I am going to respond with as much restraint as I can, because I do not want to become dragged into an emotional battle. I want you to know that I respect all of your viewpoints, and you present them well, and you and I have had some good discussions about these things over the last couple of years.

Thank you, I respect your opinion as well.

 

But here is the fact. The vast majority of Plaintiffs in this country are small businesses. They sue people far more than any other type of individual Plaintiff. They sue other small businesses. They make a lot of frivolous claims, themselves, and are far more responsible for the costs of the court system than individual plaintiffs who file suits.

Then why not do something about it? If you as a member of the profession see a probelm like this imagine what it looks like to an outsider. From my perspective what I see are people who know little or nothing about the law being told by attorneys that they have cases, even if they are frivolous. How is doing that any different then a physician orders lots of unnecessary tests just to up his/her fees? Any small businessperson can say they want to sue someone, for it to happen in most cases an attorney has to help them.

 

Second, in the vast majority of cases involving substantial dollar amounts, the Defendant has an insurance policy that provides the cost of defense. They might be out their deductible, but even that is not in every case. This makes sense because Plaintiff's attorneys usually won't even take the case if their is not insurance, and 99.9% of all cases settle within the policy limits, so very few Defendants are "losing everything."

Even if it is very few how many are to many? When a claim is filed against an insurance policy doesn't that ususally cause an increase in premium? Who is that increased cost passed on to?

 

 

Third, the fact that you receive a defense verdict does not equate to you having done nothing wrong, just as OJ Simpson being found not guilty does not mean that he did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson. Trust me, judges are more than willing to clear their dockets by granting the defendant summary judgment before a trial, and in cases where the defendant is clean as a lily they always make motions for summary judgment. When those motions aren't granted, it means there is enough proof for a jury to decide.

I understand this fully and it's why I used it as an example. OJ got off because he was able to pay for the best legal service money can buy. He was able to investigate minute details (Mark Furman and his use of certain words) that cast doubt on the DAs case. Had he not had his vast wealth (that the lawyers now seem to be doing a very good job of protecting against claims from the Goldman family) would he have gotten off. We'll never know but we do know that it wouldn't have been Johnny Cochoran, F. Lee Bailey etal arguing for him. I also understand that in a civil matter a finding for the defendant doesn't mean he/she is faultless BUT it does mean that the plaintiff wasn't able to prove their case even though the standard of proof is less then that in a criminal case. As far as I know isn't it a legal mantra that if it isn't proved, it didn't happen?

 

Finally, I will agree to your "loser pays" proposal on attorney fees, if you will agree that the sword cuts both ways. If a Plaintiff wins, OR SETTLES, for even so much as $1, then the Defendant has to pay for all of the Plaintiff's attorney fees, costs, and expenses required for bringing the suit.

I would gladly agree to losing defendants paying (in fact I thought in most cases they did) IF all lawyers start working for straight hourly fees as opposed to contingencys, if their fees have to be approved by an independent 3rd party (non-attorney) prior to being paid and if the attorneys don't get so much as 1 cent of any damages awarded. IMVHO if attorneys couldn't see potential huge windfalls then there would be a whole lot less suits. I would agree to it as part of a settlement process only if those fees are figured into the amount of the settlement so that the client has the option to accept the settlement knowing how much the attorneys fees would be. I really believe that once the potential for huge awards is reduced (and stopping contingency based fees would do that again IMVHO) the number of defendents that are willing to settle will drop.

 

You know as well as I do why the insurance industry will never, ever, agree to that. For the same reason the public high schools in the KHSAA will never, ever agree to hiring private investigators to investigate recruiting. They don't want the microscope pointed in their direction.

I agree that a whole lot of the problems with both the legal system and health care are the insurance companies BUT if legislation is passed prohibiting contingency based fees and mandating loser pays how would they have any choice but to abide by it, the same way all schools in the KHSAA would have to abide by legislation requiring private investagators? I know the insurance lobby is powerful and would likely stop this but it is no more of a pipe dream then the other things I am proposing because plaintiffs attorneys are also powerful lobbiests.

 

I'm not going to get into allegations that lawsuits drive insurance rates up. By now you know that its not true.

Do we. Until the glut of lawsuits malpractice rates were no where near what they are now. Unfortunately you can't unring a bell so while rates may not immediately go down with reforms, they never would have gotten to the level they are at now if the system wasn't what it is.

