I understand this. I do.
Still, you must know that things are the way they are in public schools because of a fear of being sued. So sure, I AM blaming the sleazy scum bag types. If I were an attorney, I would do everthing I could to do something about those scumbags that drag you guys down in the mud.
Again, I understand that a majority of attorneys are honorable people. It is a shame that the minority gets to define you all. I have no idea what the answer might be? Better judges who throw more civil cases out on grounds of being a waste? I dunno. I am open to ideas.
Its a terribly complex issue. The problem is, that for a long time, it was very hard for people with wholly legitimate complaints to get into court, especially if they were poor, or a minority, or, god forbid, were reprisenting themselves pro se . . . so the rules to let things in where liberalized, because the courts were beign used to throw out legitimate complaints. The problem is that we've gone to far, and probably need to tighten up the rules for dismissal and summary judgement.
Another problem is that a lot of these cases are losers. Period. If they ever actually GOT to court, they'd lose. But there a large number of lawyers who make their living bringing these cases and then settling, because it is cheaper for the defendant to settle than to take it to court. We do have loser-pays provisions, but they are rarely used. Courts probably need to use them much more often.
Now, the reason we don't have loser-pays in all cases, as the UK does, is that it was also used against weaker parties. No one in their right mind would ever sue a large corporation . . . the odds are against you unless you have a smoking gun, and then you are stuck with THEIR legal costs? Which are . . . well, stupendous. Our "each party pays for themselves unless the case is frivoulous" rule makes it easier for the poor, or even normal people, to take on corporations and the rich . . . the problem is that it ALSO makes it easier for anyone with half a grudge to sue. But we need to start using that more often, as well as the ethical rules that penalize lawyers for bringing frivlous suits.
Cotingency fees are also a huge problem. With the lawyer getting a third of the judgement, or the settlement, regardless of how much work they do, theres a huge incentive to just bring cases and settle, thus never getting to court. And they do it. Often, in legitimate cases, screwing their client, who would have gotten more with a jury. And these attorneys make obscene ammounts of money. But we have contingency fees for the same reason as the above problem .. . people can't afford a lawyer to bring a complaint. I know this one from personal experience: I sued after the apartment fire, and did not go with a contingency agreement. I paid my lawyer up front. And the otherside toyed with us until we ran out of money. Unless you have a huge claim (and I mean huge, mine was $25,000, which is, in the world of claims, peanuts) it is simply not possible or even rational for most people to sue unless they have a lawyer working on contingency. I SHOULD have hired a lawyer on contingency, but didn't do so on principle. Oops.
In other words, there are a lot of factors involved, and many of them were put into place to help and protect people who would otherwise not have access to the courts, and, we know from history, were viciously exploited because of it. Rights are worthless if you can't enforce them, whether they are contract rights or civil rights.
The problem is that lots of people are abusing the system now. A minority of lawyers, but they are a prominent, and often wealthy minority. Not to mention many people in the public who think that a lawsuit is a quick way to turn a buck.
What I would do:
Tighten up the loser-pays rules
Shift the standards for motion to dismiss and summary judgement a bit towards the conservative side
THe bar associations need to get agressive about frivilous suits, as do the courts. There are sanctions. Use them.
Shut down the non-accredited law schools, and tighten the requirements for ABA schools. There are too many young lawyers with massive debts and no prospects of making an honest living. Some would call this snobbery, trying to protect those in the profession from competition, but the honest truth is too many people are suckered into going to really lousy law schools, where they have no hope of getting a decent job, because there aren't enough jobs for them, who end up with a law degree and a morgage's worth of debt, and quickly discover that they are broke, miserable, and don't like practicing law anyway. A fair number of these people end up as an embarassment to themselves and the profession.
