Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

I'm not opposed in concept to punitives.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Savvy plaintiffs' lawyers would agree to take less of the actual award in exchange for the opportunity to seek punis.

As an added benefit, you will shrink our inter-state corporate behemoths down to intra-state size, as I will never again allow my client corp to commert out of its own state, subject to the greedy whims of those non-representative foreign pols.

(I said "commert" just so, later, I can say that I invented something.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
(b.) Concurrently with the submission of the written jury instructions and the special verdict form, the Court shall submit a blank check, payable to The State of California, drawn against the defendants' respective banks.

If it lowers my taxes, I am for it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Hey AG -- in our discussions of prisoner abuse by coalition forces in Iraq, you should refrain from further mention of the "pissing" incident.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....uk/index.html

I thought those were risky refereces given the serious questions about the photos' authenticity. Someone in the UK has got some splainin' to do.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
If it lowers my taxes, I am for it.

Sure, but your next car will cost $123,000.00

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
If it lowers my taxes, I am for it.

Let's tax Republicans who are not IP lawyers at an 80% rate.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Hey Hank, can you hurry it up with that Murdoch decoder ring? The New York Post is confusing me here. After providing the article alluding to evidence that the prison guard scandal doesn't go up the chain of command, they print an op-ed piece entitled "Why the Troops Don't Trust Rummy" calling for his ouster.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/20841.htm

Even Bill Clinton? Day-ummmmmmmmmm.

The WSJ ran an article by Lieberman today, in which he does not think removing Rummy is a good idea.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hey AG -- in our discussions of prisoner abuse by coalition forces in Iraq, you should refrain from further mention of the "pissing" incident.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....uk/index.html

I thought those were risky refereces given the serious questions about the photos' authenticity. Someone in the UK has got some splainin' to do.

S_A_M

Here. This is real:



A family photo from 2003 shows Cpl. Charles Graner and Spc. Lynndie England in Virginia Beach, Va.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


(b.) Concurrently with the submission of the written jury instructions and the special verdict form, the Court shall submit a blank check, payable to The State of California, drawn against the defendants' respective banks.

If it's one of those giant novelty checks that the lottery and/or the PGA uses, I'm definitely for it.



(edited to replace check with one that's more topically appropriate)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sure, but your next car will cost $123,000.00

I don't see why. The punitives are allowed under the current law, they just go to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel. If AG is right and giving the punitves to the state would reduce the incentive to seek punitives, it should make it less expensive to produce cars.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's tax Republicans who are not IP lawyers at an 80% rate.

In this state, that would be Club and about 4 other people.

Since the Dems are the ones who want the taxes, I say tax the Dems more.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Here. This is real:



A family photo from 2003 shows Cpl. Charles Graner and Spc. Lynndie England in Virginia Beach, Va.

So they were b/f and g/f before going to Iraq?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

Actually, I don't. I agree it's a windfall to the plaintiff. That windfall is the price of the incentive to pursue the case, the same way we give plaintiffs an incentive to bring qui tam False Claims Act cases where they have suffered no damages at all. Their "right" is not God-given; it's legislature-given to effectuate a policy to punish wrongdoers without employing an additional 1,000 deputy AGs.

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).

I simply do not understand why people are not grasping that incentivizing (yeah, I said it, who's gonna stop me? You, Lieutenant Wienberg?) the lawyers, while removing the incentive to the client, creates more problems than it solves. Yeah, it sucks that nine people a year get rich off a punitive damages award that actually survives appeal. It also sucks that occasionally plaintiff-side lawyers get rich off of big fee awards (this is what your voter base is pissed off about, BTW). But that's just the risk-reward formula helping out someone other than a venture capitalist. You put your neck out on something, and you might get rich. This doesn't piss us off when it happens in the lottery, but that's because there are too many multiple suckers to keep track of.

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.

You're not addressing my post regarding the hard conversation at the beginning of the retention. Whose claim is it? You're taking away the punitive damage claim from the client and giving it to the lawyer, and this strikes you as a smart thing to do? The Governor wouldn't be proposing this unless he thought it would resolve in a net decrease in P claims. Neither would you.

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.

Yeah, it will be real easy to convince voters and the legislature that a special tax on people who are proven in court to be malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent is a bad idea. They'll probably go for a flat tax instead.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't see why. The punitives are allowed under the current law, they just go to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel. If AG is right and giving the punitves to the state would reduce the incentive to seek punitives, it should make it less expensive to produce cars.

AAAAARGH.

My vote today is "Evil Genius." Stupidity this monumental has to be willful, because otherwise he'd be unable to find the proper sequence of keys on the keyboard.

ETA: The Governor's policy will likely result in a net decrease in P claims being pled in the short term, until the legislature loosens the standard to make them available as an "add-on" to the damages award in nearly every case, whether the plaintiff has bothered to pursue it or not. The plaintiff's bar and the legislature of almost every state will have a unity of interest that makes the client irrelevant. Every plaintiff's side lawyer will have the state as an additional client or lienholder, but unlike the case with a medical lien, the state needn't come out of pocket or lift a finger --- it can just re-write the rules to increase the number of liens it holds.