lawman - 10:59 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

For these types of cases, attorneys usually take them on a contingency fee. No settlement or judgment, no fee.

Furthermore, most clients cannot afford the up-front expenses. The attorney normally fronts these costs. Again, if there is no settlement or judgment, the attorney eats these expenses. The upshot is this: after reviewing the facts of the case, if it appears to be meritless, the attorney will walk. However if there is merit, would you deny a plaintiff a judgment?

Finally, most cases settle. This is a mutual agreement between the parties. Surely you wouldn't fault a settlement.

Liability and damages in those cases that do not settle are usually determined by a jury, which has heard all the evidence presented by both sides. Having had my criminal cases reported by newspapers, I can assure you that I would not put a whole lot of emphasis on news stories. I submit that those snippets couldn't possibly reflect the dynamics of a full-blown trial.

If you or a loved one were the victim of corporate malfeasance or medical malpractice, would you cheer an arbitrary cap on damages put in place by someone who couldn't possibly know the facts of your case?

Note: I don't do civil law and do not have any pecuniary interest in tort reform.

lawman