 

As for universal legal practice, I am opposed to that as I am opposed to universal health care. Just as you know that with such health care you will get cruddy treatment, by the same token you will get cruddy legal work.

I agree with this but I made the comparison because two of the strongest proponents of universal health care are in fact attorneys (Clinton and Edwards). I would be willing to bet that they are not the only ones. If they are willing to make Americans accept "cruddy" health care coverage while at the same time driving down the potentail earnings of health care providers (a concept that hits very close to home for me) why not accept the same thing for legal care. If even the poorest Americans are "entitled" to the very best health care regardless of their ability to pay for it why shouldn't they also be "entitled" the the best legal care regardless of their ability to pay for it?

I am going to respond with as much restraint as I can, because I do not want to become dragged into an emotional battle. I want you to know that I respect all of your viewpoints, and you present them well, and you and I have had some good discussions about these things over the last couple of years.

 

But here is the fact. The vast majority of Plaintiffs in this country are small businesses. They sue people far more than any other type of individual Plaintiff. They sue other small businesses. They make a lot of frivolous claims, themselves, and are far more responsible for the costs of the court system than individual plaintiffs who file suits.

 

Second, in the vast majority of cases involving substantial dollar amounts, the Defendant has an insurance policy that provides the cost of defense. They might be out their deductible, but even that is not in every case. This makes sense because Plaintiff's attorneys usually won't even take the case if their is not insurance, and 99.9% of all cases settle within the policy limits, so very few Defendants are "losing everything."

 

Third, the fact that you receive a defense verdict does not equate to you having done nothing wrong, just as OJ Simpson being found not guilty does not mean that he did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson. Trust me, judges are more than willing to clear their dockets by granting the defendant summary judgment before a trial, and in cases where the defendant is clean as a lily they always make motions for summary judgment. When those motions aren't granted, it means there is enough proof for a jury to decide.

 

Finally, I will agree to your "loser pays" proposal on attorney fees, if you will agree that the sword cuts both ways. If a Plaintiff wins, OR SETTLES, for even so much as $1, then the Defendant has to pay for all of the Plaintiff's attorney fees, costs, and expenses required for bringing the suit.

 

You know as well as I do why the insurance industry will never, ever, agree to that. For the same reason the public high schools in the KHSAA will never, ever agree to hiring private investigators to investigate recruiting. They don't want the microscope pointed in their direction.

 

I'm not going to get into allegations that lawsuits drive insurance rates up. By now you know that its not true.

 

As for universal legal practice, I am opposed to that as I am opposed to universal health care. Just as you know that with such health care you will get cruddy treatment, by the same token you will get cruddy legal work.

 

Personally, I either agree with or at least understand your position related to the above post. However, I absolutely disagree with your position concerning lawsuits and their ties to insurance rates. I have performed MANY audits over a nearly 20 year period, most of which were performed when I was employed by what was then termed "one of the Big 8's", the firm of Deloitte & Touche. I saw first hand how insurance companies determine their rate structures utilizing loss trending models and litigation is a MAJOR component of those trending models and thus resulting rate structures. I am not saying that these insurance companies don't pad these models with a built-in profit, but the simple truth is that litigation costs have become an ever increasing component of these loss models, even considering the fact that most insurance companies have re-insurance to protect against catastrophic losses.

 

As far as small business suing other small business, I'll take your word for that. Truth is, that doesn't surprise me. However, I don't think the issue is "who's suing whom" so much as the nature of the litigation in the first place and how the costs of litigation affects the defendent (especially in frivolous suits).

 

I agree, the sword definitely cuts both ways.

 

Your statement that most Plaintiffs' attorneys won't take a case unless there is insurance is troubling for reasons which I won't discuss at this time other than to say it supports my "Attorneys love to use insurance companies as their retirement funds" theory beautifully.

Thank you, I respect your opinion as well.

 

 

Then why not do something about it? If you as a member of the profession see a probelm like this imagine what it looks like to an outsider. From my perspective what I see are people who know little or nothing about the law being told by attorneys that they have cases, even if they are frivolous. How is doing that any different then a physician orders lots of unnecessary tests just to up his/her fees? Any small businessperson can say they want to sue someone, for it to happen in most cases an attorney has to help them.

 

 

Even if it is very few how many are to many? When a claim is filed against an insurance policy doesn't that ususally cause an increase in premium? Who is that increased cost passed on to?

