Attorneys

[unionyes]

The problem is that corporations want it both ways: no regulation and immunity to lawsuits.

Agreed.

The very sad truth, though, is that there are a lot of people out there who will blindly parrot what their corporate masters tell them, and go around saying that they want to go after the people who sued the corporation that harmed them. It never ceases to amaze me that the world is so full of people who are willing to regurgitate stuff like 'tort law reform' that has been shoved into them by some massive multinational.

[Hafeal]

Yeah, didnt think about that.

In germany, before you are allowed to sell a product, you need to go through several agencys who examine, analyse and tear you thing apart. If and how safe it ism and to see where the breaking point is. they are very thorough and unforgiving.
Some are state-mandatory, some are semi-mandatory. All are independent.

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.

While far from perfect, the US legal system hits companies and people right where it hurts - the pocketbook. If you do not think so, tell me why people from around the world try get US jurisdiction to sue in this country? They have a shot here to get awards and their hands on money which are essentially protected in other countries.

If you practice law or should ever decide to, you will find the seedy side of life very quickly - who knows who, how judges are selected, how opinions can be wrapped in language to make either good or bad results palatable. This impacts not just the judicial system but the legislative one as well. If you think this only happens in the US because the legal system in another country operates differently, you need to delve a little deeper into human nature.

The best part about the US system is that you have the right to get your own attorney and to challenge the powers that be. In many countries that right is non-existent or severely curtailed - because the decisions are made through groups, agencies, department in which you are not allowed to have either access or opinion.

[frugal_gourmet]

Honestly, I don't think the corporations care that much as long as the rules are similar for everyone they compete with.

[Hafeal]

Amen to that. Attempting to teach critical thinking to the masses is a one-by-one project with lots of examples and facts.

Agreed.

The very sad truth, though, is that there are a lot of people out there who will blindly parrot what their corporate masters tell them, and go around saying that they want to go after the people who sued the corporation that harmed them. It never ceases to amaze me that the world is so full of people who are willing to regurgitate stuff like 'tort law reform' that has been shoved into them by some massive multinational.

[frugal_gourmet]

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.

While far from perfect, the US legal system hits companies and people right where it hurts - the pocketbook. If you do not think so, tell me why people from around the world try get US jurisdiction to sue in this country? They have a shot here to get awards and their hands on money which are essentially protected in other countries.

If you practice law or should ever decide to, you will find the seedy side of life very quickly - who knows who, how judges are selected, how opinions can be wrapped in language to make either good or bad results palatable. This impacts not just the judicial system but the legislative one as well. If you think this only happens in the US because the legal system in another country operates differently, you need to delve a little deeper into human nature.

The best part about the US system is that you have the right to get your own attorney and to challenge the powers that be. In many countries that right is non-existent or severely curtailed - because the decisions are made through groups, agencies, department in which you are not allowed to have either access or opinion.

Spot on.

[Hafeal]

Honestly, I don't think the corporations care that much as long as the rules are similar for everyone they compete with.

ROFL.

*wipes tears from his eyes*

ROFL

[rimble]

First off they knew I was financially tight when they took the case and when they rack up 10 grand in charges and the only thing that was done was a paternaty test paid for by the STATE theres something wrong. Second I was paying them off but because I couldn't give them the 8 grand they wanted right now they dumped me instead of working with me on it. All they could think of was NOW NOW NOW and not it will be. It was unconscionable conduct when they decided to appear in court and not notify me of the appearances until after they walked out of the courtroom, it was unconscionable conduct when they did not inform me of paperwork that was to be filled out and filed (im not an attorney nor a law graduate I dont know these things)., and it was unconscionable conduct when they took my 2500 retainer check; tell me that should cover it; strike me with another 8 grand in unauthorized charges; and then 5 days before the court appearance inform me that they are dropping me as a client after leaving me out to dry. So before you make assumptions of me not paying get your facts straight because quite frankly I didnt come here to get targeted, that was taken care of quite nicely when I was having to defend myself in court against the judge, states attorney, her attorney for visitation, and my own attorney all at the same time today.

I'm disappointed you could only fit three 'unconscionable's in there.

I'm not even going to try and present a point of view on this situation that I know nothing about, but have you ever noticed whenever someone is about to get litigious suddenly everything becomes 'unconscionable'?

[frugal_gourmet]

ROFL.

*wipes tears from his eyes*

ROFL

Thank you. I'm here all week.

[branmakmuffin]

If you practice law or should ever decide to, you will find the seedy side of life very quickly - who knows who, how judges are selected, how opinions can be wrapped in language to make either good or bad results palatable. This impacts not just the judicial system but the legislative one as well. If you think this only happens in the US because the legal system in another country operates differently, you need to delve a little deeper into human nature.

Among the worst things are confidential pre-trial settlements, which invariably involve the defendant admitting no wrong-doing. These leave consumers and future plaintiffs totally in the dark about past problems with a company's products.

[Pwesiela]

Having spent considerable time beside the judge before deciding to go to law school, I can say with 100% certainty that I will never, ever, ever practice family law. It's never about the problem, it's always about the emotions.

