Overlawyered letters

I hate to say this, but the area of police chases (Mar. 15, Mar. 29) is one where the system seems to have worked. Here in Canada, and specifically in Alberta (the most American of our provinces), there was a long history of horrific crashes during high-speed chases. Although it's not so litigious here, the inquests and inquiries were very nasty and protracted (with many billable hours for many lawyers), and there were some suits (still a couple dragging on), though I suppose all somewhat small change by U.S. standards. Prodded by this, the incidents have been substantially reduced, by deliberate effort on the part of the police.

It turns out that buying the cops a couple of helicopters sharply reduces the danger (pretty hard to run from, especially if you can't see them, and they can see you, thanks to high-tech). That, and the cops basically realizing that either a) the very risky high-speed chase simply isn't worth it on a petty charge, and b) on something serious, you're gonna get him anyway. Short term, do some copters and road-blocks; longer term, good old fashioned foot work, and ultimately SWATs. So it takes a day or two or three or a week or two in extreme situations. The real world isn't Hollywood, and less dramatic but more sure police methods are, well, more sure. Nobody I am aware of has gotten away with murder because they drove away very fast after being seen by police. There turn out to be few if any situations where a high-speed high-risk chase is in any way necessary.

Sure, if a bad guy knows that the police will chase him hard, he might be a little more likely to pull over. But these guys aren't very rational anyway, and tend to believe Hollywood themselves, where they are supposed to escape, or anyway walk away from horrific crashes. Why put more people at risk? I've known a few people that died in these things, cops, criminals, and civilians, and it has never been worth it.

On the other hand, there is no way on earth that an individual cop should be burned for doing what he is told is proper practice. This is one situation where the policy makers absolutely should be on the hook, and off-putting punitive damages actually make sense. -- Rob Bray, Calgary, Alberta

I certainly don't oppose efficacious chasing by helicopters. In the California case, the car was stolen and already being driven dangerously when the officer began chase, so I question how petty the chase was. Too, in my mind, someone willing to drive 110 mph the wrong way down the highway and cause multiple accidents demonstrates that they were especially dangerous to begin with. I don't know how valid the "if it's something serious, you're going to get him anyway" argument would prove in a case where the vehicle is stolen and the police don't know ex ante whether the perpetrator will be identifiable.

In addition, if we as a society decline to make millionaires of the crime victims who are killed and injured by those police fail to catch for lack of effort, but do compensate those injured because their injurer was trying to escape police, I worry about the incentives not just for criminals, but for police departments to do their jobs. -- Ted Frank

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (3)

Your website seems to bash plaintiffs' lawyers, but fails to give equal time to defense firms who are equally culpable in the U.S. litigation disaster. Since defense firms typically get paid by the hour, most are reluctant to even think of talking settlement until late into the case, even when there is a meritorious claim that can and should be resolved up front. In a not unusual scenario, Plaintiff with an injury worth $50,000.00 and 50% comparative negligence (typical auto accident) asks for $1,000,000.00 in the Complaint. The defendant offers nuisance value. The parties duke it out, and eventually they settle for $40,000.00. $10,000 in litigation expenses get s taken off the top, the plaintiff's attorney gets his 1/3 leaving the plaintiff with $20,000. The defense firm bills the insurer $30,000.00 and justifies the result against the backdrop of the original amount sued for. Plaintiff's attorney then files another suit because there are plenty of plaintiffs where that one came from, and the cycle repeats. Everyone loses but the lawyers.

I was attending a settlement conference before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and the first question he asked was "[w]hat are the impediments to settling this case?" Plaintiff's attorney blurted out "[d]efense counsel has not yet billed his client $100,000 in legal fees." Although the Magistrate, on the record, was not amused, he clearly knew that the statement was true and used his influence to steer a settlement for an amount commensurate with the damages. -- Victor M. Serby, Esq., New York, N.Y.

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1)

I have GoogleAds on my site. Google selects ads for a blogger by finding keywords on the site. Since I went on a rant about lawyers, it picked this ad regarding class action lawsuits, which I thought you would find funny in a sad sort of way. -- Gordon, Cranky Neocon

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

My family owns a pipe, valve and fitting distribution company in Pittsburgh, which employs 25 people. This small company has been inundated with asbestos related lawsuits over the years. The most recent suit, which was settled on the day of trial, arose because the plaintiff found an ad in the 1951 Yellow Pages, which included insulation as part of the company's product line. We did not own the company until the mid 1950s, although we retained the name of the orginal company. At last count, we have 30 pending suits against us.

We are not manufacturers and have never sold insulation material. One might ask why the manufacturers are not being sued, but as you know, most of them have had to declare bankruptcy because of the large judgments against them.

A lawyer in Pittsburgh seems to be on a mission to flush out potential plaintiffs. Our company will potentially reach a point at which its coffers are empty. Our insurers have caps on their payouts; we, therefore, may find ourselves in the position of having to settle these cases out of pocket.

At some point, we will have no more money and will have no recourse but to declare bankruptcy and add 25 loyal employees to the ranks of the unemployed.

This problem is affecting many small businesses, primarily in the Northeast and on the Gulf Coast. Although I no longer have a financial interest in the family business, having sold my stock to my brother several years ago, I continue to have a great personal interest in the company that my father essentially built from the ground up. It is clear that something must be done because we, too, are victims of a "crime" we did not commit. -- Susan S. Becraft, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Letters to Overlawyered (occasionally) get results: knowing that reformers in D.C. have been attempting to document the impact of asbestos litigation on small businesses, we passed along Ms. Becraft's note (with her consent) to some staffers at the White House, who proceeded to get in touch for what she reports were "fruitful discussions". Nothing of course has happened yet in Congress -- at last report legislative discussions were stalled -- but the national press has finally begun taking note of some of the unjust and extreme consequences of the asbestos litigation morass, including its effects on smaller defendants. -- W.O.

Posted by Walter Olson at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)