May 5, 2011 | Frivolous, personal injury, political parties, Tort Reform, trial attorney, Uncategorized
The Texas legislature is debating another law at curbing lawsuit abuse. We need to protect those insurance companies and corporations from being sued by people they injured, either in a personal injury case or a business dispute and what better way to do that than having the loser pay all the legal fees and costs of the winner. Some of our elected representatives believe this is an issue that demands immediate attention, hold hearings and try to pass this so as to save Texas from…what??
I will get to that in a minute, but first let’s talk about the issues that they are skipping over so they can hold these critical hearings: education, teacher pay, tax rates, budget issues, etc. Wow. I see why we should push those all aside so the big issue of protecting a special segment of society (read political contributors) is made a priority. Ever notice how anytime they should be tackling the hard issues, suddenly there is a lawsuit crisis. Funny how all that money the state received from the tobacco litigation was due to the work of trial lawyers. It was supposed to be for education and health. Where did it all go? The trial lawyers didn’t have control of it – our representatives did.
Back to the current attack on the justice system and our Texas way of life, loser pays. Sounds great. Why shouldn’t the loser pay the attorney fees and cost of the side that won. That might make some sense if it was even close to the real facts, but what they are trying to pass is a one way street. If you own a small business and have to sue GE because they haven’t paid you for your work, you could be responsible for all of their lawyers fees and cost if you lose. Lose means having a jury award less than GE offers. You go to a lawyer and explain that you don’t have the money to pay to fight them so will she take it with a reduced hourly fee and a percentage of the recovery. The answer will probably be no. Under the proposed law you and attorney could be responsible for all the other sides fees and expenses. So why would a lawyer who is already working at a reduced rate (or on a purely contingent fee in a personal injury case) take the chance. I know — if you really believe it is a good case you would take it, plus if you win you get all your fees and expenses. Wrong – this law only works one way. If you file suit and win, they don’t owe your fees or expenses. How about that for fair. If you have to sue to recover your medical expenses or for harm to your business because the other side refuses to do the right they and you win — you can’t recover your fees and expenses. It is only if you lose the other side can recover their fees and expenses. There is nothing to prevent (in fact it will even encourage) defendants from doing nothing so you have to sue them because they have no risk of having to pay for their frivolous defenses raised just to delay a case and raise the cost of recovery.
The people supporting this claim it will prevent frivolous lawsuits. We already have rules which allow a Court to dismiss a frivolous case and assess costs against the side the filed such a case. There are Motions which allow a Court to rule for either side and charge the losing side with costs. So why is this needed, who does it benefit and why is one sided? It has nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits and everything to do with money and intimidation. The real purpose is to prevent people and small companies from daring to sue others to make them pay for their actions which caused harm.
It has been touted that it is the English Law. Seems like we had a little disagreement with them about their laws and regulations which led to the creation of our country to begin with, including the lack of being able to seek redress for injuries and wrongs. Also the English are considering doing away with it and switching to the American system as being more fair. Also this has been tried in the U.S. Florida passed a loser pays type of law and five years later had to repeal it.
So here is the highlights. Try and distract the citizens of Texas from the real issues facing Texas today by creating a crisis that doesn’t exist. Reward special interest by making it a one way street. Pass a law that is not needed, has already failed in the state it was attempted and base it upon a country’s law which is considering doing away with it and following what we currently have. Finally if you go the the list of people who support the bill they include GE a company who makes billions, pays nothing in taxes but feels it needs protection from being sued. Those who oppose it include MADD a non-profit group who fights for those killed or injured by drunk drivers.
If Loser Pays passes – we all lose. What do you think? Have you let your representative know how you feel?
Dec 9, 2010 | political parties, taxes; death; estate, Uncategorized, Voting
The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~Ronald Reagan
Two things people claim are a certainty –death and taxes. Let me start with a disclaimer — I am not an expert on taxes (or death), and welcome comments by anyone who can help me out. Here is the question/problem –What is the justification for having different income levels paying a different percentage of tax and why should your estate have to pay taxes on what you made (and probably paid taxes on) while you were alive? How is that fair? If I and three buddies go into a store and each get a soda which cost a dollar why should I pay $1, while my buddies pay $1.25, $1.40 and one actually gets it free because of a rebate. It’s the same soda, we are all getting the same thing for our money, how is that different than paying more based upon how much you make? The person that makes more than me isn’t getting any greater benefit from the government and the person paying less isn’t getting any less so why the difference? We elect representatives who all seem to say the same thing, we need to change the tax structure, etc., etc. Then why haven’t they done it? Why are we paying billions of dollars to bail out companies, fund “art” exhibits that show Jesus covered in ants and other pork barrel projects which continue to increase our debt? Why is it ok for “our” representatives to spend our money on things which not only do I not want or need, but am morally opposed to? Where are our representatives when these appropriations are being made, why are they not taking a stand then and there rather than telling me I will be fighting to stop this wasteful spending, etc. If all of those elected officials that tell us they will do something actually did it then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. How can it be that almost everyone of them say they do not support x,y or z, but then apparently by some miracle something gets passed which they did not approve. Here is a suggestion – stop talking — start doing. If you are going to pass a law make it mandatory that it impacts you, the congress and senate in the exact same manner as it will impact those you represent. Do away with your private health care, retirement fund, travel allowances, etc. and make do with the same things you believe are good enough for the rest of us. I want you to explain to me how a graduated tax structure makes any logical sense (other than to provide you with more money to spend on things I don’t want and to dole out to your friends and contributors) and explain to me why the government needs to tax a person their entire life and when they die tax their estate. What benefit is that person getting from the government at that point? They are dead. There is no benefit to them and they are no burden on the government. What is the justification to tax the estate? I realize I am just a small town country lawyer, but I could really use some enlightenment here. I welcome answers. Real answers, not just “I hear you and I with your continued support we will make these changes” speech. How about forwarding this to all those in congress and the senate and let them answer these questions. These should be easy answers for them as they constantly vote on tax issues. I assume they would be proud of how they vote and why they voted the way they did, so why not have them answer the questions and post their answers for everyone to see. If they agree or disagree with a graduated tax system they can explain the benefit of their position to us. If they agree or disagree with an estate tax they can explain the benefit of their position to us. I know some of them will say I fought against it but lost the vote, but put me back in there and we will get them next time. How about this – put down in writing what you actually believe, stand by it, do what’s right and let the rest take care of itself. But like I said in the beginning what do I know — I am no expert and just a small town country lawyer, so help me out with some explanations here.
Aug 13, 2009 | political parties
Politics are something that is generally avoided in legal blogs so as not to offend anyone, but sometimes not saying anything is more offensive. Republican or Democrat does it really matter. Both parties are spending us into bankruptcy and blame the other. They talk about representing the people and not special interest, but who are these “people” because it is not anyone I know. One claims they want free market to decide whether a company succeeds or not, but then reward certain companies with bids, bails out certain companies while allowing others to go under and institute legal “reform” to protect others when they injure someone or cause economic harm. Our soldiers are getting killed taking showers due to faulty wiring, and their families can not hold the company responsible. The other party is claiming that they will provide health care “reform” and virtually no one has even read the bill which will change our options and choices of medical care. I was raised and believe that you do what is right and if you mess up, you take responsibility and try to make it right. Work hard and help others who need help. I believe that and want a party who believes it as well. I hear people say neither party is perfect, that is true, but I would settle for honest. My party seems to have disappeared. If you happen to find it let me know.
