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.
|
The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney
who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific
case and the relevant law. See Terms
of Use.
|