<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: There&#8217;s no such thing as cheap litigation	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/theres-no-such-thing-as-cheap-litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/theres-no-such-thing-as-cheap-litigation/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 23:53:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard Nieporent		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/theres-no-such-thing-as-cheap-litigation/comment-page-1/#comment-13832</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Nieporent]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2007/03/theres-no-such-thing-as-cheap-litigation/#comment-13832</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Maybe I am being a little cynical, but why do I think that it is not the “democratic legal system” that concerns Stephanie Mencimer but rather the loss of income for the lawyers. The only thing we can be certain about in any lawsuit is not that justice will be done, but that the lawyers on both sides will make money. Any time someone looks at reforming a system it is always the people with a vested interest in the current system that will make the biggest fuss about the sanctity of the existing system and why changing it would be detrimental to our way of life. Who for example would fight the hardest to preserve our current tax system but the accountants who make their livelihood on the complexity of the tax laws? It is not justice for the “little man” that concerns the lawyers but the loss of income if these frivolous lawsuits were not allowed to get into the courts.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe I am being a little cynical, but why do I think that it is not the “democratic legal system” that concerns Stephanie Mencimer but rather the loss of income for the lawyers. The only thing we can be certain about in any lawsuit is not that justice will be done, but that the lawyers on both sides will make money. Any time someone looks at reforming a system it is always the people with a vested interest in the current system that will make the biggest fuss about the sanctity of the existing system and why changing it would be detrimental to our way of life. Who for example would fight the hardest to preserve our current tax system but the accountants who make their livelihood on the complexity of the tax laws? It is not justice for the “little man” that concerns the lawyers but the loss of income if these frivolous lawsuits were not allowed to get into the courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