 

 

 

I understand this fully and it's why I used it as an example. OJ got off because he was able to pay for the best legal service money can buy. He was able to investigate minute details (Mark Furman and his use of certain words) that cast doubt on the DAs case. Had he not had his vast wealth (that the lawyers now seem to be doing a very good job of protecting against claims from the Goldman family) would he have gotten off. We'll never know but we do know that it wouldn't have been Johnny Cochoran, F. Lee Bailey etal arguing for him. I also understand that in a civil matter a finding for the defendant doesn't mean he/she is faultless BUT it does mean that the plaintiff wasn't able to prove their case even though the standard of proof is less then that in a criminal case. As far as I know isn't it a legal mantra that if it isn't proved, it didn't happen?

 

 

I would gladly agree to losing defendants paying (in fact I thought in most cases they did) IF all lawyers start working for straight hourly fees as opposed to contingencys, if their fees have to be approved by an independent 3rd party (non-attorney) prior to being paid and if the attorneys don't get so much as 1 cent of any damages awarded. IMVHO if attorneys couldn't see potential huge windfalls then there would be a whole lot less suits. I would agree to it as part of a settlement process only if those fees are figured into the amount of the settlement so that the client has the option to accept the settlement knowing how much the attorneys fees would be. I really believe that once the potential for huge awards is reduced (and stopping contingency based fees would do that again IMVHO) the number of defendents that are willing to settle will drop.

 

 

I agree that a whole lot of the problems with both the legal system and health care are the insurance companies BUT if legislation is passed prohibiting contingency based fees and mandating loser pays how would they have any choice but to abide by it, the same way all schools in the KHSAA would have to abide by legislation requiring private investagators? I know the insurance lobby is powerful and would likely stop this but it is no more of a pipe dream then the other things I am proposing because plaintiffs attorneys are also powerful lobbiests.

 

 

Do we. Until the glut of lawsuits malpractice rates were no where near what they are now. Unfortunately you can't unring a bell so while rates may not immediately go down with reforms, they never would have gotten to the level they are at now if the system wasn't what it is.

 

 

I agree with this but I made the comparison because two of the strongest proponents of universal health care are in fact attorneys (Clinton and Edwards). I would be willing to bet that they are not the only ones. If they are willing to make Americans accept "cruddy" health care coverage while at the same time driving down the potentail earnings of health care providers (a concept that hits very close to home for me) why not accept the same thing for legal care. If even the poorest Americans are "entitled" to the very best health care regardless of their ability to pay for it why shouldn't they also be "entitled" the the best legal care regardless of their ability to pay for it?

 

You are a good debater, AllTell. You should be an attorney.

 

On your "loser pays" counterproposal, I think converting contingent attorney fees to hourly fees would be a great disservice to the entire system. First of all, how can you as a conservative be desirous of government regulation as to what a private party and his attorney contract for? Are you going to regulate what an attorney can charge as an hourly fee as well? Are you also going to tell accountants and engineers and psychiatrists and other professionals who much they can charge? If so, you have just taken your first step into wholesale anti-capitalist government regulation.

 

In the great majority of contingent-fee cases, the hourly work done by the attorney far exceeds the fee he/she gets in return for the contingent case. You would actually be driving the attorney cost up, not down. What you refer to in terms of "windfall" usually occurs in class-action cases, which account for less than one tenth of 1% of all cases, and in punitive damage awards, which occur in less than 1% of verdicts in the Plaintiff's favor, and of course only about 3% of all cases even go to trial. "Windfalls" are extremely rare, but they are the ones that get a lot of press and therefore are the ones that garner the attention from the public.

 

The Defendant ALMOST NEVER pays the Plaintiffs attorney fees out of settlement or trial.

 

And the postulate that malpractice insurance rates went up as a result of lawsuits in the first place is a fallacy. Insurance rates went up because the insurance industry badly managed investments in the 1990's, and billed you and I to cover their losses. I will find links to support my claims here.

 

This is pie in the sky, because the insurance industry will never allow meaningful reform that affects them as well.

Personally, I either agree with or at least understand your position related to the above post. However, I absolutely disagree with your position concerning lawsuits and their ties to insurance rates. I have performed MANY audits over a nearly 20 year period, most of which were performed when I was employed by what was then termed "one of the Big 8's", the firm of Deloitte & Touche. I saw first hand how insurance companies determine their rate structures utilizing loss trending models and litigation is a MAJOR component of those trending models and thus resulting rate structures. I am not saying that these insurance companies don't pad these models with a built-in profit, but the simple truth is that litigation costs have become an ever increasing component of these loss models, even considering the fact that most insurance companies have re-insurance to protect against catastrophic losses.

