Comments on: Punitive Damages http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/punitive-damages/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:42:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/punitive-damages/comment-page-1/#comment-4234 Xrlq Wed, 26 May 2004 22:48:58 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/1550/punitive-damages/#comment-4234 Spoons, you reside in one of the eight states that has implemented this "terrible" idea, where trial lawyers will be every bit as eager to eat 25% as they are to eat 100% now, while courts will intentionally jack up awards even further to solve state budgeting problems. Is there any evidence that either of these things has actually happened? Spoons, you reside in one of the eight states that has implemented this “terrible” idea, where trial lawyers will be every bit as eager to eat 25% as they are to eat 100% now, while courts will intentionally jack up awards even further to solve state budgeting problems. Is there any evidence that either of these things has actually happened?

]]> By: GE http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/punitive-damages/comment-page-1/#comment-4212 GE Tue, 25 May 2004 14:51:16 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/1550/punitive-damages/#comment-4212 Yeah, this law is useless except to fill gov't coffers unless it taxes <strong>before</strong> the lawyers get paid. I don't understand why it should be politically necessary in California to pay the trial lawyers first. Sounds like someone's trying to wave people's attention elsewhere. "Nothing to see here. Just political necessity. Don't ask who is in whose pocket. Keep it moving." Yeah, this law is useless except to fill gov’t coffers unless it taxes before the lawyers get paid. I don’t understand why it should be politically necessary in California to pay the trial lawyers first. Sounds like someone’s trying to wave people’s attention elsewhere. “Nothing to see here. Just political necessity. Don’t ask who is in whose pocket. Keep it moving.”

]]> By: Spoons http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/punitive-damages/comment-page-1/#comment-4211 Spoons Tue, 25 May 2004 14:48:39 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/1550/punitive-damages/#comment-4211 When a plan ostensibly to reduce runaway verdicts is opposed by all of the business lobbies, but is met with a yawn by trial lawyers, then it's a pretty good hint that this is a bad idea. Actually, this is a terrible idea. If the lawyers eat first, then you guarantee that you won't reduce the incentive of lawyers to seek these damages, so what's the point? Further, if you give 3/4 of it to the State, you increase the incentive of courts to be liberal in awarding these damages. It's lose-lose. When a plan ostensibly to reduce runaway verdicts is opposed by all of the business lobbies, but is met with a yawn by trial lawyers, then it’s a pretty good hint that this is a bad idea.

Actually, this is a terrible idea. If the lawyers eat first, then you guarantee that you won’t reduce the incentive of lawyers to seek these damages, so what’s the point? Further, if you give 3/4 of it to the State, you increase the incentive of courts to be liberal in awarding these damages. It’s lose-lose.

]]> By: Joel B. http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/punitive-damages/comment-page-1/#comment-4204 Joel B. Mon, 24 May 2004 20:34:53 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/24/1550/punitive-damages/#comment-4204 In my 1L year, my Civ Pro professor had an interesting theory on why it wouldn't work for the state to take a share of punitive damages. In any event I tend to think the lawyers should get paid last, but I think the fair idea would be that 75% of the lawyer's fee paid by punitive damages goes to the state as well (like in a contingency fee arangement). I don't think lawyers should be seen as doing some kind of service justifying their expemption from this "tax." In my 1L year, my Civ Pro professor had an interesting theory on why it wouldn’t work for the state to take a share of punitive damages. In any event I tend to think the lawyers should get paid last, but I think the fair idea would be that 75% of the lawyer’s fee paid by punitive damages goes to the state as well (like in a contingency fee arangement). I don’t think lawyers should be seen as doing some kind of service justifying their expemption from this “tax.”

]]>