![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Things To Tell Your Grandchildren
Jun. 12th, 2006 08:43 amOne reason that you do not want your blog to become too popular is that it allows you to stay under the rader -- particularly the radar of lawyers. AlCan'tHang and LasVegasVegas have both been subject to the attentions of these sub-humans in recent weeks.
Paul Phillips laid into the lawyer community a few weeks ago and received the predicted response from the legal lobby. No-one asked the obvious question of these liars; that being:
"You have a choice. Do the best for your client, or see justice served. Which do you choose?"
A lawyer would normally respond that justice is best served by doing the best for your client, which is a piece of disingenuity that proves either their mendacity, corruption or plain stupidity. Many times the two points are in absolute contradiction, and lawyers, when faced with the choice, go for the person paying the bill every time.
There's a long-running series of cases running in the UK and the US that relate to asbestos and its related diseases. I have no wish to bore you with the complexities of this matter or why what will happen is that all the available money will be taken by people who aren't really ill at the expense of people who develop the illness 15 years hence. What is interesting is the reasioning behind the insurance companies fighting the cases. This has nothing to do with its merits. They just happen to know that, if they settle this case, the lawyers working on it will start looking for another case. "These people have a living to make. They aren't going to say "Oh, we've won. I can go back to being a filing clerk now". They will remain class-action lawyers and do what class-action lawyers do. Look for class actions," was what one insurance CEO said to me a couple of years ago.
So, say the insurers, let's spin out the asbestos cases as long as possible so that the class action lawyers don't have time to look elsewhere.
I received a press release this morning that was about 300 words long. The "notes to editors" was twice as long. This piece of "cautionary note on forward-looking statements" wastes a good 50bn trees a year, I reckon. All because people fear legal action in liability cases.
Paul Phillips laid into the lawyer community a few weeks ago and received the predicted response from the legal lobby. No-one asked the obvious question of these liars; that being:
"You have a choice. Do the best for your client, or see justice served. Which do you choose?"
A lawyer would normally respond that justice is best served by doing the best for your client, which is a piece of disingenuity that proves either their mendacity, corruption or plain stupidity. Many times the two points are in absolute contradiction, and lawyers, when faced with the choice, go for the person paying the bill every time.
There's a long-running series of cases running in the UK and the US that relate to asbestos and its related diseases. I have no wish to bore you with the complexities of this matter or why what will happen is that all the available money will be taken by people who aren't really ill at the expense of people who develop the illness 15 years hence. What is interesting is the reasioning behind the insurance companies fighting the cases. This has nothing to do with its merits. They just happen to know that, if they settle this case, the lawyers working on it will start looking for another case. "These people have a living to make. They aren't going to say "Oh, we've won. I can go back to being a filing clerk now". They will remain class-action lawyers and do what class-action lawyers do. Look for class actions," was what one insurance CEO said to me a couple of years ago.
So, say the insurers, let's spin out the asbestos cases as long as possible so that the class action lawyers don't have time to look elsewhere.
I received a press release this morning that was about 300 words long. The "notes to editors" was twice as long. This piece of "cautionary note on forward-looking statements" wastes a good 50bn trees a year, I reckon. All because people fear legal action in liability cases.
