Long Read: Edwards, Who is He and Where is He From?

[cpumaster]

Aside from the apparent & strong biased displayed by the author, the article itself is full of loophole and some of the so-called facts cited doesn't pass the smell-detector, that's it stink. Some of the so-called fact sounded more like allegation than actual proven fact. The number of money Edwards made, while sounds big, how does it compare to other big cases won by other trial lawyers? While Edwards was successful in his lawsuit representing the patient, the article made it sounds like he is evil in doing so, while totally ignoring the judge and jury who made all the decision in the case, as if they're bunch of idiot who fell under the spell of a good-looking lawyer. Come on. Where is the in-depth story if you're trying to uncover Edwards so-called black past?
I mean, yeah I am upset sometimes with trial lawyers winning huge ass sum of money for someone (and themselves) for something that seemed trivial, ie the old lady vs. McDonald case, but it's not their fault for playing in the system that we have created and agreed upon. The big corporations and doctors and hospitals have more money than the victims to hire excellent group of lawyers, how does that figure into the equation? For every case that victims won, there are probably thousands of victims who lose their cases...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: rchiu
So are you calling it a fact that trial lawyers increased the cost of products and services? That's pretty much the premise of the article isn't it? <BR><BR>That premise is nothing more than an accusation. You can easily argue that the companies are at fault for the negligence. You can easily argue that the government is at fault for not outlining clear guideline. You can easily argue that the justice system is not doing its job for letting so many frivolous lawsuits go through. You can argue everything within the system is at fault, including the trial lawyers.<BR><BR>On the other hand, you can argue that there must be some validity to the case people like Edward represent. If there are even one case that is valid, some one needs to step out and represent the people. It is the justice system's job to tell if the case is valid or not.<BR><BR>This is another case of presenting opinion piece like "trial lawyer are evil" as a factual piece. And there seems to be lots of those released by the Bush Admin attack dogs lately.

You can't argue that McDonald's was negligent when the lady spilled coffee on herself. The advent of the multi-million dollar lawsuit is yet one more way Americans have thrown away responsibility and adopted selfishness.

Edwards' first multi-million dollar lawsuit was an obstetrics malpractice claim. Some doctor/insurance duo shelled out millions of dollars to him. Since, it has been proven that the condition that was sued for is not a product of delivery room failure on the part of the doctor: the condition exists before the baby is born. This is just one example of irresponsible lawyering costing everyone money. I'm not saying that all such lawsuits are frivolous, but does the lawyer/complainant give the money back in cases like the one I just mentioned? The answer is simple: no.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
I mean, yeah I am upset sometimes with trial lawyers winning huge ass sum of money for someone (and themselves) for something that seemed trivial, ie the old lady vs. McDonald case, but it's not their fault for playing in the system that we have created and agreed upon. The big corporations and doctors and hospitals have more money than the victims to hire excellent group of lawyers, how does that figure into the equation? For every case that victims won, there are probably thousands of victims who lose their cases...

It IS their fault for playing the system - the fact that the system allows it does not make such behavior moral or ethical. Further, the point that this article insinuates is that Kerry/Edwards will further the agenda of such lawyers rather than fixing such gaps in the system.

The reason there are thousands of victims that lose legitimate cases is because good lawyers hold out for cases with bigger money settlements. Small-time lawyers don't necessarily have the resources to help the little man out, especially if he's only interested in making a reasonable amount of money off the lawsuit.

As my lawyer uncle says, "You get the law in this world, justice in the next."

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It IS their fault for playing the system - the fact that the system allows it does not make such behavior moral or ethical. Further, the point that this article insinuates is that Kerry/Edwards will further the agenda of such lawyers rather than fixing such gaps in the system.

The reason there are thousands of victims that lose legitimate cases is because good lawyers hold out for cases with bigger money settlements. Small-time lawyers don't necessarily have the resources to help the little man out, especially if he's only interested in making a reasonable amount of money off the lawsuit.

As my lawyer uncle says, "You get the law in this world, justice in the next."

Wait, when I said playing in the system, I don't mean "playing the system". I don't think Edwards is doing anything morally or ethically wrong, unless you've something to back up your claim, or your claim is just about general trial lawyers? Anyway, it seemed from reading Edwards past from other sources, doesn't look like he is picking and choosing his victims, the cases he won was mostly on the merit of the victim suffering and his research into the case and brilliant presentation. The award money I might have problem with, but does that means Edwards is playing the system? Doesn't the judge and jury have say so in how they awarded the case?
Your argument is not sound, if you blame thousands of victims losing their cases on good lawyer picking and choosing their case, doesn't that mean maybe our law school should have churned out more and better lawyers? And then, if you are better than anyone else, is it because you're good at picking &amp; choosing your client or because you're good at presenting the case? Or both? Even good doctors and teachers can choose where they work or teach. You also failed to see that the other side have very good lawyers too representing them... they have the money and resources.

I am not saying the frivolous lawsuit is something we should ignore, because too many of them are costing everyone, not just the court, business, taxpayers, even the real victims...
however that doesn't mean Edwards if elected will help propagate the false lawsuit like the article insinuating.
It'll be very interesting to hear him talk about the issue and what he's going to do if he/Kerry is elected.
Is putting cap on the injury award or punitive award the solution? What about the victim's right? How about capping what the trial lawyer may receive as fee from the case? What is the appropriate cap level is indeed that is the proposed solution?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
I mean, yeah I am upset sometimes with trial lawyers winning huge ass sum of money for someone (and themselves) for something that seemed trivial, ie the old lady vs. McDonald case, but it's not their fault for playing in the system that we have created and agreed upon.

