What will the consequences be for lawyers?

Disbarment isn't a good remedy; paying the other side's costs and damages is a better one.

Aha, this thread still exits.

I agree with Jespah; disbarment would be too strong a sanction against "frivolous claims," particularly as novel or groundbreaking claims often exist on a razors edge between "frivolous" and meritorious.

The system as it is now, with the rewarding of atty's fees should work fine with a little tweaking. Currently, Rule 11 is simply too easy to get around, but that's changing.

In state court? I don't think so.

I'd be curious to know what people here think constitutes a "frivolous" lawsuit.

Uh, yeah. I remember how frivolous we all thought the lawsuit involving transfatty acids. Has anyone noticed the changes in ingredients and marketing in the past year?

I think a good deal of the problem here is that Americans (and de Tocqeville noted this) tend to conduct public debate on many issues through the courts. This is done in part because it is seen as a more deliberative less value ridden venue. If we are going to block "frivolous suites" we had best develop another venue for addressing problems that are now addressed in the courts outside the messy process of elections and legislation.

I assume we're talking about diversity fed-courts and federal question fed-courts (or so I assumed when this thread was placed in the political forum--its previous home). Obviously, state courts are not bound by the Seventh Amendment-- so there's no need to patronize.

I personally wouldn't cap traditional personal injury liability (with the possible exception of punitives).

However, products liability is another story. I would consider almost all "design defect" product liability of the Barker v. Lull Engineering type frivolous, as long as the design was obvious to the consumer. I would say the same about the majority of pharmaceutical product liability cases.

Ah, but Dalkon Shield was a pharmaceutical product....

Technically, I would think that it wouldn't be a "pharmaceutical." It was an IUD that relied on its physical properties, right? It didn't include a chemical component. It wasn't a drug. But I see where you're going; I'm just being a jackass (and I could be wrong, anyway).

There are certainly exceptions to my dislike of pharmaceutical products liability.

It was a copper piece inserted into the uterus that had a KNOWN fault... multifiliament thread which allowed bacteria to enter the uterus.

It also was known to become imbedded in babies as they grew, when the device didn't work and allowed the egg to attach and develop.

I worked in a firm that had about a thousand cases. Horrible stories of infertility, deformities, etc. The key was that AH Robbins KNEW about these problems with the device.

The disgusting part was that most of these woman waited years and years and years to get a payment of $10,000 - $75,000. Only one from our caseload was over 100,000 and only barely.


Another example of product liability would be the Firestone tires that had a KNOWN defect but were not changed until thousands died and (Ford?) got called on it. One could just as easily claim that the awards should be limited due to the cost of tires and vehicles and vehicle insurance going up to cover the cost of the suits.

Judges and payment of costs by the loser are the best way, IMO to determine what is frivelous and what is not. I am totally against limits because they only benefit the corporations.

While spilling coffee on your coochie is a frivelous suit by itself in my opinion, would it be if a hundred employees and 200 customers had been burned by the coffee in some way and McD's not changing it?

In addition, I'll state here that the limit on awards was merely a tactic on the part of the current administration to degrade lawyers - a democratic base. This was done much in the same way as the gay marriage issue.

Bush may continue to push for the medical malpractice limits, but I doubt it is really that high on his list of priorities. The purpose has been served for this election.

I agree that it was a political move, but not to degrade lawyers. It was primarily a diversion from health issues brought up in the debates, and it ended up being a very intelligent political maneuver. Now that the campaign is over, we probably won't see anything major regarding liability caps from this administration.

gopusa.com has been having an online poll about what people think should be pursued by the president. tort reform barely gets a blink.

http://www.gopusa.com/activist/pollvault/results/2004/1108_bush_priority.shtml

It is still above health care and education and lowering the deficit.