Cleveland is going to love Sanders, then. Routing public money towards elitists is his specialty. I'm sure he'll be wined and dined on schedule by the appropriate law firms within a few months.
We need to take out a reasonably-sized ad in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, as a mock condolence card to Cleveland's population, for having been diagnosed with a case of Sanders Syndrome. When you get "the Sanders", you start hemorrhaging money, and then you weaken severely.
(Information on Sanders Syndrome is available through the medical research hospital run by Dr. Flagg.)
posted by GuestZero at 04:03 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 15, 2006 #
Unfortunately, lawyers are a very large costs for any sizeable organization today. We have the most litigious society in the world, and the costs to defend an organization against lawsuits is outrageous.
Litigation affects education, business, non-profits, and healthcare, driving costs up and wasting valuable time and resources. I've wanted tort reform for years now, and this is just another example of why we need it.
posted by HeyHey at 04:05 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 15, 2006 #
LMAO GZ. Good post. Yeah - I've already heard a complaint from a friend by Cleveland about what in world did WE visit on THEM....last I heard they were warned.
posted by katie82640 at 08:00 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 15, 2006 #
HeyHey, what would tort reform do in the cases illustrated by the CPD article? Largely, school systems in the Cleveland area are seeking legal assistance from private firms, not the free (i.e. no additional cost) lawyers provided in local prosecutors' offices. The costs are being artificially borne by the public by footing bills that are entirely chosen (in cases when local school systems are not denied use of the local prosecutor) by school administrators.
The problem is multivariate, to be sure; and if I expect anyone to understand that, it's you. The most prevalent reason given in the article for making the private choice is that administrators either don't accept or trust the option of the public lawyers. The subreason widely given is that more expertise and availability is found with the private offerings. One could sensibly argue that this environment could be addressed by tort reform.
Yet such reform is largely aimed at reducing the number of suits that can be lawfully filed against a school system under categories of action. What number that remains will still be "too complex" (my words) to instill trust and acceptance in administrators. They will STILL choose the markedly more expensive option of private law firms.
As for tort reform ... it always sounds like a great idea, until you find out that largely it's just a tool for stopping the poor and individual citizens from finding representation under the law. Burden of proof is one thing. We should never give up on that basic principle. However, we have laws like "discovery" for valid reasons, that those reasons revolve around the fact that the rich and corporate/collective have too many resources to squash valid legal challenges. Tort reform cannot get rid of that and still be called "reform".
posted by GuestZero at 04:14 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
I think the school district ought to take out a prepaid legal policy like mine :-) (EG)
It provides unlimited consulting and you can't sue anybody. You have almost unlimited coverage if YOU are sued.
Cost? 24.00 a month.
posted by katie82640 at 08:37 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
Like you said, I think CPS are using private law firms to represent them because of their expertise in the area. It may be cheaper up front to use the county prosecutor, but if it loses them even one big case then those savings disappear. Also, if these cases were put on the doorstep of the county prosecutor then that office is going to see either resource shortages or increases in costs. Either way taxpayers will pay the difference.
There are a couple areas where I would reform the tort system as it currently stands.
First off, in healthcare I would run everything through an expert panel to throw out meritless suits. Healthcare malpractice suits are very emotional, and for juries it is incredibly difficult to overcome the "horror" of the medical problem and focus on the science of the problem. Many juries never understand that a negative outcome doesn't equate to malpractice. The expert panel would also shield physicians and hospitals from having to pay for defense of these suits with no merit.
In the wider tort system I would support a law mandating plaintiffs reimburse defendants for reasonable representation if their suit is determined to be frivilous. It's not fair for anyone (big corporation or grandma across the street) to file a frivilous suit and force the defendant to pay for representation for that frivilous suit. I would also like to see sanctions against the lawyers that file those suits. This is happening to some degree in Ohio now, but I don't think it's that common nationwide.
posted by HeyHey at 05:59 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
HeyHey -- Just curious? Are you a physician or a civil defense attorney? You seem knowledgeable about the area of medical malpractice tort reform. BTW, OSMA worked very hard a few years ago to get a bill made into law (2006) that required medical malpractice cases to go through a panel of medical experts and certify that the case has merit . . . thereby cutting down on cases that are frivilous. Kind of like a grand jury for criminal cases. Problems is that when the lawyers don't follow that process of certification there are no sanctions against them.
