I Really HATE Lawyers (On Topic, Really!)

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:41:54 -0700, Jerry Dennis
wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:49?am, Michael Benveniste
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:00:43 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
It would be my guess that the lawyers were awarded compensation for
their time in pursuing the case. Granted they were paid by their
billable hour rate, which may be several hundred dollars per hour, but
time and knowledge is what a lawyer has to sell. The typical class
action suit takes years, thousands of hours, and other costs. Had the
lawyers not spent their time on this case, they would have had those
hours available for other cases.

I would disagree on this point. As an example, here in NY State,
attorney James Sokolov is always promoting his class-action cases on
television, looking for more members. He and his firm seem to exist
solely for multi-million dollar class-action suits.

I'm not sure what is objectionable about that. I'm old-school enough
to feel that lawyers buying TV time to hawk their services like they
are selling salad shooters ("But wait, contact us now and we'll
include a set of Ginsu knives absolutely free!") is despicable, but I
don't see a problem in a lawyer specializing in a particular type of
practice.

As I've said, the class action suit does penalize an entity that is
doing wrong. It allows a case to be brought forward when no single
individual has suffered a significant enough, or provable enough,
loss to warrant and individual suit. There's a place for them.

I was party to a class action suit where a company manufactured siding
that was defective. My builder chose the siding brand. I received
about $1,900 in compensation. I would not have instigated a suit on
my own, but was quite willing to sign a few forms to become part of
the class action. I don't care how much the law firm made on the
case. I'm better off by $1,900 that I would have not received
otherwise, and they did all the work.

In my case, I learned about the suit from a comment made by a lumber
yard desk clerk. Neither the manufacturer nor the builder notified me
that I had any recourse, and I thought that I would just have to pay
for the replacement siding out of my own pocket. Had I learned about
the suit from a television ad, I might have a different opinion about
lawyers who advertise.


Unfortunately, it's often the people who *really* need a good lawyer --
those who committed a crime or caused an accident -- that are ignored in the
TV fire chaser ads. I have yet to see an legal ad offering to represent an
individual who may have caused an auto accident, had a politician trip on
his sidewalk, owned a small business that installed asbestos insulation back
in 1948, etc. There's an equal need for legal representation on both
sides of these issues, but most lawyers always seem to go where the most
profit and publicity is. I realize we are a capitalist society, but it bugs
me to see those sanctimonious legal commercials offering help to people who
often never realized they were aggrieved in the first place.

Bruce

Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:04?am, Jerry Dennis wrote:
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/rare_coin_fraud.html

"We'll file a class-action lawsuit for you, get a few million for
ourselves, and give you a nice, shiny nickel."

See subject line for closing comment.

Jerry
Sorry, Sam.

Okay, I guess I need to elaborate some.

I was a party in a recent class-action lawsuit. TracFone (a pay-in-
advance cell phone provider) allegedly charged roaming charges to some
of its customers. A woman complained about it and accused TracFone of
not dealing with her fairly. What ultimately happened was a class-
action suit was filed against TracFone which, after all of the
nonsense, got the woman involved $7,000 and each of the class-action
parties involved (estimated at 54,000) 20 minutes of free airtime
(worth about five Sacs) if you still were with TracFone (I got a
better deal with Verizon Wireless). No monetary compensation was
offered nor authorized. The lawyers, on the other hand, were awarded
$1,708,595.50. All of the justification provided in the settlement is
pure legalese (doesn't anybody in this country speak English
anymore?):

http://www.wagnercase.com/Documents/...nd%20Order.pdf

How many times on television have you seen, "Have you or a loved one
suffered injury due to sticking a nail up your nose or in your eye?
If so, you may be entitled to significant compensation." Why?
Because some people were trying to win the Darwin Award?

To get back to the original link I provided, this whole issue seems
like some law firm decided they could spin the Cable Shopping
Network's gold- and platinum-plated State Quarters infomercial into a
class-action lawsuit. My only question is, "Who put the gun to the
idiots' heads and forced them to buy this junk?" These class-action
lawyers are absolving people for being stupid, and the lawyers are the
ones reaping the benefits.

We all know "Caveat Emptor" applies. But when you're looking to "get
rich quick" and get spanked instead, you deserve it.

Finally, to any RCC-ers who are or were attorneys, I meant nothing
personal. I probably should have included "Class-Action" in the
subject. But after reading my own case linked above, I'm convinced
that, in class-action cases, justice doesn't matter.

Things are not always as they "seem" and to generalize by projecting how
things "seem" on another firm or all firms totally unrelated to your
experience - an experience that no one held a gun to your head to
participate in - is not reasonable. "Non sequitur" applies.

