Comments on: OBAMA TRASHES TRIAL LAWYERS: EXCELLENT!

By: Mary OK

Mary OK — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:39:15 +0000

What public service work did Obama do as an attorney? I understand he worked for a civil rights firm? Exactly whom did he help in that capacity? Rezko was a client of his firm - what civil rights work was involved there? Did Obama do any pro-bono work at all?

I am of the opinion that Obama did litlte that did not have a fairly strong benefit to him.

I am wondering if he did not become a trial attorney (prosecutor, family law, may have allowed him to serve the public) because he is uncomfortable with conflict.

Hillary, on the other hand has done trial work, public defender work, ran legal clinics, corporate work, taught law school - she’s been involved with all aspects of the profession.

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:50:05 +0000

Obama should have become a trial lawyer. What’s so bad about them? They keep the average American safe from irresponsible people and corporations.

Check out http://www.HelpMeSue.com and check out what kind of stuff people have to put up with on a daily basis. You’ll be appalled at some of the cases. Appreciate your trial lawyers. Without them, we Americans would have lost many of our rights years ago.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:42:27 +0000

“We see 90% of CP cases settled and 54% won by the plantiff.”

Who is we? Where is this stat from? I’ve honestly never heard it. It wouldn’t surprise me if 90% of CP cases settle, just because 90+% of all cases settle before trial. And when you say “won”, do you mean at trial, or settled with payment for the plaintiff? I don’t believe unsourced statistics from either side, and even when I do see them, I want to see what’s behind the numbers, given the old “lies, damn lies, and statistics” line.

“The pro bono issue has never been in question. He doesn’t even deny it.”

Where has he even been asked about it? Who would know? In my state, I don’t even think they ask you how many pro bono hours you do. The only time I ever have to account for them is when I take a case from the local legal aid office, and that’s just for their internal records. It seems like you’re mad at John Edwards for being successful in cases that you’ve not seen the evidence in - that doesn’t make much sense.

“I don’t think any profession is full of saints, but I will maintain my position that med-mal is out of control and tort reform is necessary.”

Obviously “tort reform” encompasses a number of things, and on some of them I would agree with you no doubt. I don’t much care for forum shopping, for example. However, you’ve put forth no evidence that damage caps and contingency fee caps are “necessary” in any way.

“Protecting the insurance companies profits? Show me where they spiked in markets where tort reform was passed.”

You’re not going to see that. The presence of caps has little to do with an insurer’s immediate profits, and thus their ability or willingness to pass savings on to the physician. Insurer’s profits are far more tied to the stock and bond markets. What caps do is lower the value of the upper end cases, the cases where there is the most harm. They also send more cases into litigation, regardless of legitimacy, because the insurer has less incentive to settle. The caps also limit the ability of those with limited economic damages, like kids, the elderly, stay-at-home parents, to find an attorney, because it doesn’t make sense financially for them to do it, the attorney or the victim. Thus the insurers have fewer cases to defend, not because they’re not legitimate, but because it doesn’t make sense for the plaintiff or their counsel economically. What you will see are declining payouts, but again the remaining money must still be intelligently invested to make a profit.

By: Matt Horn

Matt Horn — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:55:42 +0000

See Matt, that is the gotcha. They don’t have to claim that the CP was definatively resultant of the doc’s botched procedure, just that it occurred while the patient was under their care. This is often during the prenatal care. We see 90% of CP cases settled and 54% won by the plantiff. In general malpractice the plantiff wins under 40% of the time. You are right, it is not impossible, but very rare and these numbers seem to fly in the face of that. I found all this info in a simple google search, (malpractice “cerebral palsy”) sorry I didn’t source it.
The pro bono issue has never been in question. He doesn’t even deny it. In fairness, it was Elizabeth that put forth failed contingencies as pro bono work. I don’t think a lawyer should be forced to do pro bono work if not for the right to counsel set forth in the constitution. Really, my problem is that he claims to be for the little guy, but has not presented any evidence of that when it does not involve a fat payday.
I am looking for that story on the doc that was misattached to the case. I have to find the clipping, as it was the former partner of one of my financial clients and he gave me the newspaper article. If I can’t find the article, feel free to dismiss.
I don’t think any profession is full of saints, but I will maintain my position that med-mal is out of control and tort reform is necessary. Protecting the insurance companies profits? Show me where they spiked in markets where tort reform was passed.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:42:54 +0000

“As we have seen by other verdicts, the jury system is subject to manipulation. Edwards seems to be a master of this. He made his name by going after OB physicians who delivered children with CP. Of course during that time there were studies that showed that it was almost impossible for CP to be caused by the doctor’s delivery techniques, but the only part of the study that had been published was the preliminary findings in 1988. The professional associations involved published the final study in 2003 with the same conclusions.”