 

As far as small business suing other small business, I'll take your word for that. Truth is, that doesn't surprise me. However, I don't think the issue is "who's suing whom" so much as the nature of the litigation in the first place and how the costs of litigation affects the defendent (especially in frivolous suits).

 

I agree, the sword definitely cuts both ways.

 

Your statement that most Plaintiffs' attorneys won't take a case unless there is insurance is troubling for reasons which I won't discuss at this time other than to say it supports my "Attorneys love to use insurance companies as their retirement funds" theory beautifully.

 

I'm going to have to find some linked support on the correlation to premiums question, but I have several depositions here in my office where insurance insiders have testified that the rate structure for premiums has little or nothing to do with the annual expected costs of litigation.

 

I don't know why the insurance policy question would be troubling. If someone is in an accident and the Defendant doesn't have insurance, the old statement that "you can't get blood from a turnip" holds true. The practice of law is a business like any other. If there is not a potential source from which the lawyer can earn a living, there is not justifiable business reason to take the case. You would not be helping your client, and you would not be earning a living. If an uninsured Defendant has money of his/her own, that's a different story. I don't know why that would be troubling.

You are a good debater, AllTell. You should be an attorney.

 

On your "loser pays" counterproposal, I think converting contingent attorney fees to hourly fees would be a great disservice to the entire system. First of all, how can you as a conservative be desirous of government regulation as to what a private party and his attorney contract for? Are you going to regulate what an attorney can charge as an hourly fee as well? Are you also going to tell accountants and engineers and psychiatrists and other professionals who much they can charge? If so, you have just taken your first step into wholesale anti-capitalist government regulation.

 

In the great majority of contingent-fee cases, the hourly work done by the attorney far exceeds the fee he/she gets in return for the contingent case. You would actually be driving the attorney cost up, not down. What you refer to in terms of "windfall" usually occurs in class-action cases, which account for less than one tenth of 1% of all cases, and in punitive damage awards, which occur in less than 1% of verdicts in the Plaintiff's favor, and of course only about 3% of all cases even go to trial. "Windfalls" are extremely rare, but they are the ones that get a lot of press and therefore are the ones that garner the attention from the public.

 

The Defendant ALMOST NEVER pays the Plaintiffs attorney fees out of settlement or trial.

 

And the postulate that malpractice insurance rates went up as a result of lawsuits in the first place is a fallacy. Insurance rates went up because the insurance industry badly managed investments in the 1990's, and billed you and I to cover their losses. I will find links to support my claims here.

 

This is pie in the sky, because the insurance industry will never allow meaningful reform that affects them as well.

I'm sorry but IMVHO if attorneys could make more money billing hourly they would do it, I don't see the profession as a whole being made up of people who are in it for purely philanthropic reasons. Maybe my favoring this is a chink in my conservative armour? Oh well, so be it. What keeps this from heppening, again IMVHO is that attorneys know full well that if Average Joe had to pay a hefty retainer fee up front, Average Joe would be less likely to bring a suit and the last thing most attorneys want is anything to lower the number of suits brought. If Average Joe really feels he/she has a case then he/she should be willing to face a bit of risk in filing a suit. If that makes the legal system less accessable to Average Joe then I go back to my other argument, if the health care system should be fully accessable to everyone regardless of ability to pay shouldn't the legal system?

 

And you are right about the class action idiocy. Have you seen the 1-800-BAD-DRUG commercials? Here is ambulance chasing at it's worst. Maybe it only represents a small percentage of your profession, but if that's the case then it seems the majority would want to do something to stiffle them because it has given your profession as a whole a very bad reputation, deserved or not.

 

FWIW other professionals (read medical providers) are already told what they are allowed to charge and what they will be paid by government entities. Who writes those regulations, attorneys for the most part. It must be nice to be able to help regulate the income of other professionals while fighting tooth and nail anything that would restrict your own.

 

Lastly, at least for this post, I know the insurance industry is a complete and total mess, I know they bear a lion's share of the blame for the way things are now BUT the rules and regulations that allow them to control things the way they do had to be written and scrutinized by someone. Guess who?

