Its good Ron, I could have said (and I’m sure you expected to read) that David AND his clients massively overvalued their claims, but he was a real professional, and knew what the cases were worth.

Also, the unidirecitional fee shifting in the Lemon Law field creates some incentives for plaintiff counsel that just aren’t present in other forms of comon litigation – or if they are, I’ve not seen much mention of them in the case law I used to read from around the nation (again, focused on the issues that were likely to come up in the Lemon Law area of practice).

Also, my employer’s approach to settling these cases was not always typical of auto manufacturer warranty defense generally. But mostly, I was trying to say something nice about my sometime adversary David J Gorberg. I suppose that’s out of character for the defense side.

Those are fair points/clarifications. You can see how I read it the way I did, right?

As to the advantage? Several Lemon Law attorneys were very high volume, very little research of their client’s claims. It was to their advantage to hold up settlement of cases where defense had a lot of exposure in order to “move” the lower value cases, knowing that neither they, nor we, could possibly try every case, but that the courts would happily award payment of their fee demands (but not ours) if their client got anything.

Statutory Repurchase of the vehicle plus reasonable and customary fees in response to a boiler plate demand letter was often our FIRST offer.

Seemingly, you have had different experiences. Or you like to paint with a broad brush.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers and their clients massively overvalue their cases. 100% true. Defense lawyers massively undervalue their cases.

Not only have I never held up one client’s settlement to improve the position of another, I don’t even recall in all the cases I’ve resolved ever seeing an advantage in doing so.