Tort Reform and the webs they weave

I may be a lawyer, but I'm not beyond thinking there are many things wrong with our profession. Perhaps in a later post I'll hit those points. Suffice to say, there should be an ongoing debate about the American legal profession and how it serves our society. But, now that John Edwards is on the Democratic ticket, it's pretty clear we are about to be bombarded with calls against the "frivolous" lawsuits the media likes to discuss. That's unfortunate, because as the GOP tries to tag one very well-respected trial lawyer with personal attacks based on hysterical claims about abuse of the legal system, we'll miss a chance to really improve our justice system.

Why did I say hysterical? Well, here is a good rundown on many of those terrifying litigation stories you here. One thing to remember about stories about outrageous jury verdicts - juries do not have the final say in our court system, judges do, both the trial judge and later appellate panels. Outrageous verdicts can be dealt with, as in the case of the McDonald's "coffee verdict". (That verdict is not mentioned in the above link, but you can find it here, in a good story on Edwards and tort reform.)

And, often, the outrageous jury verdict is not nearly so outrageous when you learn all the facts. What strikes about the McDonald's case is not the skin graft the victim needed after being badly burned, not her time in the hospital, nor the hundreds of complaints about the boiling hot coffee McDonald's served which they had ignored before the incident. It's the fact that the plaintiff and her attorneys offered to settle for $10,000.

I have to say, as a lawyer, I'm ashamed, ashamed! I'm ashamed that whoever was representing McDonald's in that case is a member of my profession.