I'm going to have to find some linked support on the correlation to premiums question, but I have several depositions here in my office where insurance insiders have testified that the rate structure for premiums has little or nothing to do with the annual expected costs of litigation.

 

I don't know why the insurance policy question would be troubling. If someone is in an accident and the Defendant doesn't have insurance, the old statement that "you can't get blood from a turnip" holds true. The practice of law is a business like any other. If there is not a potential source from which the lawyer can earn a living, there is not justifiable business reason to take the case. You would not be helping your client, and you would not be earning a living. If an uninsured Defendant has money of his/her own, that's a different story. I don't know why that would be troubling.

 

I have no problem with the fact that insurance is involved much of the time in the practice of civil litigation. But you said that attorneys would almost NEVER take a case unless the defendant has insurance. So if this is the case as you say, are attorneys primarily concerned with justice for their client or the contingency fee that is attached to the client? Just curious.

 

As to the depositions in your possession, I can't comment on those. However, I have years of insurance audit experience to back up my position.

 

An unrelated question. In matters involving medical malpractice, do you feel that juries (that are basically composed of individuals that know absolutely nothing about proper medical procedures) are truly able to properly decide whether a physician is in fact guilty of malpractice? I know this sounds like a leading question, but that is not my intent.

 

Another unrelated observation. If my clients had "audit coverage insurance" for oh let's say $100,000. And, let's say that audit would normally cost $25,000. I wonder if the cost of audits would increase as a result. I submit, yes they would.

 

I'm starting to ramble.......................

I have no problem with the fact that insurance is involved much of the time in the practice of civil litigation. But you said that attorneys would almost NEVER take a case unless the defendant has insurance. So if this is the case as you say, are attorneys primarily concerned with justice for their client or the contingency fee that is attached to the client? Just curious.

 

As to the depositions in your possession, I can't comment on those. However, I have years of insurance audit experience to back up my position.

 

An unrelated question. In matters involving medical malpractice, do you feel that juries (that are basically composed of individuals that know absolutely nothing about proper medical procedures) are truly able to properly decide whether a physician is in fact guilty of malpractice? I know this sounds like a leading question, but that is not my intent.

 

Another unrelated observation. If my clients had "audit coverage insurance" for oh let's say $100,000. And, let's say that audit would normally cost $25,000. I wonder if the cost of audits would increase as a result. I submit, yes they would.

 

I'm starting to ramble.......................

 

I guess what I meant was that attorneys almost never take a contingent case where there is not going to be insurance, or some other resource, from which to recover on a judgment. I take lots of civil cases on flat fee or hourly fee basis where my client has the ability to fund such a case.

 

As far as the "interested in the fee or client's justice" loaded question , I am interested in both. My accounts receivable and the number of pro bono cases I take every year should demonstrate my level of commitment to the latter rather than the former, but I make no apologies that I practice law in order to make a living, and a good one. And the vast majority of attorneys are like me.

 

I believe that when attorneys properly present a case, juries are smart enough to decide issues of fact with regard to medicine, science, technology, and a whole other range of issues. I keep a copy of the Magna Carta in my desk that talks about a jury of one's peers, and I am a staunch believer in the jury system. The alternatives posited by others are fraught with danger: physicians reviewing the work of other physicians, as if they're not going to protect one another; juries composed of only the educated, the landed, or the wealthy. I do not claim the system is perfect, but it is the best in the world.

I'm sorry but IMVHO if attorneys could make more money billing hourly they would do it, I don't see the profession as a whole being made up of people who are in it for purely philanthropic reasons. Maybe my favoring this is a chink in my conservative armour? Oh well, so be it. What keeps this from heppening, again IMVHO is that attorneys know full well that if Average Joe had to pay a hefty retainer fee up front, Average Joe would be less likely to bring a suit and the last thing most attorneys want is anything to lower the number of suits brought. If Average Joe really feels he/she has a case then he/she should be willing to face a bit of risk in filing a suit. If that makes the legal system less accessable to Average Joe then I go back to my other argument, if the health care system should be fully accessable to everyone regardless of ability to pay shouldn't the legal system?

 

And you are right about the class action idiocy. Have you seen the 1-800-BAD-DRUG commercials? Here is ambulance chasing at it's worst. Maybe it only represents a small percentage of your profession, but if that's the case then it seems the majority would want to do something to stiffle them because it has given your profession as a whole a very bad reputation, deserved or not.

