Scum of the Earth: John Edwards and the Trial Lawyers

Offered with no commentary http://www.dollywoodssplashcountry.com/Disability.htm

 

You mean there are people who go to Dollywood more than once?

 

Also noted by Howard Kurtz:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/

 

Unfortunately there was no guarantee that Roxran would not have to pay his lawyer's fees. It turned out O.K., but even those that are completely innocent at times have to pay attorney costs (not to mention the worrying they have to go through). This is the type of thing that would seemingly help deter some of the frivolous suits. Have a mandate that if you lose your case AND the judge and/or jury deems it to be a bad case to begin with then you are required to pay all court costs.

I know a guy who worked on designing part of a plant. An entirely different part of the plant had some sort of explosion and injured someone. That person essentially sued every single person and company that had anything to do with building the entire plant and sued them. Needless to see, the guy I knew was completely exonerated but it cost him money as well as grief. So, although the system worked, he was out money, time and personal well-being. Imagine you are at Astroworld and the bamboo shoot casues an injury and the injured party sues the builder of the Batman ride. It was the same situation.

 

we already have safeguards like that. you just have to get judges serious about enforcing it...it takes a whole lot to get them to call it frivilous.

 

I'm glad State Farm was able to help you, ROXRAN. You were getting messed over, for sure. But I have to say that they are no angels. I was on the other side regarding State Farm, and my one attorney faced at least four from State Farm. An idiot ran a red light in a pickup, nearly killed me and my 1 1/2 year old daughter (she was OK, thank god... she was in the 3rd seat in the back of my Honda van, strapped in like an astronaut), got a ticket, caused me to get major back surgery, and I didn't end up with diddly squat. A few thousand dollars and that's it. Years later, I'm still in pain, can't do athletic stuff with my kids, and muddle through.

I'm very aware at how overblown this whole "trail lawyers... they're evil!" BS is. My attorney cut his damn fee because he was embarrassed at what we got in arbitration. I was miserable, in pain, and didn't want to go through years of legal depositions and an eventual trial. I learned, let me tell you, I learned to put up with it if, god forbid, I ever go through anything like that again.

It's good to be alive, but life could be a hell of a lot better, in my case, anyway.

 

If Edwards/Kerry (or is it Kerry/Edwards?) should lose, we have a job for Edwards back here in NC.

Last weekend, a local guy drowned when his jet-ski overturned. His life jacket got hooked on the handlebar of his jet-ski and the guy just drowned because he couldn't free himself.

Product liability anyone?

 

are any of you guys debating trial lawyers actually members of the legal profession or have any idea how it works !??!?!


if you are a non-lawyer who has never been invovled in a civil suit, and you are making statements about "scum of the earth"....you are an idiot and are talking out of your a$$


If you ARE a member of the bar and you are bashing trial lawyers... you are a hypocrate

the LAWYER has spoken !

 

It was the jet ski's fault, Giddy, not the rider's. Evil corporations are constantly building substandard products designed to kill and maim while making them maximum profit.

 

Have you ever tried an inversion bench, or is that contraindicated for your condition? My bench did wonders for my chronic back pain. Pretty much cleared it up.

 

Jorge clearly just couldn't get into law school where he wanted to follow his dream of being "The Next Jim Adler."

 

with that attitude... he should pray he never needs one

 

Dear Mr. CONQUISTADOR,

I think you are really dreamy and can't stop thinking about your cute little thumbs. Are you free this Friday? I'll play Torquemada and try to convert you.

Hugs and kisses,

First Blood, part deux

 

So, by that logic - you can't criticize the military unless you have been in the military, you can't criticize the president unless you have been president, you can't criticize Michael Moore unless you're a leftist film maker, etc.

 

i'm a lawyer...and the bar is definitely worthy of criticism. to the extent i'm a part of that, i'm to blame, too. the lack of professionalism in my profession is often staggering. the concern for billing fees at the expense of good advice to the client kills me sometimes.

but i think a lot of what we're seeing here are ridiculous examples used to make a point without telling "the rest of the story."

