Top Law Schools

particularly at top schools? if they're good, they make more than corporate lawyers, and they are after all the only reason defense litigators have jobs.

Anonymous User wrote:particularly at top schools? if they're good, they make more than corporate lawyers, and they are after all the only reason defense litigators have jobs.

...I must be confused. There is a plaintiff and defendant in every case, and most attorneys represent companies that are plaintiffs and defendants at different times.

What on earth am I missing?

Pearalegal wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:particularly at top schools? if they're good, they make more than corporate lawyers, and they are after all the only reason defense litigators have jobs.

...I must be confused. There is a plaintiff and defendant in every case, and most attorneys represent companies that are plaintiffs and defendants at different times.

What on earth am I missing?

:: grabs popcorn ::

Pearalegal wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:particularly at top schools? if they're good, they make more than corporate lawyers, and they are after all the only reason defense litigators have jobs.

...I must be confused. There is a plaintiff and defendant in every case, and most attorneys represent companies that are plaintiffs and defendants at different times.

What on earth am I missing?

by plaintiffs lawyers i meant the type who only represent plaintiffs--typically they represent individuals in tort suits.

A better topic title would be: Why is there such a rampant misuse of the anonymous post feature?

No really. What am I not getting? I feel like I must be being an idiot. I know some attorneys represent plaintiffs more than defendants and vice versa...but I didn't realize this was a specific term.

I thought at firms you take on different companies representing different sides. yada.

Cavalier wrote:A better topic title would be: Why is there such a rampant misuse of the anonymous post feature?

Woops. Sorry. I was the OP, and didn't realize that I was posting anonymously.

Anonymous User wrote: by plaintiffs lawyers i meant the type who only represent plaintiffs--typically they represent individuals in tort suits.

Oh, huh.

Are you referring to ambulance chasers?

Oh, are we talking about personal injury lawyers?

The typical reason for the disdain (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing) is regardless of the amount of money they make, they are seen as unscrupulous scumbags.

High-stakes plaintiffs litigation is predicated largely on securing huge (hundreds of millions) "jackpot" verdicts for things like asbestos/lead poisoning, Vioxx litigation, etc. Many people view these suits as having questionable legal merit at best, frivolous at worst, and in any case with judgments vastly exceeding any demonstrable harm (large punitive damages, basically - a reason why the plaintiff's bar is the largest opponent of tort reform).

The flipside of the argument is plaintiff's lawyers litigate important rights, usually on behalf of classes of people who have been injured but would have no legal recourse if these large cases did not exist.

Again, I don't want to endorse either view, but these are the general perspectives.

babaghanouj wrote:Are you referring to ambulance chasers?

Not all plaintiffs' tort lawyers chase ambulances, or advertise on local television with "one call that's all." Many rely solely on their reputations and professional connections, and get high profile cases against the largest corporations and insurance companies in class actions or product liability actions.

..

.

John Edwards

Batman2 wrote:John Edwards

What's wrong with John Edwards?

Corsair wrote:Also because often times the only purpose of most lawsuits is to make the plaintiff lawyers money. See, for example, most class action lawsuits. Often less than 4% of the purported class actually receives any compensation from the suit. The fees to the lawyers dwarf the actual payouts to class members.

how is this different from saying that the reason that most defense lawyers defend suits is to rake in hourly fees, which often end up costing several times the amount of the likely judgment that would result?

..

logicianwannabe wrote:

Batman2 wrote:John Edwards

What's wrong with John Edwards?

Overly potent swimmers?

Another particularly despicable tactic that is nearly universal is to find a handful, or even just one legitimate plaintiff, and then tack on a bunch of frivolous cases and use the threat of taking the "good" plaintiff's case to trial to drive up settlement amounts for the whole group.

That said, I personally think it's the contingency fee model that is the real problem, not the work itself.

The problem with reform, though, is that under any other payment model a lot of low-income people would not litigate even if they had real claims, because of the prospect of losing and then having to pay their lawyer money they don't have. And lower-income groups are disproportionately injured in a lot of areas (for example, asbestos plant workers).

logicianwannabe wrote:

Pearalegal wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:particularly at top schools? if they're good, they make more than corporate lawyers, and they are after all the only reason defense litigators have jobs.

...I must be confused. There is a plaintiff and defendant in every case, and most attorneys represent companies that are plaintiffs and defendants at different times.

What on earth am I missing?

by plaintiffs lawyers i meant the type who only represent plaintiffs--typically they represent individuals in tort suits.

if there are counterclaims filed by the defendant, in which case the original plaintiff becomes a defendant and vice versa, what do the specialty lawyers do? run away screaming?

This is something I've been curious about and it seems like a good place to ask: is there an apostrophe in "plaintiffs attorney" and where does it go? I've seen both plaintiff's, plaintiffs', and plaintiffs.