The overwhelming majority of lawsuits have no merit and are ridiculous. Even if a person slipped on an oil spill in a supermarket, it is 100% their fault. The video will show that 99% of people walk around it. It will show that 99% of people who fall from it, get up and have no damage. That leaves the plaintiff who was too stupid or inattentive to walk aroun it. The defendant is being asked to pay for the pre-existing disease and frailty from aging that was the real cause of the damage. The lawsuit industry is a lawyer scam. Everyone pays for their scam in the form of higher prices.
In the case of medicine, add 10% of costs for defensive medicine, procedures that are not medically necessary, but legally necessary. An example is taking people to the ER to assess a small injury, where most bills are are $1000 an hour. The USA health care bill is $5 trillion, so $500 billion is to prevent malpractice litigation. This is also fraud because of the lack of medical necessity. Medical necessity means benefits the patient. When it benefits the provider by preventing law lawsuits, it is fraud. However, providers have a duty to survive financially, and litigation is a threat to that survival. Tort litigation was designed to replace long cycles of violent revenge. It substituted money payments to the damaged person for violent retribution. It has turned into a scam by lawyers and providers. When we say, defensive medicine costs $500 billion, that goes to the doctors and providers. It far exceeds the cost of litigation, around $50 billion. That explains why organized provider groups do little to crush the lawyer scheme.
The lawyer claims the contigency fee provides greater acces to the courts and to justice for poor people. It developed as plaintiffs got compensation and refused to pay their lawyers. By agreement, the plaintiff lawyer gets the payment, subtracts all expenses, takes a contingency fee, and pays the plaintiff the remaining crumbs. Contingency fees are a collection tool, not greater access to justice.
1) It should be a subject of discovery. Did the plaintiff lawyer inform the plaintiff that in the absence of a physical injury, the entire amount of the settlement is taxable as income? That is reviewed by the IRS here. That means, paying the income tax on the full $million verdict. That is true even though the lawyer deducted expenses and his contingency fee. Not only may the plaintiff end up with nothing, but may have to borrow money to pay the tax on the verdict.
2) If the lawsuit is covered by insurance, the company will provide a lawyer. The defendant must hire a lawyer malpractice lawyer to terrorize the insurance company defense lawyer. That lawyer is paid very little. He has to go to trial to make more. His loyalty is to the employer, so he can be hired again. His economic interest is to put the defendant through a trial. Professional responsibility rules require his entire duty be to the defendants. He is also required to provide zealous representation. Zealous means to assert every legal right, including motions to dismiss a case without merit at the outset. Don’t count on professional responsibility overcoming economic self interest of the defense lawyer.
3) The litigation privilege precludes reporting or litigating any content of the lawsuit. What people say in a lawsuit is protected from liability. That includes reports, depositions, various communications about the lawsuit matter. The litigation privilege is reviewed here. However, there are remedies inside the trial, by the judge. For example, an expert says, he reviewed these records prior to forming an opinion. He has not reviewed these records. He has perjured himself. Move that the judge declare a mistrial and assess all legal costs to the assets of the expert. Submitted resumes are part of sworn statements. If there are inaccuracies, they should be treated as perjury as well, before the judge. The defendant has a lot of knowledge that the defense lawyer may not have. He should go through the statements carefully, ask for motion that wrong statements be treated as perjury by the judge.
4) Some licensed defendants are mandated reporters of professional misconduct and problems by licensed professionals. If the a plaintiff expert is over the age of 60, it is still appropriate to ask a licensing board to review the cognitive ability of the expert and any other impairment affecting the ability to practice. Intemperate statements may result from mood disorders, substance abuse, including caffeinism. The defense expert should be questioned about these brain health habits. Report one at a time to keep the plaintiff expert and other licensed plaintiff participants and witnesses under investigation. This reporting is mandatory under the licensing act of the state, and legally protected. Any agreement to not disclose or to not disparage the plaintiff side does not absolve the defendant of this reporting requirement. It is a matter of policy that agreements may not violate a law. Failure to report by the defendant may result in big fines and other sanctions.
5) Lawyers are mandated reporters of lawyer misconduct (Rule 8.3). Partners in a law firm must stop misconduct ( Rule 5.1). If a plaintiff lawyer engaged in any violation of the Rules of Conduct, report the lawyer to the Disciplinary Counsel of that jurisdiction. Cite the number of the Rule. Then report every partner of the law firm for failure to stop the misconduct. Report every associate of the firm for failure to report the misconduct. Report the judge for failure to report the lawyer misconduct. Report any evidence of impairment of the judge to the Judicial Review Board. Request an assessment of the impairment. These regulatory bodies dismiss almost all reports, however extreme they may be. They themselves are a scam, The lawyer and judge regulators should be reported for taking tax money and not doing any work for it to the local federal prosecutor (honest service fraud, a federal crime).
6) If a defendant party decides to settle to avoid a trial, the other defendants may force them to go to trial anyway. That should be done by the defense lawyer. If they refuse to communicate with the other defense lawyers about keeping them in the case, and forcing them to go to trial the defendant may communicate with the other defendants. This is against all advice of the defense lawyer. If the lawyer is adamant, tell him to do it himself or else he is providing inadequate representation. This is from a rule of civil procedure, "A release by the injured person of one joint tort feasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tort-feasors unless the release so provides, but reduces the claim against the other tort-feasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced if greater than the consideration paid." Then, " The conduct of all defendants against whom the case is proven must be considered in order for comparative fault to be assessed and apportioned." "while I cannot legally prevent your client from negotiating a settlement with Ms. Biondino, I can guarantee that your client electing to do so will not relieve your client of the need to fully participate in the trial while being precluded under established law from introducing any evidence of having reached a settlement. Given the above, I recommend that you strongly discourage your client from entertaining settlement in this matter." The plaintiff wants the big money. The other defendant wants out of the case. The only way that can happen is drop the defendant from the case. Get dropped from the case if another defendant has decided to settle.