But I think that the PD article was saying that there are routine legal matters that probably could be handled by local legal eagles, but that districts are electing to send the cases to the high priced big firms.
Holy Toledo, one of the firms Squire, Dempsy & Sanders has made over $10 million dollars in the last three years representing Cleveland area school districts. As they say in Wisconsin . . . "That's alot of cheese."
posted by corky at 07:22 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
I'm a medical student and am involved in the AMA and OSMA, so I stay up-to-date on the malpractice issue (and others as well) as much as I can. Ohio still has relatively high rates, but thanks to the 2003 tort reform where caps were implemented the rates have stabilized and are actually coming down for some physicians. Granted, they're still not as low as Indiana or some other states, but there is a hope that they will continue to decline which will lead to better physican access.
A very similar bill is sitting in the US Senate as we speak. The House has passed it 4 or 5 times I guess, but it has been filibustered in the Senate each time.
You're right about the routine legal matters with CPS. I wasn't even thinking about them. I was thinking primarily of the big-time cases. There's probably a big percentage the money they spend that go for these services.
posted by HeyHey at 08:45 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 16, 2006 #
Tort reform by and large is pushed by insurance companies, medical providers and big businesses who are unwilling to spend the money to make sure that the products and services they provide are safe. If you left it up to them, there would be complete immunity from liability and absolute no government oversight. I think there really aren't that many frivolous lawsuits out there because there are checks to make sure that they don't proceed too far.
First of all, in order to file a lawsuit generally, you need a lawyer. Lawyers won't work unless they get paid. And lawyers get paid one of two ways: hourly or contingency. Not too many people who are going to file a frivolous lawsuit are willing to pay a lawyer on an hourly basis, because they don't have any money to begin with. And most lawyers will not take a case that is completely meritless on a contingency basis because they won't get paid when the case is dismissed.
Also, there are legal mechanisms like motions for summary judgment that help separate the cases with merit from those without.
More on why tort reform is not all it appears to be at http://corpreform.typepad.com/
posted by Ace_Face at 02:09 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
Ok you guys....Chris Myers has put up a new site to talk about information to help in saving money/streamlining expenses at TPS...any chance you'll make a comment on this over there?
You're way over my head on most of this stuff - but I think you're well qualified to make the comment!
You sign up for a user name etc. but it's free.
posted by katie82640 at 10:32 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
I agree with ace face. If you produce or perform your respective products and services with due care, you don't have anything to worry about. The problem is not the lawyers, the problem is the juries (the public) awarding such large judgments (democracy). These judgments in turn create larger settlements, higher insurance, etc. If companies and professionals acted with due care more often, rates would not be so high, and there would be fewer high judgments and settlements. The law should not interfere with basic economics.
As for the panel of experts to question the merit of lawsuits, ace face is right. Summary judgment will remove all frivolous lawsuits from the docket. Lawyers will not pursue frivolous law suits, because it is unethical to do so and financially unwise, and courts will not let them through. This need for tort reform is blown way out of proportion. Those who want tort reform need to win the hearts and minds of jurors first. Don't change the law because you're afraid of being negligent, just don't be negligent. Apparently juries think some negligence is worth a lot of money.
posted by junta330 at 10:58 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
As for the issue presented in the original post, it seems reasonable that school districts hire their own counsel. However, in house counsel often has to hire out to other firms anyway. For instance, the case load could be too large, the issues could be too complex, etc. Even in the McCloskey case, the city hired out for his defense, even though he was a city councilmember. You need to remember such things before making such a broad suggestion.
posted by junta330 at 11:01 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 17, 2006 #
HeyHey has made some good points and they're well worth pondering.
I still don't believe that "popular" tort reform will slide in that direction, however. The mainstream tort reform aims to remove legal solutions from the citizenry. Some of the methods are rather overt, but some are also along the lines of HeyHey's thinking (taken too far, that is). The insidious versions of tort reform are things we should be very aware of.
