"Man, this post could sure be taken out of context"
Yeah, like Rev Wright says...
Bill Clinton says the excerpt of his recent letter to John Hinkley was taken out of context when he revealed that Barack Obama is fucking Jodie Foster...
"Moreover, I'd like to know how you'd "fix" the system as it stands"
Here's one suggestion: Let the jury make two deliberations. First, for the award for the plaintiff; second, for the plaintiff's lawyers. That way, if the plaintiff's lawyer wants an uneducated jury - as many of them do in order to extract a jackpot lottery award - (s)he might be less likely to receive such a sympathetic deliberation that lavishly enriches him.
Yes, many of them take a risk with millions of expenses - but why? To secure justice? For the pittances ultimately paid to the plaintiffs? Or, as a calculated risk that could produce enormously outsized returns? If my memory serves me correctly, one of the lawyers involved in the tobacco litigation from Pensacola, Fl received a $900 million contingency fee. Want to guess what the individual plaintiffs received?
Slashdot Mirror
any chance you'd PM me the twitter names of the 5 "users" you follow? If so, thanks...
"for all intents and purposes" would correct your sig line...
"Man, this post could sure be taken out of context"
Yeah, like Rev Wright says...
Bill Clinton says the excerpt of his recent letter to John Hinkley was taken out of context when he revealed that Barack Obama is fucking Jodie Foster...
So... does a restaurant owner have the right to refuse service to minorities? Because, if I don't like their policy, I can simply dine elsewhere?
"Moreover, I'd like to know how you'd "fix" the system as it stands"
Here's one suggestion: Let the jury make two deliberations. First, for the award for the plaintiff; second, for the plaintiff's lawyers. That way, if the plaintiff's lawyer wants an uneducated jury - as many of them do in order to extract a jackpot lottery award - (s)he might be less likely to receive such a sympathetic deliberation that lavishly enriches him.
Yes, many of them take a risk with millions of expenses - but why? To secure justice? For the pittances ultimately paid to the plaintiffs? Or, as a calculated risk that could produce enormously outsized returns? If my memory serves me correctly, one of the lawyers involved in the tobacco litigation from Pensacola, Fl received a $900 million contingency fee. Want to guess what the individual plaintiffs received?