Attorneys

[frugal_gourmet]

Read your own words carefully: "negative health news" not "negative health effects." For-profit companies do not do anything which costs them money unless they are forced to, either by regulations or because of potentially disastrous publicity. "The good of the consumer" is never a consideration.

Yes, I'm assuming that if a corporation harms someone's health, they will receive negative health publicity or decreased sales. It's possible that surreptious harm could be dealt. I'm not sure that quite fits this case, though.

[frugal_gourmet]

No one but corporations benefits from confidential settlements, which is why they like them, of course.

It seems to me that someone filing an unjust lawsuit would benefit from the existence of confidential settlements. Their odds of getting money would presumably go down if the reputational hit to a company was up front.

[branmakmuffin]

Yes, I'm assuming that if a corporation harms someone's health, they will receive negative health publicity or decreased sales. It's possible that surreptious harm could be dealt. I'm not sure that quite fits this case, though.

Didn't that peanut company knowingly ship bad peanuts recently?

It seems to me that someone filing an unjust lawsuit would benefit from the existence of confidential settlements. Their odds of getting money would presumably go down if the reputational hit to a company was up front.

"Unjust lawsuits" would be a tricky term to define.

[frugal_gourmet]

Unfortunately they do this at the expense of the safety of their workers, and the public. I laugh out loud when I see the "Feel Good" adverts for some of the worst offenders out there~ ADM, GE, and Monsanto, which portray these companies as "caring about individuals, and the environment." I don't know how the people in their PR and marketing departments can sleep at night. I don't see how anyone with a conscience or a soul could actually work for a corporation like this. Greed flows downhill, I guess. Sometimes I think these corporations spend more in "hush" money than anyone knows. We need more corporate transparency, not less.

Not sure I agree at all.

[frugal_gourmet]

Didn't that peanut company knowingly ship bad peanuts recently?

That fits the discussion perfectly because -- clearly -- no one at all knows about it. No negative news at all.

[frugal_gourmet]

"Unjust lawsuits" would be a tricky term to define.

You claimed that no one but corporations would benefit from confidential lawsuits.

That was my attempt at an example of a case where someone else would.

Come to think of it, a just lawsuit could benefit as well.

[Spisey]

I bet sucking on the hot end of a semi-auto barrel would help the lawyer reconsider...

Killem all.......

And don't worry there is a very lonely, cold place in hell for lawyers!

[branmakmuffin]

Not sure I agree at all.

You can't possibly disagree with the entire post. No one, other than someone with a vested interest in maintaining corporate secrecy, could possibly disagree with the sentiment that we need more, not less, corporate transparency.

[branmakmuffin]

You claimed that no one but corporations would benefit from confidential lawsuits.

That was my attempt at an example of a case where someone else would.

Come to think of it, a just lawsuit could benefit as well.

You'll have to come up with an example.

I bet sucking on the hot end of a semi-auto barrel would help the lawyer reconsider...

Killem all.......

And don't worry there is a very lonely, cold place in hell for lawyers!

How close is it to the one for mass murderers?

[ShaeNightbird]

That fits the discussion perfectly because -- clearly -- no one at all knows about it. No negative news at all.

I wonder how much they paid to keep things quiet?

You may not agree with me on this, I understand. However, I live in a city where Monsanto has one of it's corporate headquarters, as well as one of it's chemical plants which has been the source of much local controversy.
People in the vicinity of this plant have been getting sick for years.

It was proven that a dangerous amount of carcinaginous chemicals were leaking out of Monsanto's containment fields, into the water table.
There was an inordinately high rate of unusual cancers which were proven by independent experts to have been directly caused by the high concentration of this stuff in people's well water. However, Monsanto's own experts testified, and based on their testimony and a lot of specious "evidence to the contrary" (and a lot of payola) the class action suit filed by the families directly affected literally died in the water. Along with quite a few people who died FROM the water, some as young as 14. And of course, this was all hushed up.

Some "cooperative" people were paid to shut up, "uncooperatives" were threatened. Some news got out, but it got squelched pretty quickly. This all happened in the early 1980's. It's still happening. Monsanto is a multi billion dollar corporation, with a profit margin that is expanding, due to their latest monstrosity, Genetically Modified foods.