It also does not follow that all people who get ripped off are stupid.
Without going back to re-read the site you mentioned, I believe one of
the complaints involved someone buying a MS63 and receiving an MS62. At
what point is that buyer stupid? Several - not all - of the 8 itemized
experiences at the web site linked are serious offenses and do not
necessarily make the victims gullible or stupid. If these are common
practices conducted against large numbers of people, and those people
can be brought together in a class action against such practices, what
is stupid about that? Have you ever tried to bring litigation against a
large corporation in another state on your own? The benefits of a class
action suit against most of those wrongful practices far outweigh
someone's unfounded generalized concerns about attorney motive and
compensation.

Whether class action advertising is right or wrong has no bearing on
"all" class action litigation nor does it generally reflect the value of
such litigation. The link to the original thread was interesting. If
the unscrupulous practices outlined are curtailed, it would "seem" that
any punishment the perpetrators receive will grossly outweigh doing
nothing and calling victims "stupid". Class actions allow multiple
victims, who would not otherwise be able to afford to defend themselves,
to do something about wrongful practices perpetrated against them.

--

JMark

"Jerry Dennis" wrote:

I would disagree on this point. As an example, here in NY State,
attorney James Sokolov is always promoting his class-action cases on
television, looking for more members. He and his firm seem to exist
solely for multi-million dollar class-action suits.

Actually, the bulk of Sokolove's practice is non-class-action personal
injury cases. Nor do medical class actions have much in common
with the TracFone type of consumer class actions, since in medical
cases damages are much higher and vary much more from individual
to individual.

I agree. In spite of my own personal feelings, I would hope every
businessman would do the best they can for their customers. After
all, that's what they get paid for.

If you expect people to act against their own perceived best
interests, then your hopes are destined to remain merely that.
But since your own class action has nothing to do with coins,
I've posted my further thoughts at:
http://benveniste.livejournal.com/3797.html

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

On Jul 11, 9:19?am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:41:54 -0700, Jerry Dennis
wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:49?am, Michael Benveniste
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:00:43 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
It would be my guess that the lawyers were awarded compensation for
their time in pursuing the case. Granted they were paid by their
billable hour rate, which may be several hundred dollars per hour, but
time and knowledge is what a lawyer has to sell. The typical class
action suit takes years, thousands of hours, and other costs. Had the
lawyers not spent their time on this case, they would have had those
hours available for other cases.

I would disagree on this point. As an example, here in NY State,
attorney James Sokolov is always promoting his class-action cases on
television, looking for more members. He and his firm seem to exist
solely for multi-million dollar class-action suits.

I'm not sure what is objectionable about that. I'm old-school enough
to feel that lawyers buying TV time to hawk their services like they
are selling salad shooters ("But wait, contact us now and we'll
include a set of Ginsu knives absolutely free!") is despicable, but I
don't see a problem in a lawyer specializing in a particular type of
practice.

As I've said, the class action suit does penalize an entity that is
doing wrong. It allows a case to be brought forward when no single
individual has suffered a significant enough, or provable enough,
loss to warrant and individual suit. There's a place for them.

There may be a place for them, but my case and the CSN case I
originally brought up aren't. In my case, it was cheaper for TracFone
to settle than fight it out in court (which, I believe, they would
have won). Justice has a price.

I was party to a class action suit where a company manufactured siding
that was defective. My builder chose the siding brand. I received
about $1,900 in compensation. I would not have instigated a suit on
my own, but was quite willing to sign a few forms to become part of
the class action. I don't care how much the law firm made on the
case. I'm better off by $1,900 that I would have not received
otherwise, and they did all the work.

Your case would be the exception rather than the rule. You got
sufficient compensation. I qualified for $5-$11. Even though I
believe the clerks and legal aides did most of the work, the lawyers
got $1.7 million.

In my case, I learned about the suit from a comment made by a lumber
yard desk clerk. Neither the manufacturer nor the builder notified me
that I had any recourse, and I thought that I would just have to pay
for the replacement siding out of my own pocket. Had I learned about
the suit from a television ad, I might have a different opinion about
lawyers who advertise.