 

I didn't know you were a bartender.




EDIT: Oh, sorry. Nevermind...

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liball0715,0,1456905.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines

Injured softballer crying foul

BY JONATHAN MUMMOLO
STAFF WRITER

July 15, 2004


Many frustrated baseball fans -- sick of pulling their hair out over a bad call -- have for years longed for the use of the instant replay to overrule an umpire.

Garden City softball player Michael Licitra had another idea: Let a jury decide.


A former catcher in the Garden City Over-35 Men's Slow-Pitch softball league, Licitra is suing both the Village of Garden City and John Knowles, an opposing player, for $2 million in damages. The civil trial began Wednesday in State Supreme Court in Mineola.

Licitra, 44, broke his left leg when Knowles, 39, collided with him while trying to score a run for his team, the "East Enders," in a playoff game in September 2001.

Licitra who played for the "West Enders," is alleging that Knowles knowingly violated the so-called "Pete Rose" rule, which prohibits avoidable collisions.

Rule 11 in the Garden City League, the "Pete Rose" rule stems from a play in the 1970 major league All-Star Game -- played exactly 34 years ago Wednesday -- in which Rose barreled into catcher Ray Fosse at the plate, injuring Fosse's shoulder and stunting his career.

Adopted by many amateur leagues, the rule states that "If any player has possession of the ball, the runner MUST either slide, avoid the fielder or surrender the tag." Violation of the rule could result in ejection by the umpire.

Knowles' attorney, Robert Baxter of Jericho, told reporters Wednesday that the case is "a joke," and that any athlete assumes the risk of injury when playing a sport.

"If we lose this case, my statement to everyone would be don't play sports in this county," he said.

Licitra's attorney, Robert Morici of Garden City, insisted that softball "is not a contact sport" and that his client played under the assumption that the league's rules would be followed.

In a realization of every irate fan's dream, the game's umpire, James Geasor, of Baldwin Harbor, is scheduled to take the stand Thursday under oath.

However, Justice Edward W. McCarty III ruled Wednesday that the ump cannot be asked whether Knowles violated Rule 11, because that would usurp "the fact-finding role of the jury."

A motion to dismiss the case stating that Licitra held an "assumption of risk" when joining the league was denied in February by State Supreme Court Justice Bruce D. Alpert, who wrote that the assumption " ... did not relieve the defendant from the obligation of using reasonable care to guard against a risk which might reasonably be anticipated," court records state.

Licitra, who needed surgery after he fractured his "left tibial plateau" (the top of the tibia) during the Sept. 23, 2001, game, said in testimony Wednesday that Knowles "veered one or two steps" off the base line and "dove" head-first into him.

Licitra, who illustrated the incident for the six-member jury in part by drawing a diagram of a baseball diamond Wednesday, said he was on the basepath, and had just been thrown the ball, at the time of the collision, between the third-base line and the infield grass.

Knowles was not ejected from the game, Baxter said.

During Licitra's testimony, Baxter argued that his client's bid for home was a "head-first slide," which is permitted under Rule 11.

Licitra, of Garden City, is a sales vice president for Advantage Title, Inc., which sells title insurance for real estate deals. Knowles, also of Garden City, is a manager at Wael Darby, a sales engineering company.

Both declined to comment Wednesday.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

 

I'll take it that T_J is against guns and their dealers, and not against the people that fire them.

 

Scum of the earth, indeed...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2686093

Home state sees Edwards as truly honorable

Senator held in high regard by friends, opponents
By MIKE TOLSON
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle


When John Edwards first started to show what pundits call traction, the novice presidential candidate suddenly found himself under the magnifying glass as never before. Political reporters from around the country descended on North Carolina, which he had represented in the U.S. Senate since 1998, and what they found read less like biography than legend.


Edwards was far from the usual millionaire senator and almost as far from the typical trial lawyer. He was not only rich but respected, not just for what he had done in the courtroom but for what he had not done.


