You beat me to it.

This whole,” I misbehave so we get a do over” thing makes it possible for a weak case to drain a defendant of time and money over and over. It could even become part of the plaintiff strategy. Things seem to be going bad, be such a jerk that you force a mistrial and get a chance to waste more of the defendant’s and courts time.

Otherwise, it appears as though the only consequence of legal malpractice is a “do over”.

I am sure doctors would like that approach. Cerebral palsy baby? Next delivery is free!

Don’t you think the bad behevior would stop if the plaitiff’s lawyer was on the hook for the plaitiffs so-called damages in the event of a mistrial? It might even give the lawyers a new, more realistic, view of what the plaintiff’s damages were if he might be at risk for those same damages if a judge decided he was unfair.

Better yet, let’s have a second trial so a jury of retired postal workers can determine if the trial lawyer was fair or not? Trial lawyers love how generous juries are giving out money, don’t they. I wonder how they will feel if jury had the right to give away their money.

The defense bar needs the trial to make a living. The plaintiff bar needs the extortion lottery to make a living. The judge needs their campaign contributions. They don’t care about the damage done to the defendants nor to the public who pays for this waste many times over.