One of the sites with informat... McD's coffee lawsuit. Another jeepers that wasn't as frivolous as some seem to think it was lawsuit or as costly to McD's.

Snopes message forum thread.

 

[cpumaster]

yeah I read that thread in the past... I still think it's unfair to punish McD for something not their fault according to common sense. I mean, even though McD sounded cruel &amp; calculating in how they response, it wouldn't have happened if the lady just used her common sense...
plus that huge ass award really make me "burn" with envy... maybe I should sue the victim

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: rchiu
So are you calling it a fact that trial lawyers increased the cost of products and services? That's pretty much the premise of the article isn't it? <BR><BR>That premise is nothing more than an accusation. You can easily argue that the companies are at fault for the negligence. You can easily argue that the government is at fault for not outlining clear guideline. You can easily argue that the justice system is not doing its job for letting so many frivolous lawsuits go through. You can argue everything within the system is at fault, including the trial lawyers.<BR><BR>On the other hand, you can argue that there must be some validity to the case people like Edward represent. If there are even one case that is valid, some one needs to step out and represent the people. It is the justice system's job to tell if the case is valid or not.<BR><BR>This is another case of presenting opinion piece like "trial lawyer are evil" as a factual piece. And there seems to be lots of those released by the Bush Admin attack dogs lately.

You can't argue that McDonald's was negligent when the lady spilled coffee on herself. The advent of the multi-million dollar lawsuit is yet one more way Americans have thrown away responsibility and adopted selfishness.

Thanks for proving you know nothing of the McDonald's case.

 

[GMElias]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well I actually read it. And I am surprise somebody can't tell the obvious bias in the article, and try to present it as a factual piece on Edward's background.

agreed...I read most of it, and it is plain to me....anyhow, there is at least some fact here, so it is slightly interesting
-Elias

 

[GrGr]

Well the article came from a Neocon source (FrontPageMagazine), that's for sure. They have an add where you can go to a convention with Ann Coulter and other rabid right wing nuts

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
Thanks for proving you know nothing of the McDonald's case.

Have to agree with conjur on this one. *shudder*

McDonald's coffee suit is pet peeve of mine. Everyone is quick to point this out as a "frivolous" suit by a "greedy and stupid," which is just not true. McD's was at fault and deserved to pay out, even moreso than they actually had to.


Link.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well I actually read it. And I am surprise somebody can't tell the obvious bias in the article, and try to present it as a factual piece on Edward's background.

i read through the first few paragraphs and thought to myself "where is this information coming from?" so i went to their website and felt slightly...untrusting of their take on the issue.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
Wait, when I said playing in the system, I don't mean "playing the system". I don't think Edwards is doing anything morally or ethically wrong, unless you've something to back up your claim, or your claim is just about general trial lawyers? Anyway, it seemed from reading Edwards past from other sources, doesn't look like he is picking and choosing his victims, the cases he won was mostly on the merit of the victim suffering and his research into the case and brilliant presentation. The award money I might have problem with, but does that means Edwards is playing the system? Doesn't the judge and jury have say so in how they awarded the case?
Your argument is not sound, if you blame thousands of victims losing their cases on good lawyer picking and choosing their case, doesn't that mean maybe our law school should have churned out more and better lawyers? And then, if you are better than anyone else, is it because you're good at picking &amp; choosing your client or because you're good at presenting the case? Or both? Even good doctors and teachers can choose where they work or teach. You also failed to see that the other side have very good lawyers too representing them... they have the money and resources.

I am not saying the frivolous lawsuit is something we should ignore, because too many of them are costing everyone, not just the court, business, taxpayers, even the real victims...
however that doesn't mean Edwards if elected will help propagate the false lawsuit like the article insinuating.
It'll be very interesting to hear him talk about the issue and what he's going to do if he/Kerry is elected.
Is putting cap on the injury award or punitive award the solution? What about the victim's right? How about capping what the trial lawyer may receive as fee from the case? What is the appropriate cap level is indeed that is the proposed solution?

I'm saying that it's unethical/immoral to sue doctors for millions of dollars then later, when science shows they've done nothing wrong and your case was based on false premises, keep the money. Passing the buck on to judges and juries is one way to look at it, but they almost always award close to the amount asked for in the initial suit, which is set by the lawyer. Law schools can't simply ramp up the output of lawyers - this would result in a further watering down of the lawyer pool, with a lower average skill, since you'd have to lower admissions standards.

As for failing to see the other side, this is simply not the case. The reason that I'm offended by Edwards in particular is that he put the blame on doctors for things that were beyond their control. He couldn't prove it other than circumstantially at the time, but since it has been shown that there is naught a doctor can do to prevent such conditions. Case in point: Edwards won many millions arguing that doctors' foul-ups during delivery led to cerebral palsy (Link). It has since been shown that cerebral palsy is not caused by complications during labor link. Is this justice?

Originally posted by: conjur
Thanks for proving you know nothing of the McDonald's case.

Thanks for being a troll and adding nothing to the conversation - it got my point across, didn't it?

Thanks for the link ckg... Never actually read about it before.