He did not jump on bandwagons and sign up clients by the hundreds to participate in mass torts or class actions. He did not file lawsuits with novel approaches to the law or present expert witnesses from the fringe of scientific respectability. He did not look for clients with modest injuries that could translate into quick cash. And he never advertised.


Johnny Reid Edwards made his name, and his money, the old-fashioned way — one verdict at a time. Make that one big verdict at a time.


As the list of million-dollar verdicts and settlements grew, Edwards managed to transcend the stereotype of greedy plaintiff lawyer. Lawyers who specialize in defending corporations and doctors, two of Edwards' frequent targets, seldom wax positive on their courtroom opponents. In his case, however, their comments are unusually generous.


"I admired him as a trial lawyer and as an honorable person," said Jim Cooney, a Charlotte defense attorney who faced him in a dozen cases. "He never tried to shake people down or extort money. If he felt that my client was not responsible, he would dismiss him (from the case) and not ask for a settlement. If he said he was going to do something, he did it. He never played dirty. He was always fair."


More to the point in the current political context, Edwards had no taste for the sort of creative cases that make their way onto the tort reformers' hit parade.


If anything, Edwards has been criticized for not wanting to take more cases. In essence, he is accused of using his early success to cherry pick slam-dunk winners — and the big jury awards they could produce — while turning away from potential clients with an ordinary case who could benefit from his expertise and reputation.


"As he got successful, he only went for the high-dollar cases," said Victor Schwartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association. "I know of burn cases and medical malpractice cases that he wouldn't take because the money wasn't enough. The word on the street was that the cases had to net $300,000, and that means a $1 million settlement. I know some of the most successful plaintiff lawyers in the country, and they would not do that. They would find a way to take the case."


But those who faced him in court argue otherwise.


"In my mind, he was doing what every plaintiff attorney ought to do: Take a long look at every potential case and make sure you have a darn good case in which somebody did something wrong," Cooney said.


Edwards' former partners said his practice was so small and the demand for his services so great that turning down most of the people who wanted to hire him was inevitable.


"There's no reason to get bigger so you can write home and tell mom and dad you got big," said Wade Smith, who hired him in 1981 and watched him leave in 1993 after establishing himself. "He and his partners tried their cases. There are some places with 600 cases and settle them all. He'd throw himself so fully into a case it would be hard for him to have a lot of cases."


Edwards' only sworn enemies back home are the insurance companies who got hit with paying the bill for so many of his verdicts, and the defendants they insured. His cases reportedly were responsible for more than 25 percent of the malpractice verdict payout in North Carolina in the 1990s, though it should be noted the total continued to rise after he quit his practice.


"His strength is not just his ability to simplify a very complex situation so it can be clearly and compellingly presented to a jury," said Wade Byrd, a close friend and fellow plaintiff's lawyer in Fayetteville, N.C. "He also has a method of presenting it that is compassionate and sincere. He makes his analysis of the case so inescapable that the other side is at a real disadvantage."


The son of a millworker, Edwards, 51, has said that he knew he wanted to be a lawyer at least since the age of 11.


It didn't take long after starting his career to make headlines. In 1984, seven years after passing the bar exam, he gained an instant profile with a $3.7 million medical malpractice verdict, in the process besting one of the region's top defense lawyers. Such sums were barely news in big cities where civil litigation was becoming a minor industry, but it was unheard of in conservative precincts like Asheville, N.C., where there was little natural sympathy for people who sued a respected doctor and hospital.


By the time he quit practicing in 1998 to run for the Senate, he had rolled up verdicts of more than $175 million and achieved a reputation as one of the country's top trial lawyers, eventually gaining admission to that legal fraternity's Inner Circle of Advocates, an elite group of the top 100 attorneys — who not surprisingly later became some of his biggest political contributors.


For his part, Edwards is not about to apologize for the way he ran his business.


"If my opponents want to look at the cases I tried and the kinds of people I represented, they're welcome to," he said in a 2003 interview. "I am proud of the work I did."