Eric Peters, a columnist for National Review Online and the Washington Times has an Op-Ed arguing against John Edwards for Vice President. Peters opposes Edwards because Edwards represented personal injury plaintiffs when in private practice and because Edwards was very, very good at his job.
The part that caught my eye was:
Personal injury lawyers … often win hundreds of millions of dollars in contingency fees in what any reasonable American would describe as frivolous lawsuits -- pocketing up to 50 percent of damage awards plus expenses…
His "poor boy" rhetoric belies the fact, however, that he is one of the wealthiest trial lawyers in the southeastern United States, and perhaps the entire nation.During his courtroom career, he managed to sweet-talk juries into contingency fees that have given him a personal wealth estimated at more than $50 million.
According to Mr. Peters, plaintiff’s lawyers “often” win such fees. Even one case with a contingency fee of $200 million would double Edwards’ net worth after taxes are paid. How can Edwards be one of the richest trial lawyers with a net worth of $50 million if contingency fees of “hundreds of millions of dollars” are common?
Even more ridiculous is Peters’ notion that hundreds of millions of dollars are handed out in suits that “any reasonable American would describe as frivolous.”
Does Mr. Peters think that law suits are decided when the magical verdict fairy drops in to put a few hundred mill under the pillow? Who exactly does he think sits on juries if not “reasonable Americans”?
In civil cases in Georgia, we usually have a jury pool of 24-48 citizens. Often, each side has six preemptory strikes. Thus, out of the entire pool, the best that the plaintiff’s attorney can do is strike the six most defense-oriented potential jurors. Of course, the six most plaintiff-oriented potential jurors are struck by the defense. The actual jury is made up of the first twelve citizens remaining after those strikes. Usually, the verdict must be unanimous.
Given that procedure, how can a jury not include a single “reasonable American?” Does Mr. Peters think that the plaintiff can eliminate all the “reasonable Americans” by striking six potential jurors out of a pool of 24-48 citizens? Mr. Peters must not think there are very many reasonable Americans.
Mr. Peters is an elitist. He thinks himself so smart and perceptive that he can identify a frivolous suit from a brief newspaper account. He thinks that the people who actually sit on juries and hear the evidence are just too stupid to understand what he is smart enough to know even without the benefit of actually hearing any evidence or seeing any witnesses.
I wonder what a jury would think of Mr. Peters’ claims if held up to the scrutiny of an adversarial proceeding.
Mr. Peters offers no evidence to support his claim that hundreds of millions of dollars in contingency fees are won in frivolous cases. Juries tend to be critical of claims that are not supported by evidence. Mr. Peters then introduces evidence that one of the richest plaintiff’s attorneys has a net worth of $50 million. That fact tends to cast doubt on his previous claim. When a lawyer proves the opposite of what he or she intended, juries tend to take a skeptical view of the case.
In the case of Mr. Peters’ claims, I expect that a jury of “reasonable Americans” would find it frivolous. How much do you expect he was paid for writing a frivolous column?
Dwight--
Its not even the juries-- every state and federal court has the option of a judge with the right to set aside the verdict if its contrary to the evidence as a matter of law; and even if that fails, there are still appeals courts that have a chance to review and overturn decisions that are contrary to law (such as the famous McDonalds' coffee spill case), and frequently, many, many cases settle along the way-- because even slimy plaintiff's lawyers know when they have a potentially problematic case where they got lucky with a jury and an apellate court will overturn it (so they settle).
As we discussed previously, the "medical malpractice crisis" involves around 5 or billion dollars a year in costs out of over a TRILLION plus dollar health care annual expense-- negligible in the great scheme of things-- hardly a driving force of a "health care crisis".
In short, Southern juries especially tend to be redistributive mechanisms-- and elitists just hate even the possibility that people can acquire large sums of money without some form of cronyism, theft or dumb luck. ESPECIALLY if its in compensation for someone else's breach of responsibility.