We have GOT to do something about litigation....

[curling]

You're saying plaintiffs don't settle, defendants settle.

Previously you said that plaintiffs often start suits in hopes of settlement.

I'm not sure that the two are mutually exclusive, but still...

I mostly agree with everything you've said. But you haven't answered the question, and I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are.

In the loser pays system that you advocate, how does a poor person with a definite injury but with less definite evidentiary proof afford an attorney?

I think the plaintiff attorney should eat it as a cost of doing business. I mean the plaintiff attorney is the one most likely to gain shouldn't he put up the money as a cost of doing business?

I mean what does the defendant get out of the deal when they win? Nada. Oh no I forgot they get to pay $50k to $75k to their defense attorney. Sheesh what a prize for winning huh?

 

[spike1205]

I think the plaintiff attorney should eat it as a cost of doing business. I mean the plaintiff attorney is the one most likely to gain shouldn't he put up the money as a cost of doing business?

I mean what does the defendant get out of the deal when they win? Nada. Oh no I forgot they get to pay $50k to $75k to their defense attorney. Sheesh what a prize for winning huh?

Plainitff's attorneys do not profit on every case they take--the lawyer pays all costs up front inhopes of coollect his percentage on a victory, so he does "put up his money as a cost of doing business"--when he loses a case or is unable to settle he loses.

sometimes in the representation of a client who may need money more immediately (no insurance/needs surgery/broke and unable to work do to injury) even if the attorney believes more cash will be offered later or will be won at trial. what happens then if settle ments are not as accessible?