FAQ
Q: “I’m not the kind
of person who sues.”
A: Most people who visit our office say this to us. Fortunately,
they are usually correct and have not had to assert claims
against others. Unfortunately, people have been made to feel
there is something wrong, immoral or even evil about bringing
a lawsuit. We have all heard of the reports of unfair or
crazy claims made by others (many totally fabricated) or
of wild and unsupportable results from lawsuits (again, mostly
misreported or just made up). The ultimate question for you
to decide in considering whether to make a claim for file
a lawsuit is, “Who should have to bear the cost of
your losses – the one responsible for causing your
losses or only the one who sustained the losses?” We
believe in personal and corporate accountability; as such,
if you hurt someone else, you should pay for their losses.
As we see it, there is nothing wrong with sticking up for
yourself. You become a “victim” when you don’t.
Q: Why do lawyers sue individuals and small businesses who
seem to have few or no assets?
A: We are not out to destroy peoples’ lives or businesses;
to the contrary, we work tirelessly to better peoples’ lives
and society. Nearly every case which is filed, and certainly
those which proceed to trial, is a case in which the defendant
has insurance. The insurance company hires a lawyer to defend
the insured and pays for any judgment or settlement against
the defendant. In California trials, we cannot mention whether
the defendant even has insurance. Since we, as contingent fee
lawyers, are paid a portion of what is recovered in the case,
it would make no sense for us to pursue a claim which likely
cannot be paid.
Q: Aren’t most injury lawsuits
frivolous?
A: For decades, the “frivolous lawsuit” mantra
has been effectively drummed into our minds by those who feel
they (or their insureds) should not be held accountable for
their misdeeds. It really is all about the money. However,
the money is that being saved by well-heeled companies by way
of lowered awards (while our insurance premiums continue to
climb). Nearly every person who files a lawsuit for injury
or the death of a loved one is represented by a lawyer who
works on a contingent fee. If the case lacks merit, it will
likely end up a loser. A contingent fee lawyer gets paid nothing
on a case which he or she loses. Furthermore, in California,
there are legal tools and procedures which are available and
used to remove meritless cases out of the system so that they
cannot even get to trial. So, despite the crazy things we hear
in the news or over the internet, the reality is that there
is no incentive for a lawyer to bring a frivolous lawsuit and,
if he does, the suit will likely be dismissed before it gets
to trial. If it is, the lawyer in some cases can be sued and
even lose his license to practice law altogether.
Q: Why are people allowed to recover for pain and suffering
or emotional distress?
A: Oftentimes, people focus only on their “out-of-pocket” losses,
such as their medical bills, and seek only to recover those
economic losses. Those people are missing the point. Being
seriously injured impacts a person’s life in a much greater
way than simply incurring medical bills. People are not cars
and should not be treated as such. When someone is injured,
their lives are typically changed, whether for a few months
or years or for the rest of their lives. They might have to
miss work which can be quite stressful. Their personal time
is consumed by going to doctors, physical therapy or even having
to do their own work outs at home. They can no longer do the
things they loved which made their lives a bit better. If they
can, they might be limited on how long or how often they can
do them, as well as how vigorously they can participate. Their
relationships with others might be stressed due to their physical
limitations or condition and the extra demands on loved ones
as a result. In the end, in most cases, the harm to the person
is much greater than the harm to the pocket book. The injured
person should not be the only one who has to bear this loss.
Fortunately, the law recognizes this and, accordingly, allows
recovery for pain, suffering and emotional distress.
Q: Aren’t people who bring lawsuits
just trying to get something for nothing?
A: The loss of a loved one or having your health and your life
changed or disrupted because someone else hurt you is hardly “nothing.” Shouldn’t
the person who caused the loss be held responsible for the
loss they caused?
We sometimes hear terms such as “jackpot justice,” “litigation
lottery” and “lawsuit tax” used to describe
our civil justice system. These are cute, catchy terms which
can be fun to say and sometimes get people riled up and angry
with the system, the lawyers who work in it and those who use
it. These terms were developed and shrewdly marketed by those
who want to warp the civil justice system into one which better
protects them from being held accountable for others’ losses.
(Curiously, oftentimes if the party responsible for causing
the losses does not pay this “tax”, then the rest
of us tax payers will have to pay it through public benefits.)
Again, the money game.
In any event, the framers of our Constitution wisely incorporated
the civil jury system into our society to protect against the
influence of the wealthy and the powerful. No lobbyists are
allowed. Each jury is made up of randomly selected individuals.
The court and the lawyers for each side have the opportunity
to remove those who are unfairly biased for or against one
side or the other. Each side in a trial has the opportunity
to present their best case and attack the other’s case.
The jury, which includes a broad array of individuals from
a particular area, is allowed to see and hear the evidence,
discuss it and then make a decision. If the jury’s decision
is out-of-hand and unsupportable by the facts, the trial judge
can change it or limit it. Eventually, the parties may appeal
the decision. In the end, this is one of the purest and fairest
dispute resolution systems ever to be devised. The fact that
powerful interests do not like it because it is difficult to
corrupt is no reason to change it or, for that matter, despise
it.
|