[branmakmuffin]

Having spent considerable time beside the judge before deciding to go to law school, I can say with 100% certainty that I will never, ever, ever practice family law. It's never about the problem, it's always about the emotions.

In criminal law, you've got two sides (and here I mean the victim, not the state, on one side). There is a good chance this was a one-shot incident, where the only contact between the two sides was this one time. In family law, there often is a history of animosity, even hatred, which does not exist much of the time in a criminal law case.

[unionyes]

Honestly, I don't think the corporations care that much as long as the rules are similar for everyone they compete with.

I was involved in some very interesting legal wrangling about 8 years ago in Alberta between the chicken industry (packers) and the beef industry (packers). Notice it wasn't the farmers that were involved, they just paid the freight. They even got sent letters with 'talking points' listed so they could spread the word of the master.

The beef industry was up in arms at the notion that the chicken packers were soaking the chickens in water, thus artificially inflating the weight of the chicken with water and allowing them to make more money than the beef producers. The chicken producers countered by saying go ahead and soak the cattle in water if you wish. The cattle folks wanted governmental assistance to level the playing field. The chicken folks said that would be an unfair advantage to the cattle folks.

Then someone pointed out that it was maybe a little dishonest to sell waterlogged chicken to people who were paying for chicken, not water. And followed up with the idea that soaking thousands of chickens at a time in what was basically a swimming pool could have health repercussions. That someone was not the chicken packer, and it wasn't the beef packer. It was the union that represented the workers in the chicken plant, who were worried that if people started to get sick from cross contamination from the chicken pool parties it could wind up in a closed plant and laid off workers, not to mention the fact that people may lose confidence in a producer that was selling them 3 kilograms of chicken and 1 kilogram of water for the price of 4 kilograms of chicken, which could result in job losses once again.

The point is that neither of the corporations even thought about the potential health risks. They spent thousands of dollars to argue about one having an unfair advantage, or a perceived unfair advantage, over the other. They didn't give a rats behind about the consumer until a different entity threatened to go public with the scam they had going.

Edited to add that in the interests of disclosure, I practice Labour Law in Alberta, as a Union Representative. I have no formal legal training other than what I have received at Union schools, no law degree, no Bar affiliation other than the pub down the block from my office.

[frugal_gourmet]

Among the worst things are confidential pre-trial settlements, which invariably involve the defendant admitting no wrong-doing. These leave consumers and future plaintiffs totally in the dark about past problems with a company's products.

What would be the solution, though? Perhaps there is no wrong-doing on the defendent's part.

[Hafeal]

Among the worst things are confidential pre-trial settlements, which invariably involve the defendant admitting no wrong-doing. These leave consumers and future plaintiffs totally in the dark about past problems with a company's products.

I agree but without them, costly trials would result with unpredictable results for both parties going forward. It is a price to pay in order to have parties truly forge out reasonable settlements.

[unionyes]

I agree but without them, costly trials would result with unpredictable results for both parties going forward. It is a price to pay in order to have parties truly forge out reasonable settlements.

Amen.

[branmakmuffin]

I agree but without them, costly trials would result with unpredictable results for both parties going forward. It is a price to pay in order to have parties truly forge out reasonable settlements.

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.

[frugal_gourmet]

The point is that neither of the corporations even thought about the potential health risks. They spent thousands of dollars to argue about one having an unfair advantage, or a perceived unfair advantage, over the other. They didn't give a rats behind about the consumer until a different entity threatened to go public with the scam they had going.

Although I think your story is interesting and perhaps even accurate, I do find it quite strange that a corporation that sells food would never consider the negative cost-benefit of a health scandal. I grew up in a family where several members worked in an industry that sold food. In some cases, for major corporations (i.e., PepsiCo). The idea of negative health news sent shivers down their spines. In some cases, we're talking potentially billions in lost revenues. Even silly rumors (such as a rat or syringe being found in a food product) that had no basis in reality, were sometimes damaging.

I do freely admit that my quote was somewhat dumb and hasty, and it actually wound up being out of context for where I intended it anyway. And I admit that corporations prioritize maximizing profits and making money for their shareholders.

[frugal_gourmet]

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.

Isn't the company's cost based largely on their reputational hit? Wouldn't they be less likely to settle then?

[branmakmuffin]

Although I think your story is interesting and perhaps even accurate, I do find it quite strange that a corporation that sells food would never consider the negative cost-benefit of a health scandal. I grew up in a family where several members worked in an industry that sold food. In some cases, for major corporations (i.e., PepsiCo). The idea of negative health news sent shivers down their spines. In some cases, we're talking potentially billions in lost revenues. Even silly rumors (such as a rat or syringe being found in a food product) that had no basis in reality, were sometimes damaging.

I do freely admit that my quote was somewhat dumb and hasty, and it actually wound up being out of context for where I intended it anyway. And I admit that corporations prioritize maximizing profits and making money for their shareholders.

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.

Isn't the company's cost based largely on their reputational hit? Wouldn't they be less likely to settle then?

Reputation could take a hit merely from a trial, win or lose. No one but corporations benefits from confidential settlements, which is why they like them, of course.

[ShaeNightbird]

And I admit that corporations prioritize maximizing profits and making money for their shareholders.

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.