The attorney is seeking permission for a $100 million lawsuit on behalf of a student who survived the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

You case for Lybia makes the point for the administration's failure in Lybia, Originally Posted by LexusLover

Written by an individual who has yet to acknowledge the George W. Bush Administration's failure in Iraq.

Written by an individual who has yet to acknowledge the George W. Bush Administration's failure in Iraq. Originally Posted by bigtex

Before I would even entertain that idea I will see how Iraq lines up with the military confrontation with Iran, and how much "support" Iraq provides to assist in taking down Iran and Iran's nuclear capabilities. Having fly over rights and a safety net location for pilots, not to mention a staging area for personnel, is a valuable asset. As you know were are not "gone,' just downsized and asserts are still there with a gps location. And if you don't "know," then you probably shouldn't be calling people out, just for political reasons. Just saying.

Now, if you really want to compare the facts of both situations, ..
.... start another thread.

Now, if you really want to compare the facts of both situations, ..
.... start another thread. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Thanks but no thanks! I prefer to address both Iraq and Libya in one thread, not two!

It's just a matter of personal preference. I'm sure you will understand!

It usually isn't the anti-attorney crowd's "view," until they get hurt or charged with a crime. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I am not "anti-attorney." As I noted earlier in this thread, my elderly father was an attorney for many years.

In fact, I have utilized attorneys on multiple occasions to represent my interests or those of entities under my management or control.

What I am is anti-frivolous lawsuit. (Especially since entities under my control or in which I have a substantial interest have been targeted by a few of them. I'm happy that in each case they were dropped for want of prosecution when it became clear to the plaintiff that we were not willing to settle for so much as a penny, but it would have been nice to have been able to recover attorneys' fees!)

And I'm certainly opposed to granting the approval of processes enabling swarms of plaintiffs' attorneys to join public-sector unions in the looting of state treasuries.

And I'm certainly opposed to granting the approval of processes enabling swarms of plaintiffs' attorneys to join public-sector unions in the looting of state treasuries. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How about defense-attorneys who "loot" the government treasuries?

It's an ill-wind that blows no good.

95% of all attorneys make the other 5% look bad.

95% of all attorneys make the other 5% look bad. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, if the 5% would straighten up their act, they wouldn't "look bad."

Actually the kid didn't have an assault rifle, that was media bullshite from politicians. He had two pistols and a shotgun, which was in the trunk of his car.

I do as well, and the Federal court system has a little more flexibility in that regard, as well as a little more freedom in the Judge to address frivolity.

Mr. Tush, have you ever had a lawyer on the other side of your case, whether plaintiffing or defending, tell you that you had a "good" claim or a "good" defense? Answer:_____;

but I have heard "friviolous" ... "ridiculous" .... and "sanctions" too frequently. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Hell yes, they will tell you at times that you have a good lawsuit. It's usually said with envy over drinks after a depo, and with a caveat about "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," but sure. You don't think anybody pays seven figures for a bad law suit do you?

And even with less than spectacular law suits, most lawyers wills shoot straight with each other about how they see the case. Typical conversation might go something like this: "I think I've got a really great Plaintiff. Jury is going to love him. Good family. Strong liability. Very little chance of contrib. Operated back. Good doc, both in terms of testifying and resume. I'm a little weak on damages because my guy is 26 and hadn't reached his prime earning years, but remember, his boss testified that he would make a supervisor by age 35, etc.:"

Other lawyer: "Yeah, you've got a pretty good plaintiff. I like the wife more than him, but they're good folks. Jury will like them. I think I've got more chance at contrib than you do, but you're going to tag me on liability. You're right about the medical. But I think where you're weak is on damages. First, they jury isn't going to give him more than he's ever made, I don't care what the supervisor say. Plus, the fact that he's a good plaintiff works against you here. He's bright enough that he can go to college or get a decent job where he doesn't have to do physical work."

So yeah, there's a lot of honest -- or near honest -- evaluation that goes back and forth.

Excellent idea. I think you are the only left-of-center person I have heard advocate that.

I think in patent cases where the plaintiff is a troll (i.e., owns patents but makes no products), the plaintiff should ALWAYS pay attorney fees and costs. Originally Posted by ExNYer

100% wrong. Let's say I invent something highly useful. The airplane, for ease of argument. (Yes, the Wright brothers did get a patent.) Assuming someone else makes an airplane that infringes, why should I have to also make airplanes to exclude them from making my invention?

A more practical invention. Let's say I invent a new way to make LED's work in light bulbs that is truly revolutionary. I, in fact, know a guy who is working in a consortium that is seeking to do just that. However, once I invent this new technology, it takes tens, if not hundreds of millions to build a large LED light bulb plant to bring these bulbs to market in commercial quantity. I don't have that much money. But Phillips, GE, Sylvania, LightingScience, Toshiba, etc. all do. But I invented the new method that makes the bulbs brighter at lower electricity levels. I should be able to science that technology to them after obtaining a patent.

Otherwise, no one other than the very wealthy have any incentive to invent.

So yeah, there's a lot of honest -- or near honest -- evaluation that goes back and forth. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

What you are describing is a dialogue that would be occurring in the context of an attempt to resolve a personal injury case during which each side is attempting not to piss off the other side and polarize the sides and thereby facilitate an environment likely to result in an amicable resolution of the dispute in a narrow class of cases.

It is not necessrily "honesty" it is being artfully agreeable to get an agreement.

Translated: Those are all good points, but you are full of shit.

Nope. You have those sorts of conversations as you go along, too. You have to gradually feel out what the other side thinks. And sometimes you disagree. But you have honest conversations all the time.

Guy calls you up and asks, "You're taking Joe Dokes deposition next week. What's he going to say? I want to know if I can send a young lawyer to cover for me." You tell him what you generally expect him to say. If it's going to hurt his case, you don't sandbag him. You man up and say, "Nope, I think you want to be there. And I think you client would want you to be there, too."

Part of it is that in rural areas, we see the same lawyers again and again. So if you fuck someone else, word gets around before you get home. And nobody will ever trust you again. Plus, then you become the fuckee on all the deals. Once you get a reputation as a straight shooter, people treat you the same way and life is much easier. I've got lawyers I deal with all the time that I could shoot dice over the telephone with we're so honest with each other. And if you do one thing to blow that reputation, it's gone for ever. "Suck one dick, and everybody thinks you're a cocksucker for the rest of your life," as we say.