Unfortunately, it's often the people who *really* need a good lawyer --
those who committed a crime or caused an accident -- that are ignored in the
TV fire chaser ads. I have yet to see an legal ad offering to represent an
individual who may have caused an auto accident, had a politician trip on
his sidewalk, owned a small business that installed asbestos insulation back
in 1948, etc. There's an equal need for legal representation on both
sides of these issues, but most lawyers always seem to go where the most
profit and publicity is. I realize we are a capitalist society, but it bugs
me to see those sanctimonious legal commercials offering help to people who
often never realized they were aggrieved in the first place.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bruce, you brought up my biggest complaint about class-action suits.
The lawyers that deserve to be shot (okay, that's extreme) are the
sharks looking for people just to file the suit. They could care less
about their clients' compensation; they want their million-dollar
fees.

Jerry

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/care.html

--
"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
http://www.sirius.com/


"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 11, 9:19?am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:41:54 -0700, Jerry Dennis
wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:49?am, Michael Benveniste
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:00:43 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
It would be my guess that the lawyers were awarded compensation for
their time in pursuing the case. Granted they were paid by their
billable hour rate, which may be several hundred dollars per hour, but
time and knowledge is what a lawyer has to sell. The typical class
action suit takes years, thousands of hours, and other costs. Had the
lawyers not spent their time on this case, they would have had those
hours available for other cases.

I would disagree on this point. As an example, here in NY State,
attorney James Sokolov is always promoting his class-action cases on
television, looking for more members. He and his firm seem to exist
solely for multi-million dollar class-action suits.

I'm not sure what is objectionable about that. I'm old-school enough
to feel that lawyers buying TV time to hawk their services like they
are selling salad shooters ("But wait, contact us now and we'll
include a set of Ginsu knives absolutely free!") is despicable, but I
don't see a problem in a lawyer specializing in a particular type of
practice.

As I've said, the class action suit does penalize an entity that is
doing wrong. It allows a case to be brought forward when no single
individual has suffered a significant enough, or provable enough,
loss to warrant and individual suit. There's a place for them.

There may be a place for them, but my case and the CSN case I
originally brought up aren't. In my case, it was cheaper for TracFone
to settle than fight it out in court (which, I believe, they would
have won). Justice has a price.

I was party to a class action suit where a company manufactured siding
that was defective. My builder chose the siding brand. I received
about $1,900 in compensation. I would not have instigated a suit on
my own, but was quite willing to sign a few forms to become part of
the class action. I don't care how much the law firm made on the
case. I'm better off by $1,900 that I would have not received
otherwise, and they did all the work.

Your case would be the exception rather than the rule. You got
sufficient compensation. I qualified for $5-$11. Even though I
believe the clerks and legal aides did most of the work, the lawyers
got $1.7 million.

In my case, I learned about the suit from a comment made by a lumber
yard desk clerk. Neither the manufacturer nor the builder notified me
that I had any recourse, and I thought that I would just have to pay
for the replacement siding out of my own pocket. Had I learned about
the suit from a television ad, I might have a different opinion about
lawyers who advertise.

Unfortunately, it's often the people who *really* need a good lawyer --
those who committed a crime or caused an accident -- that are ignored in the
TV fire chaser ads. I have yet to see an legal ad offering to represent an
individual who may have caused an auto accident, had a politician trip on
his sidewalk, owned a small business that installed asbestos insulation back
in 1948, etc. There's an equal need for legal representation on both
sides of these issues, but most lawyers always seem to go where the most
profit and publicity is. I realize we are a capitalist society, but it bugs
me to see those sanctimonious legal commercials offering help to people who
often never realized they were aggrieved in the first place.

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bruce, you brought up my biggest complaint about class-action suits.
The lawyers that deserve to be shot (okay, that's extreme) are the
sharks looking for people just to file the suit. They could care less
about their clients' compensation; they want their million-dollar
fees.

Jerry

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:19:06 -0400, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:

I'm not sure what is objectionable about that. I'm old-school enough
to feel that lawyers buying TV time to hawk their services like they
are selling salad shooters ("But wait, contact us now and we'll
include a set of Ginsu knives absolutely free!") is despicable, but I
don't see a problem in a lawyer specializing in a particular type of
practice.


Unfortunately, it's often the people who *really* need a good lawyer --
those who committed a crime or caused an accident -- that are ignored in the
TV fire chaser ads. I have yet to see an legal ad offering to represent an
individual who may have caused an auto accident, had a politician trip on
his sidewalk, owned a small business that installed asbestos insulation back
in 1948, etc.

I see them all the time. I can flip to the Yellow Pages and find
dozens of lawyers who will represent me in a DWI/DUI, domestic
violence, probation violation, DWLS, etc, case. Some of the TV ads
have this info on roll-bys.

