whether it is really being done on the scale which some suggest.

The question is why a frivolous lawsuit should be allowed to go forward or exist at all.

It just does, Gitarcarver.

All evidence to the contrary, Ron.

Actually, Antiredistributionist, this is exactly the issue because it informs us on the frequency of frivolous lawsuits.

I am always amazed that you believe in regulations that have no basis in any sort of statistical support, and then want to quantify the “frequency of frivolous lawsuits,” as if you are the final arbitrator of what is an acceptable level of a frivolous lawsuits.

Tell me Ron, have you ever been the victim of a frivolous lawsuit? One without merit whatsoever? Or would your contention be that since you have not witnessed them, they do not exist?

It just does, Gitarcarver. You can pretend it is not more involved than that if you like. I understand the temptation you have to talk about something about which you know nothing – we all do it from time to time. But it is just silly, uninformed, and does not add much to the discourse.

Actually, Antiredistributionist, this is exactly the issue because it informs us on the frequency of frivolous lawsuits.

You mean other than the one I am running now? Or other than the one I sold several years ago?

It takes more than 2 hours – geez to file a lawsuit, meet with the clients, and all of the things you have to do to get to that $800.

Right. Because it takes 30 minutes to meet with a client. Fifteen minutes to fill in a boilerplate form and another 15 minutes for a settlement agreement.

Plus, don’t forget, I still have 6 hours left in the day.

You have to listen to me: you can’t maintain a practice filing frivolous lawsuits.

And yet time and time again we see it here, don’t we Ron? Who are you going to believe, you or your lying eyes?

And whether or not a given lawyer can survive filing only frivolous suits has nothing to do with the issue.

It takes more than 2 hours – geez to file a lawsuit, meet with the clients, and all of the things you have to do to get to that $800. But let’s pretend you are right. If a lawyer is bringing in 200K a year, after expenses, his K-1 shows negative income his resume is on Monster.com.

You have to listen to me: you can’t maintain a practice filing frivolous lawsuits. Henry David Thoreau – or one of those guys – said something about a thousand guys hacking at the branches of evil for the one guy hitting a root. I’ll every convince you of this, I know. But you are hitting a branch.

Yeah, because we all know that a lawyer doing only 2 hours of work a day and making $800 for that 2 hours could never survive on the resulting $200,000 a year.

They have been since we founded this place. But the problem with trying to limit them is that you don’t want to discourage lawsuits that are not remotely frivolous and just do not succeed. Just because the defendant wins does not mean the lawsuit never should have been filed.

A related problem is the Brown v. Board of Education problem. A ridiculous lawsuit that never should have been filed based on the the law of the land at the time. If that case is filed just 15 years earlier, is is dismissed as absolutely frivolous. So trying to crack down on a problem that is not an anchor or the economy – give me one real stat on frivolous lawsuits being an anchor – you discourage a lot of cases like Brown v. Board of Education that do change the world for the better.

But there is one thing I need everyone to understand. Again, from the trenches, there is just no way to maintain a practice based on filing frivolous lawsuits. The point in the comment above is important. Pretending, against all logic, the Chuck Norris story is true, some lawyer make $800 on his best day. That is a recipe for going out of business within the year.