Frivolous Lawsuits?

---

It galls me to hear the term, "frivolous lawsuits". Because the attorney in the context of a contingent fee arrangement must invest his own money and time into each case, in reality, no such lawsuits are frivolous. The vast majority of the cases in the system are meritorious, brought by citizens and lawyers alike who are honestly presenting their claims, and a vast number of verdicts and judgments rendered by our courts are fair and equitable. This is not to say that frivolous lawsuits are not filed by corporations or insurance companies for tactical purposes.

The justice system deals sternly with plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits and judges can wield sufficient power (sanctions, etc.) to prevent and discourage frivolous lawsuits. Judges already have the power to make the loser pay. Judges are in a much better position to decide what is and what is not frivolous, because they actually hear the evidence presented. What you read in the newspapers is never what the jury has heard and never reflects the actual evidence. Appeals courts also reduces damage awards routinely (they never add to damages awards) and overturns awards where not supported by the facts or law.

"Tort reform" deprives the average citizen of his or her access to the courtroom, and is primarily aimed at eliminating meritorious lawsuits by average citizens, not frivolous lawsuits.

There are many studies by conservative groups, such as the Rand Corp. which show that very few cases actually result in huge awards and most huge awards are dealt with within the existing judicial process. There are studies undertaken during the tobacco litigation showing that the large damage awards against the tobacco companies did not affect stock prices, did not result in layoffs or bankruptcies and, unfortunately, did not substantially alter corporate conduct (punitive damages were just a cost of doing business). There are statistics about how few medical malpractice plaintiffs actually win their cases. And many persons with meritorious lawsuits walk away with next to nothing because judges or jurors stiffed them—this happens more often than the seemingly large awards or the seemingly frivolous awards.

Consider who is a "tort reformer" claiming that there too many frivolous lawsuits. They are only the people or institutions rich enough to pay attorneys on an hourly basis. Can the average citizen afford to pay for legal representation on an hourly basis? Can you? You want and must have the right to go to court if you are ever injured or ripped off. And if you ever do need a lawyer, you will want a good attorney to represent you, with the funds needed to finance your case, because you will not be able to afford it. For these reasons, the term "frivolous lawsuit" should be galling you, too.