers pay LOTS of attention to demands within limits.

They work as they are now. Granted, there are excesses, but there are excesses at NASA, and in school districts, too. What with the ever-more-defining caselaw as to allowable proportion, it's only getting better, and more reasonable. Why screw it up?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. And let's not define "windfall," but let courts hash it out through the development of new common law.

Restrict "courts" to "Clinton appointees," and we're back at 100% concurrance. I am once again Thomas to your Scalia. The breach in space-time has been sealed. All is right with the world.

Taxing future tort victims is fun, because they make a very poorly organized lobby! Ho-ho!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So it's just a 75% tax rate on the client's income from punitives, pure and simple. Which side of the Laffer curve are we on, incentive-wise? Can we please have a 75% tax rate on all windfall income? You know, just so it doesn't look like we're just taking it from Nicole Brown Simpson's family, but also from Mel Gibson?

You seem to be conflating an argument for sensible incentives and rightful claim to a windfall. Are you really worried that a 75% haircut for the state will eliminate lawyers for the ambulanced? If it's 9 cases a year, what's the problem? And even if it's 9000, how reduced is the incentive, if the bread and butter PI lawyer makes his money off of the contingency on actual damages.

Even granting your incentives objections to my position, as well as the conflict argument, there's still a difference between Mel Gibson getting paid for his work, a lottery winner being paid for his well chosen numbers, and a plaintiff being paid for damages not yet paid to others injured by the company's bad conduct.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The state gets much of its value already, if you consider the people to be the state. I bet BMW never, ever again screwed around with a paint job. Insurers pay LOTS of attention to demands within limits.

But BMW will be whacked just as hard in my world. Alabama will get the 3/4 of the money, instead of Dr. Gore.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Taxing future tort victims is fun, because they make a very poorly organized lobby! Ho-ho!

What is, to your economic perspective, a "windfall," is unjust enrichment to someone looking at things equitably.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But BMW will be whacked just as hard in my world. Alabama will get the 3/4 of the money, instead of Dr. Gore.

Maybe I'm misunderestimastanding. Are you fixing punitives, or finding new funding sources?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What is, to your economic perspective, a "windfall," is unjust enrichment to someone looking at things equitably.

Doesn't unjust enrichment contemplate an injustice, not only in that you got undeserved money, but that you got it from someone who deserved to keep it?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What is, to your economic perspective, a "windfall," is unjust enrichment to someone looking at things equitably.

Hey, you pays your money and you takes your chancery.