 

FWIW other professionals (read medical providers) are already told what they are allowed to charge and what they will be paid by government entities. Who writes those regulations, attorneys for the most part. It must be nice to be able to help regulate the income of other professionals while fighting tooth and nail anything that would restrict your own.

 

Lastly, at least for this post, I know the insurance industry is a complete and total mess, I know they bear a lion's share of the blame for the way things are now BUT the rules and regulations that allow them to control things the way they do had to be written and scrutinized by someone. Guess who?

 

The argument is circular. The courts ARE accessible to everyone, right now, as a result of contingent fee agreements. If doctors would heal you on contingent fee, then health care would be accessible for everyone. Health care is not accesible to everyone because you must either pay up front or have insurance.

I keep a copy of the Magna Carta in my desk that talks about a jury of one's peers, and I am a staunch believer in the jury system.

 

peer /pɪər/ –noun

1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.

2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

3. something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer.

4. a nobleman.

5. a member of any of the five degrees of the nobility in Great Britain and Ireland (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron).

6. Archaic. a companion.

 

I guess it depends on one's definition of peer. :D :D :D

Lawsuits cost an average family of four $3200 annually...

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ks04_tiahrt/10282005.html

I'm sorry but IMVHO if attorneys could make more money billing hourly they would do it, I don't see the profession as a whole being made up of people who are in it for purely philanthropic reasons. Maybe my favoring this is a chink in my conservative armour? Oh well, so be it. What keeps this from heppening, again IMVHO is that attorneys know full well that if Average Joe had to pay a hefty retainer fee up front, Average Joe would be less likely to bring a suit and the last thing most attorneys want is anything to lower the number of suits brought. If Average Joe really feels he/she has a case then he/she should be willing to face a bit of risk in filing a suit. If that makes the legal system less accessable to Average Joe then I go back to my other argument, if the health care system should be fully accessable to everyone regardless of ability to pay shouldn't the legal system?

 

And you are right about the class action idiocy. Have you seen the 1-800-BAD-DRUG commercials? Here is ambulance chasing at it's worst. Maybe it only represents a small percentage of your profession, but if that's the case then it seems the majority would want to do something to stiffle them because it has given your profession as a whole a very bad reputation, deserved or not.

 

FWIW other professionals (read medical providers) are already told what they are allowed to charge and what they will be paid by government entities. Who writes those regulations, attorneys for the most part. It must be nice to be able to help regulate the income of other professionals while fighting tooth and nail anything that would restrict your own.

 

Lastly, at least for this post, I know the insurance industry is a complete and total mess, I know they bear a lion's share of the blame for the way things are now BUT the rules and regulations that allow them to control things the way they do had to be written and scrutinized by someone. Guess who?

 

 

This thread has been interesting reading. As to the bolded part, if plaintiff's lawyers did not take cases on contingency, a lot of cases with merit would never be filed, simply because the plaintiff could not afford to pay the hourly rate if they lost the suit. If you are worried about the poor not getting access to good lawyers, banning the contingency fee would make that situation even worse. And not all cases with merit are winners. Further, there are lots of cases that concern legal principles that are not well settled. Thus, the plaintiff and the attorney can't be close to certain if they will be successful. And lest someone think I'm a plaintiff oriented attorney, nothing could be farther from the truth. But I do respect the plaintiffs bar. Almost all of them are good folks trying to zealously represent their clients (which is their ethical duty). I would no more judge the whole of them by the actions of a few than I would judge all posters on here by the posts of a few. Same with prosecutors.

peer /pɪər/ –noun

1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.

2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

3. something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer.

4. a nobleman.

5. a member of any of the five degrees of the nobility in Great Britain and Ireland (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron).

6. Archaic. a companion.

 

I guess it depends on one's definition of peer. :D :D :D

 

Touche.

Lawsuits cost an average family of four $3200 annually...

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ks04_tiahrt/10282005.html

 

The research by the CATO Institute (done 5 years ago) was funded by the insurance industry and has been discredited. It mostly compiles insurance premiums paid rather than litigation costs, and also included litigation costs incurred for perfectly legitimate claims and judgments paid or owing.

Up to $3520 as of December 2006...

 

http://www.sickoflawsuits.org/threats/CosttoConsumers.cfm#cost1

Up to $3520 as of December 2006...

 

http://www.sickoflawsuits.org/threats/CosttoConsumers.cfm#cost1

 

So what is your proposed solution BRJB?