Let’s say that Edwards handled 50 cases, and there are 1,000,000 people with CP out there. Are you saying that it’s impossible for there to be 50 of them caused by malpractice? Even the study you cite doesn’t rule it out - it just says it’s rare. So unless you know how many cases he handled it really doesn’t tell me much.

I just don’t see you have the evidence to support your claims that his verdicts or settlements were spurious. Either you have looked at the evidence or you haven’t, and I’ve yet to find someone who has.

As for the pro bono stuff, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Got a link?

As for your other story, I simply don’t believe that someone spent $250K to get out of a case. I’ll have to see some confirmation. When taking the average med mal case to trial, even at the highest estimates of insurance companies, is around $100,000, that’s not a believable claim. Can you provide me a source?

Does that mean I think attorneys never do bad things? Of course not. No more than you think doctors never do bad things. I just oppose these “tort reform” efforts which have more to do with protecting insurer profits than the justice of any particular case.

By: Matt Horn

Matt Horn — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:42:53 +0000

Matt, my apologies, I thought you mentioned you did med-mal work elswhere. You do make a good point concerning the fact that many make judgements when they were not present to hear the evidence. That is why I referred to another lawyer’s site for more details. There are many links to the actual casework when you dig.
As we have seen by other verdicts, the jury system is subject to manipulation. Edwards seems to be a master of this. He made his name by going after OB physicians who delivered children with CP. Of course during that time there were studies that showed that it was almost impossible for CP to be caused by the doctor’s delivery techniques, but the only part of the study that had been published was the preliminary findings in 1988. The professional associations involved published the final study in 2003 with the same conclusions.
Also lets look at his pro bono. I’m sure you would agree that pro bono work really allows the law community to give back to the community. It is a truly noble endevour. I feel the same way about pro bono in any profession. Now, would you consider contingency clients that never won the case or settlement as applicable pro bono work? I wouldn’t and neither would most attorneys. Our buddy John seemed to feel it was.
I am not anti-attorney, as a matter of fact, I am not even anti-med-mal. I think it is very important that we have good attorneys in this field. I have a problem with the guys who go after the docs on spurious accusations knowing that the jury does not have the medical background to make an informed judgement.
Not relating to Edwards, but there was a med-mal story out of Florida where an attorney went after a doctor as part of a med mal suit against the hospital. The doctor spent a lot of time and effort to get unattached from this suit, but during this time, the docs and the hospital were found liable by the jury. Problem with this case was twofold. First, the condition that was supposedly caused by the malpractice was entirely genetic. Second, the doctor was not only not associated with the case, but had moved his practice to another state 5 years prior to the time when the patient was first admitted with his problem. Turns out the doc was included because someone had left his business card in the file. Eventually the decision was reversed, but the man was left with almost $250K of lawyer bills in order to clear his name from something that should have been resolved in discovery.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:52:50 +0000

No. Damage caps will not alter physician behavior. Much more is lost, even when there is no award. Damage caps are a compromise that are unlikely to produce meaningful changes in physician behavior. They benefit insurance companies infinitely more than physicians.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:13:54 +0000

I do look forward to the evidence of physician “shortages”. What’s the optimum number of physicians anyway? How is that determined? And will they provide us a guarantee that we’ll always have that many if we give them a guarantee that their damages are capped?

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:56:15 +0000

The cost to the defendant, of course.

The costs to the insurer or to the plaintiff’s counsel are meaningless when it comes to altering physicians behavior.

If you think cost is only measured in dollars, you are sorely mistaken.

So the evidence at a med mal trial consist of “facts?” Why, then, do we require “expert opinion?” Is that fact, or argument?

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:08:52 +0000

“I think Catron has enough “evidence” to convince twelve people”

Evidence consists of facts, not arguments. He has produced no facts in support of his positions.

The “cost” to who? The insurer? The plaintiff’s counsel? Damage caps do reduce the number of suits, it’s just that they primarily strike at the most meritorious claims. They do little to discourage truly frivolous claims.