[Spisey]

How close is it to the one for mass murderers?

I'm thinking bunkmates....

[branmakmuffin]

I'm thinking bunkmates....

You know that famous quote from Shakespeare's Henry VI, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers?" The entire quote in context is that without lawyers, tyranny is much easier to achieve.

[Noctus]

Excuse me a moment ... I can't stop laughing. Ah, yes, Germany has the lock on true "independent" testing and verification. There has never been corruption or influence in any product coming to market in Germany. IF you truly believe that, you truly do not understand money and markets.

Neither did i make such a ridiculous claim, nor hold such a thing as true in secret.
I merely stated how it is in Germany. That the pre-launch testing of products here in germany is very intensive, than compared to the rest of the world.

Here many companys complain that the testing is too restrictive and strict, takes too long, that useless for the consumer and/or irrelevant characteristics of the produces are tested, and that such practices hinder their competetiveness in general.


While to me it seems that in the US people rather sue each others silly, that allow some regulations to be implemented.
Which may feel restrictive to those who have to obey them, but overall raise the efficiency of the economy because of lowered insecurity.
Rules give certainty. Certainty means less sueing. Less sueing means less risks of having to pay big money (extortion sueing shush-money, righteous penaltys). Less risk means they can charge lower prices.

If you do not think so, tell me why people from around the world try get US jurisdiction to sue in this country?

Because of the massive amounts of potential hush-money gained?

Because that lawyers urge them too?
Wherethey are paid differently than in the proper country for the lawsuit. Where they can get a good percentage of the, imho extremly inflated, penalty payments. And not a fixed wage for their served workhours.

Some few propably because their home country´s justice system is indeed corrupt or non-existent, like in the many banana republics. But that is the exception. Most just want to get some easy go-away-money.

[unionyes]

I bet sucking on the hot end of a semi-auto barrel would help the lawyer reconsider...

Killem all.......

And don't worry there is a very lonely, cold place in hell for lawyers!

I feel the same way about the executives at any corporation that sells dangerous products.

Did you know that after Thalidomide was taken off the market in North America for obvious reasons, in order to recoup R and D money the patent owners continued to sell it in Africa and South East Asia for 20 years?

Did you know that a certain company that made Pintos (the car not the horse) knew that they had a chance of exploding on rear impact but weighed the cost of a recall vs. the cost of settling lawsuits for wrongful death or injury and decided it would be cheaper not to recall? The same logic kept seatbelts out of cars for years.

Did you know that after it was conclusively proven that Asbestos caused horrible lung cancers, it was 'rebranded' as Crysotile Asbestos and continued to be sold for use in insulating schools, hospitals, and homes?

Yeah. Those lawyers that represented the people who were damaged in those cases are real jerks.

[Missing_Minds]

You know that famous quote from Shakespeare's Henry VI, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers?" The entire quote in context is that without lawyers, tyranny is much easier to achieve.

And when Tyrants are lawyers.. what then?

[unionyes]

And when Tyrants are lawyers.. what then?

Very Plato-esque.

[Hafeal]

I merely stated how it is in Germany. That the pre-launch testing of products here in germany is very intensive, than compared to the rest of the world.

Based on what? I am certainly open to some more objective data about what country offers the most intensive product testing. I would certainly hold out that pre-launch certifications, product dependent, can be tough anywhere.

And where you see it from the perspective of benefiting the consumer - you could just as easily turn it around to show it as a deliberate impediment to allow a product to enter the market of competition in that sphere.

While to me it seems that in the US people rather sue each others silly, that allow some regulations to be implemented.
Which may feel restrictive to those who have to obey them, but overall raise the efficiency of the economy because of lowered insecurity.
Rules give certainty. Certainty means less sueing. Less sueing means less risks of having to pay big money (extortion sueing shush-money, righteous penaltys). Less risk means they can charge lower prices.

Well, I would question your experience. Rules can give anything but certainty. Make a rule and you will find out just how "uncertain" it can be. The problem with rule-making (let's call it the legislative" process), is that there are always unforeseen, unintended consequences. Even in rules which might appear to be black and white.