Lawyers who do DWI/DUI work frequently advertise on TV.
--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Jul 11, 10:44?am, JMark wrote:
Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:04?am, Jerry Dennis wrote:
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/rare_coin_fraud.html

"We'll file a class-action lawsuit for you, get a few million for
ourselves, and give you a nice, shiny nickel."

See subject line for closing comment.

Jerry
Sorry, Sam.

Okay, I guess I need to elaborate some.

I was a party in a recent class-action lawsuit. TracFone (a pay-in-
advance cell phone provider) allegedly charged roaming charges to some
of its customers. A woman complained about it and accused TracFone of
not dealing with her fairly. What ultimately happened was a class-
action suit was filed against TracFone which, after all of the
nonsense, got the woman involved $7,000 and each of the class-action
parties involved (estimated at 54,000) 20 minutes of free airtime
(worth about five Sacs) if you still were with TracFone (I got a
better deal with Verizon Wireless). No monetary compensation was
offered nor authorized. The lawyers, on the other hand, were awarded
$1,708,595.50. All of the justification provided in the settlement is
pure legalese (doesn't anybody in this country speak English
anymore?):

http://www.wagnercase.com/Documents/...nd%20Order.pdf

How many times on television have you seen, "Have you or a loved one
suffered injury due to sticking a nail up your nose or in your eye?
If so, you may be entitled to significant compensation." Why?
Because some people were trying to win the Darwin Award?

To get back to the original link I provided, this whole issue seems
like some law firm decided they could spin the Cable Shopping
Network's gold- and platinum-plated State Quarters infomercial into a
class-action lawsuit. My only question is, "Who put the gun to the
idiots' heads and forced them to buy this junk?" These class-action
lawyers are absolving people for being stupid, and the lawyers are the
ones reaping the benefits.

We all know "Caveat Emptor" applies. But when you're looking to "get
rich quick" and get spanked instead, you deserve it.

Finally, to any RCC-ers who are or were attorneys, I meant nothing
personal. I probably should have included "Class-Action" in the
subject. But after reading my own case linked above, I'm convinced
that, in class-action cases, justice doesn't matter.

Things are not always as they "seem" and to generalize by projecting how
things "seem" on another firm or all firms totally unrelated to your
experience - an experience that no one held a gun to your head to
participate in - is not reasonable. "Non sequitur" applies.

It also does not follow that all people who get ripped off are stupid.
Without going back to re-read the site you mentioned, I believe one of
the complaints involved someone buying a MS63 and receiving an MS62. At
what point is that buyer stupid? Several - not all - of the 8 itemized
experiences at the web site linked are serious offenses and do not
necessarily make the victims gullible or stupid. If these are common
practices conducted against large numbers of people, and those people
can be brought together in a class action against such practices, what
is stupid about that? Have you ever tried to bring litigation against a
large corporation in another state on your own? The benefits of a class
action suit against most of those wrongful practices far outweigh
someone's unfounded generalized concerns about attorney motive and
compensation.

Whether class action advertising is right or wrong has no bearing on
"all" class action litigation nor does it generally reflect the value of
such litigation. The link to the original thread was interesting. If
the unscrupulous practices outlined are curtailed, it would "seem" that
any punishment the perpetrators receive will grossly outweigh doing
nothing and calling victims "stupid". Class actions allow multiple
victims, who would not otherwise be able to afford to defend themselves,
to do something about wrongful practices perpetrated against them.

--

JMark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with the theory behind your logic, but my exception is in the
compensation involved. Is it justice that, in my case and regardless
of the negotiated agreement, the attorneys received a seven-figure fee
and the other claimants received a pittance? In the overall, there
were roughly 54,000 members in my suit, the value of the members'
award as determined by the court was $11 each, making TracFone liable
for $594,000 worth of services for everyone who responded. The
lawyers received about three times the value of the total combined
claimant award for their services.

Jerry

My father who died recently was an obsetrician/gynecologist and was
sued once for malpractice. The patient was a 'pro bono' case...taken
in at no charge. She had a problem pregnancy and went into labor about
a month early. Dad was out of the country at the time and another
doctor was covering his cases. The baby was born with severe problems
and subsequently died. Along came the lawyers with a wrongful death
suit, and guess who they sued? My father because the woman was his
patient. It was settled out of court, mostly because of the lengthly
trial that was anticipated. Although no determination of fault was
found, my father's reputation was harmed. Hell, he wasn't even in the
country when this occurred. Of course his malpractice insurance rate
went up. Think about that the next time you pay your medical insurance
bill or medical bill. How much less would medical costs be if it
wasn't for lawsuits such as this. Also think about the cost of your
prescriptions next time you see an ad on TV for medicine...but thats
another rant.

Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:44?am, JMark wrote:
Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:04?am, Jerry Dennis wrote:
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/rare_coin_fraud.html
"We'll file a class-action lawsuit for you, get a few million for
ourselves, and give you a nice, shiny nickel."
See subject line for closing comment.
Jerry
Sorry, Sam.
Okay, I guess I need to elaborate some.
I was a party in a recent class-action lawsuit. TracFone (a pay-in-
advance cell phone provider) allegedly charged roaming charges to some
of its customers. A woman complained about it and accused TracFone of
not dealing with her fairly. What ultimately happened was a class-
action suit was filed against TracFone which, after all of the
nonsense, got the woman involved $7,000 and each of the class-action
parties involved (estimated at 54,000) 20 minutes of free airtime
(worth about five Sacs) if you still were with TracFone (I got a
better deal with Verizon Wireless). No monetary compensation was
offered nor authorized. The lawyers, on the other hand, were awarded
$1,708,595.50. All of the justification provided in the settlement is
pure legalese (doesn't anybody in this country speak English
anymore?):
http://www.wagnercase.com/Documents/...nd%20Order.pdf
How many times on television have you seen, "Have you or a loved one
suffered injury due to sticking a nail up your nose or in your eye?
If so, you may be entitled to significant compensation." Why?
Because some people were trying to win the Darwin Award?
To get back to the original link I provided, this whole issue seems
like some law firm decided they could spin the Cable Shopping
Network's gold- and platinum-plated State Quarters infomercial into a
class-action lawsuit. My only question is, "Who put the gun to the
idiots' heads and forced them to buy this junk?" These class-action
lawyers are absolving people for being stupid, and the lawyers are the
ones reaping the benefits.
We all know "Caveat Emptor" applies. But when you're looking to "get
rich quick" and get spanked instead, you deserve it.
Finally, to any RCC-ers who are or were attorneys, I meant nothing
personal. I probably should have included "Class-Action" in the
subject. But after reading my own case linked above, I'm convinced
that, in class-action cases, justice doesn't matter.
Things are not always as they "seem" and to generalize by projecting how
things "seem" on another firm or all firms totally unrelated to your
experience - an experience that no one held a gun to your head to
participate in - is not reasonable. "Non sequitur" applies.

It also does not follow that all people who get ripped off are stupid.
Without going back to re-read the site you mentioned, I believe one of
the complaints involved someone buying a MS63 and receiving an MS62. At
what point is that buyer stupid? Several - not all - of the 8 itemized
experiences at the web site linked are serious offenses and do not
necessarily make the victims gullible or stupid. If these are common
practices conducted against large numbers of people, and those people
can be brought together in a class action against such practices, what
is stupid about that? Have you ever tried to bring litigation against a
large corporation in another state on your own? The benefits of a class
action suit against most of those wrongful practices far outweigh
someone's unfounded generalized concerns about attorney motive and
compensation.

Whether class action advertising is right or wrong has no bearing on
"all" class action litigation nor does it generally reflect the value of
such litigation. The link to the original thread was interesting. If
the unscrupulous practices outlined are curtailed, it would "seem" that
any punishment the perpetrators receive will grossly outweigh doing
nothing and calling victims "stupid". Class actions allow multiple
victims, who would not otherwise be able to afford to defend themselves,
to do something about wrongful practices perpetrated against them.

--

JMark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with the theory behind your logic, but my exception is in the
compensation involved. Is it justice that, in my case and regardless
of the negotiated agreement, the attorneys received a seven-figure fee
and the other claimants received a pittance? In the overall, there
were roughly 54,000 members in my suit, the value of the members'
award as determined by the court was $11 each, making TracFone liable
for $594,000 worth of services for everyone who responded. The
lawyers received about three times the value of the total combined
claimant award for their services.

Jerry


And for what it is worth a insurance company will generally pay the claim.
Than the insurance company increases their rates and we consumers end up paying the end costs.

An don't get me started on law suites against government agencies and such the tax payer
always gets it in the end.

George

--
Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve
neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY.

Pennsylvania Assembly
November 11, 1755

On Jul 11, 11:09?am, "Michael Benveniste"
wrote, in part:
If you expect people to act against their own perceived best
interests, then your hopes are destined to remain merely that.
But since your own class action has nothing to do with coins,
I've posted my further thoughts at:
http://benveniste.livejournal.com/3797.html

Michael, I didn't respond to your website post earlier as I didn't
have enough time to read it. Suffice it to say that I have now read
it and find your opinions informative.

Jerry