Ace_Face said: “[M]ost lawyers will not take a case that is completely meritless on a contingency basis because they won't get paid when the case is dismissed.”
That doesn't explain why so many lawyers take such cases. Rather, the explanation lies in knowing that there is a dynamic where lawsuits are "settlement" forces, and as we all know, a settlement means "money". Some of these settlements (ref. class actions) are so nutty that only the lawyers get paid anything worthwhile, whereas the plaintiffs or class members get tokens.
Legal costs are so high that lawsuits can be filed to force the defendent to capitulate with a settlement. THAT little fücker of a method needs to be suppressed. But ... how?
Jun-tah, mighty Incan god of thunderation, said: “If you produce or perform your respective products and services with due care, you don't have anything to worry about.”
Corporations are finding out that instead of worrying, they re-incorporate in offshore havens like Bermuda, etc., hence gaining rather broad "protection" (i.e. invulnerability) from product liability suits in the first place. There's "nothing to fear", and then there's donning armor and walking around in it all day.
posted by GuestZero at 01:06 A.M. EST on Wed Oct 18, 2006 #
Mediocrity marches onward:
School bans tag, other chase games
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/18/no.tag.ap/index.html
posted by GuestZero at 02:00 P.M. EST on Wed Oct 18, 2006 #
Well this makes alot more sense than having an adult on the playground to supervise the children. (sarcasm off, to quote Maggie)
posted by katie82640 at 02:46 P.M. EST on Wed Oct 18, 2006 #
I'm starting to think you're paranoid GZ.
posted by junta330 at 10:52 P.M. EST on Wed Oct 18, 2006 #
I never ask myself if I'm paranoid; instead I ask myself if I'm paranoid enough. The latter attitude has served me well. {twitch twitch twitch}
posted by GuestZero at 01:23 A.M. EST on Thu Oct 19, 2006 #
Lawyers don't take frivilous lawsuits?
Here you go: http://www.kptv.com/money/10104494/detail.html
Even if this case is thrown out like it should be, Cracker barrel will be out tens of thousands of dollars to defend itself. This is the type of stuff that I'm talking about.
posted by HeyHey at 10:20 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 19, 2006 #
Heyhey, if you're relying on a newspaper article to determine what is and what isn't a frivolous lawsuit, then I'd say you're barking down the wrong path. That article did not include any facts to indicate discrimination, or lack there of, in any way. We don't know what was said to Ms. Rock, nor do we know what she alleged in her complaint. As you know, I have the utmost respect for you, because I think you're very bright, but using a scant newspaper article as a reference certainly is not convincing. Regardless, my guess is that her lawyers know something that the newspapers do not. Furthermore, the article clearly stated that Cracker Barrel consistently discriminates. I am far-fetched to believe anything to the otherwise, just given the nature of Cracker Barrel and to whom they try to advertise.
posted by junta330 at 11:02 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 19, 2006 #
It could be true that there's more to it, but there is a video interview where she recounts the whole episode. She never says anything more than that they simply didn't serve her and that the manager only gave her a free dinner (instead of calling the waiter/waitress over). The first time I read this story three or four days ago she hadn't retained a lawyer, and I thought her threats were pretty empty. However, the Rev. Sharpton has given his legal resources to her. I don't see how there's a way to prove that their lack of service was because they are African American.
posted by HeyHey at 11:47 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 19, 2006 #
Heyhey, if the cracker barrel case is indeed frivolous, which you make a decent case for, then Ms. Rock's lawyer will certainly face repercussions.
posted by junta330 at 12:07 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
Additionally heyhey, there's one thing I don't think you're considering in your stance on tort reform. While insurance rates continue to rise, insurance companies, under their medmal contracts with doctors, hire lawyers at very low rates. Basically, insurance companies are hiring mediocre lawyers for doctors because insurance companies bargain with big firm for low rates. As a result, these firms let less than stellar lawyers represent these doctors, and doctors aren't receiving the best legal defense they deserve. If I were you, I'd look to reform the insurance industry before I look to reform the free market of jury decisions. I firmly believe that the insurance industry has too much power. If doctors chose their own lawyers in these cases, I think you might see a different outcome in many of these cases.
posted by junta330 at 12:16 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 20, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
