itpport Lawsuit Abuse
potential failure of the farm.
To Wolff and many others, there
isn’t enough risk associated with
frivolously filing lawsuits.
It is too easy to file frivolous
lawsuits as a means to pressure an
out-of-court settlement, which
according to some sources, hap
pens frequently merely to facilitate
business, not justice.
The coalition suggests that per
haps some penalties could be
applied, and that those who are
forced to hire attorneys and spend
money to defend themselves
against frivolous lawsuits should
be able to force an unsuccessful
petitioner to pay for all costs and
damages incurred by the
defendant
Other ideas have been
circulating.
What about requiring those with
suspected frivolous lawsuits to
post a bond that would qpver the
cost of covering the court costs and
minimum defense costs? (Would
that un-Constitutionally deny
those unable to post bond the right
to properly access a civil court?)
There are plenty of examples
too of inequities and unfairnesses
*
jfeGT’ * H
r
I:. - v
. JHMiiP' «>' v' *
0
r %
*
in the judicial system, but more
and more seem to be deliberate
gold-digging attempts by clients
and/or their attorneys.
One highly visible impact of the
onslaught of frivolous lawsuits is
evident with the dramatic reduc
tion in public access allowed to
private property for recreation.
Of course littering and bad man
ners have forced some to close
their properties to the public, but
many more post “no tresspassing”
signs primarily as a means to satis
fy the recommendations of an
insurance group in order to secure
as low of premiums as possible.
The reason is to limit potential
liability lawsuits.
So what type of people are the
attorneys who seem eager to repre
sent such clients in fraudulent,
trumped up, or otherwise frivolous
lawsuits?
Should they be allowed to file
civil suit after civil suit, regardless
of the number of cases thrown out,
regardless of blatant grasping-at
straws arguments, or otherwise
laughable attempts to get their
client’s case considered differently
than what it is on its face?
Reform
'.j"
State Attorney General Michael Fisher stands at the podium before members of the
Pennsylvania State Grange and talks about issues such as drug abuse and
telemarketing.
Arc the attorneys merely catal
ysts to social justice, or are they the
problem in the growth in such suits
seeking financial damages in
excess of any real property loss
compensations?
*• jpy
/ *
✓ *
Should there be no controls or
punishments for those attorneys
who seek their own fortunes
through effectual commissions on
damage claims against insurant
providers, medical pracdoners.
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, May 2, 19M-A23
yiHew'
h.tftm
rlrffexx'
Imn^e
automobile manufacturers ana
others exposed to product or ser
vice liabilities against large
companies?
What about the attorneys who
knowingly file ridiculously reach-
ing arguments on behalf of clients?
Are they “exhausting every
avenue” in service of the client, or are they
instead padding their bills and bulking up
their own fees through purposefully mislead
ing clients about the chances for a successful
ruling?
Are insurance company attorneys and man
agers too jaded to fight back?
Are there unreasonable settlements being
made to dispose of liability lawsuits that
could have been and should have been fought
and won, except it was easier for the insurance
company lawyers and business managers to
throw some money at liars?
Today many doctors spend between 15 to
18 percent of their total income on malprac
tice insurance premiums.
The cost of doing business, and operating a
business has skyrocketed through many diffe
rent types of mandatory insurances, product
and service liability being only one type.
The issue isn’t new. Public sentiment has
spoken out against the lack of scruples by
“ambulance chasers” for years.
Jokes and serious statements have been
made that suggest that society at large would
be in much better health were it not for those
who practice law, especially those who work
complicitly to generate large fees.
Attorneys associated with lawsuits against
the tobacco industry are reportedly set up to
receive many millions of dollars in unde
served riches because they were working fora
percentage, otherwise known as a commis
sion, of the total take.
Should that be allowed?
Attorneys associated with lawsuits against
the tobacco industry are reportedly set up to
receive many millions of dollars in unde
served riches because they were working for a
percentage, otherwise known as a commis
sion, of the total lake.
Should dial be allowed?
Wolff said that current rules limit the
amount of information that can be presented
to a jury when it is supposed to determine the
amount of award for damages in a lawsuit
Thejury is not told that the award is not tax
able The reason that makes a diflerence,
Wolff explained, is because most people
assume the government would take at least 20
percent of that in taxes just as diey woult)
if the money came from gambling winnings
But since the government doesn’t lake tax
cs from the lawsuit awards, juries that don’t
know that can’t reasonably be expected to
decide what is a fair damage award.
If they assumed that the award was taxable,
it would follow that a jury would set a highci
award to ensure the damages received by the
plaintiff were adequate.
Junes aren’t allowed to be told i( alcohol or
drugs were found to have been abused and/or
involved in an accident in eases where a plain
tiff sues for damages involving some equip
ment, such as a car.
>» w
(Turn to Page A 24)