The case law in every country, Germany included, is filled with the subsequent interpretations and readings of "rules" which were "certain." It is one reason why control of the courts is so important in any country and you will get to see that up front and close with a US Supreme Court Justice to be nominated within the next several months.

Take a look at the "rules" in this silly game? These very boards are filled with argument, vitriol, and complaint over the "rules."

Ultimately, the "winners" make the rules - and there are always Winners. Which also means there are losers. Everyone is happy until they are no longer on the winning team.

[Hafeal]

It is an unacceptable price, because the only beneficiaries are the wrong-doers. If they were simply disallowed, there would still be settlements because parties would still want to settle.

Untrue - both parties to an agreement can benefit. It is the rare case I have seen where everything was all one way and clear as night and day. All cases have weaknesses - for both parties.

The settlement process allows both sides to acknowledge the weaknesses in their case while resolving the issues. Further, many many cases are settled without confidentiality agreements.

If you did not allow parties to settle at times in confidence, parties would be forced to let the jury decide and then, inevitably, appeal by the losing party. The judicial system is designed to foster settlement not conflict and it is not designed to have more cases go to jury and appeal rather than less.

And when you do go to trial, you never know what the jury is going to decide. Ever.

[Zippo]

Respectfully, read the retainer agreement you signed when you hired the attorney. It provides for how you will be billed for the proceeding and under what circumstances funds may be taken from the $2,500 retainer. The attorney may have know you were financial tight; however, you ultimately signed the retainer agreement, and there is no real obligation for the attorney to make alternative arrangements for the payment of legal fees different from what is set forth in the retainer agreement.

Generally speaking, an attorney will forward curtesy copies of court orders to a client who does not appear for a scheduled date. Future dates are set forth on these orders. However, it is principally your obligation to attend the scheduled court dates. If you are unaware of a court date, you may contact the Circuit Court Clerk's Office in the county in which your proceeding is pending.

You indicated that you were almost taken into custody on the case. In an Illinois family court proceeding, incarceration only occurs for contempt of court. As a general rule, this would be for indirect civil contempt for willful violation of a court order to pay support or maintenance, although it could also be direct criminal contempt for disruptive courtroom behavior. In either event, you would be incarcerated for your own actions or inactions, not the actions of your attorney. Without knowing the specifics of the scheduled court appearance beyond what you have previously posted, I'd speculate your attorney's withdrawl may have saved you from incarceration today. Under Illinois law, present motions are stayed for 28 days if an attorney withdraws from a case. This is for the litigant to obtain new legal counsel. So if he withdraws on a date scheduled for a contempt proceeding, you get a 28 day period of respite.

Several previous posts indicated the attorney registration and disciplinary committee (ARDC) as the licensing board for Illinois Attorneys. You can review the process for making a claim at IARDC.ORG.

Your argument would work if the attorney was forwarding the information on to me on things needing to be done. The judge was under the impression that I was willfully being non-compliant to court orders until I explained to him that the attorney was not feeding me all of the instructions of the court. So yes it was the attorneys fault I was almost incarcerated. Also my attorney failed to inform the court that child support payments were being directly removed from my paycheck by DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and payed to Illinois Department of Family Services, so the Judge again was under the impression I was trying to skip out on paying (again because of my attorney not feeding information through proper channels) when in fact I was not.

And out of curiosity why if I dont know about a court date would I call the County Clerk's Office. I wouldn't know I needed to call if I wasn't informed of the court date in the first place.

And lastly in retort to the billing from the attorney when they are making charges based on court appearances I'm not informed of and are billing unauthorized charges they have over stepped their boundries and have gone outside the spectrum of the retainer agreement.

[Mazeratti]

I like the idea of Politicians, Judges, Police, Lawyers....

but like anything in this world a great idea, institution is ruined by only one thing...

people.

In a perfect world ...

The politician we elect would carry the heart of the ppl that elected him/her and use his/her office to a good purpose and turn an ever darkening world into a brighter one.

The Judges who sit in the seat of judgement would do so, fairly and keep things balanced as the symbol of justice represents.

The Police backed by a great system would then be able to maintain our streets as a safe place to walk day or night.

THere would be no lawyers, no need everything is working perfectly.

Yea, I know I need to seek professional help, Ive heard it all before.