~yeah. I don’t know if the legal scholars coming up with this “revolution” thought of that much. I think they expected companies to “somehow” make things better. Sure the first few people would be suffering but as costs added up companies will make such good products that lawyers are no longer necessary because we’re safer.
Another thing that comes to mind is I think that the costs are new. I wonder if litigation has always been so expensive, but it definitely is now and getting more expensive. I think around the time this all started happening litigation was a “chiller” process. As companies became more and more liable though things changed. Costlier things are added from getting experts involved, court costs (some is tax payer, but some is not like filing fees, court reporter fees), and probably other things. More “sophisticated” defense tactics and prolonging cases probably increased costs as companies tried to avoid liability.
The point being I don’t know if tort reformers thought this whole expensive legal complex would come out of it. They probably thought, at best, a client would lose a little bit of money for attorneys fees.
Actually you shared at The Injustice of Strictly and Literally Making Victims Whole, Such as All Children - #10 by Elliot :
I have a low opinion of the current system where many civil cases are very expensive in terms of lawyer bills.
Do you think lawyers cost too much or the process costs too much? I think both are true, though I don’t know how you’re thinking of them. I know “low” rates for lawyers can be like a few hundred a hour. That sucks, especially with how necessary they are, But I think when we’re talking about lawyers taking like half the money, it should be pointed out that everything about litigation is expensive. Now I’m sure some (or many) lawyers are complicit in the system and costs, but all the crazy high legal costs are taken on by attorneys and they could just lose all that money if they don’t recover. I wonder if this has lead to lawyers pursuing some less true claims to recover more for their client and themselves.
I don’t know if you were outright criticizing the practice of contingency or just pointing out how contingency doesn’t really make sense with the insurance scheme. Its like having a policy where you’ll get $5000 but the insurance companies takes half in processing fees.
I think its harder than that actually. Juries (if it gets there) are the ones determining the pay out based off all the information given. Just random people off the street given some evidence and some legal guidelines to determine the payout for an insurance policy. Also chapter three (which I’ll post about soon) I think starts covering the difficulty of figuring all this out:
The judges who had sentenced and executed the law of contract had not one head to replace, but a million. Every sale of a car, toaster, or cigarette lighter, every hookup of an electric or gas customer, every ticket for an ocean cruise or roller coaster ride, every college admission, hotel room rental, or tonsillectomy, is based on contract. The old law depended on buyer and seller to decide privately beforehand who would pay for what if an accident befell. When the courts abandoned contract, they left a cavernous void that had to be refilled, bucket by bucket, with a new set of public standards, rights, and responsibilities.
When this realization dawned, it came as something of a letdown in legal
circles.