
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - William Lerach was riding high more than a decade ago when Rep. Christopher Cox accused him of practicing “legalized piracy on the high seas of the new economy.”
It looked like the “pirate” had won when he persuaded President Clinton to veto a bill sponsored by the San Diego Republican aimed at reigning in crusading liability lawyers like Lerach.
Cox, who is now chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, got his bill passed over Clinton’s veto, yet Lerach went on during the following decade to make hundreds of millions of dollars suing and threatening to sue corporate giants like Enron, AOL/Time Warner and WorldCom, among others.
But Lerach will soon report to prison, a convicted felon for his admitted involvement in a tawdry kickback scheme that federal prosecutors say, beginning in 1979 resulted in more than $200 million in tainted legal fees from at least 150 cases being paid to Milberg Weiss, his former New York law firm. Lerach left the firm and started his own in San Diego in 2004.
The firm funneled the payments to a stable of individuals who often became lead plaintiffs, putting them in a position to recommend lawyers to be designated by the court as lead counsel, which typically received the largest share of fees and cost reimbursements.
Government investigators claim the kickback scheme’s fee structure was purposely designed as a percentage of whatever the firm ultimately received in a case, which effectively provided the cooperating plaintiffs with incentive to side with the firm on issues critical to the outcome.
Critics claim the case is evidence of widespread corruption and abuses of the liability lawsuit process that undermine the credibility of the nation’s courts, cause irreparable financial harm to thousands of honest companies, investors and employees, and, according to the Pacific Research Institute, cost consumers more than $865 billion annually.
Lerach will serve up to two years in prison, where he may perhaps recall saying of liabilities lawyers in a 2002 Nation magazine interview that “we may not be perfect, but we are not corruptible.”
Three other main players in the Milberg Weiss kickback scheme have also admitted guilt and entered into plea bargains with the government:
» David Bershad, the former managing partner who the government said kept bundles of cash in a safe in his office. Bershad was the first of the Milberg Weiss partners to cooperate with federal officials.
» Steven Schulman, who federal prosecutors said met one of the kickback recipients at a Howard Johnson’s restaurant and passed the cash to him under the table, literally.
» Steven Cooperman, a former Beverly Hills eye doctor, who prosecutors said received more than $6.4 million in kickbacks from Milberg Weiss in at least 70 cases that generated more than $133 million in fees for the firm.
Melvyn Weiss, one of the New York firm’s co-founders, has refused a plea bargain and faces prosecution on four criminal charges in connection with the kickback scheme that could result in his spending up to 40 years in prison.
Weiss insists that he is innocent and vows to summon to his defense “all of the energy and talent that has made him one of the most outstanding members of the bar for more than 40 years,” according to one of his lawyers.
The plea bargains and Weiss trial cap a seven-year government investigation that first gained momentum last year when another kickback recipient, New Jersey businessman Howard Vogel, became dissatisfied with the firm and began cooperating with prosecutors. Vogel pleaded guilty to lying to a court about payments he received from Milberg Weiss.
The investigation not only caught several Milberg Weiss major partners, it also resulted in the government for the first time ever applying federal anti-racketeering statutes against a law firm. Last May, the firm was named in a 20-count indictment that remains outstanding.
Milberg Weiss virtually invented the liability suit as a legal tool for challenging alleged wrongdoing at many of the nation’s most famous Fortune 500 corporations, including AT&T, Microsoft, Prudential Insurance, Sears & Roebuck and WorldCom. At times in recent years, more than half of all securities litigation was filed by the firm.
Theodore Frank, director of the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American Enterprise Institute, points to the Milberg Weiss indictments and guilty pleas as persuasive evidence of widespread corruption in the liability lawsuit process.
“The kickback scheme confirms decades-old suspicions about class-action litigation practice,” Frank told The Washington Examiner. “There are certainly other cases out there where the lead ‘client’ signed off on settlements that benefited only the lawyers, and other law firms who have repeatedly used the same lead plaintiff.”
James Copland, who heads The Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy, says the corruption extends to expert witnesses and other witnesses. He points to the 249-page opinion of U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack in a 2005 case involving thousands of plaintiffs claiming lung damage as a result of exposure to purified silica — more commonly known as “sand” — that is used in fiberglass, ceramics and glass.
After reviewing thousands of diagnoses by doctors who admitted during trial either to never having interviewed claimants or spending only cursory time with them, Graham said “truth and justice had very little to do with these diagnoses, they were manufactured for money.”
Key players
![]() |
William Lerach
Lerach admitted involvement in a kickback scheme that prosecutors say, beginning in 1979, resulted in more than $200 million in tainted legal fees from at least 150 cases being paid to Milberg Weiss, his former law firm.
![]() |
Melvyn Weiss
Weiss, one of Milberg Weiss’ co-founders, has refused a plea bargain and faces prosecution on four criminal charges in connection with the kickback scheme that could result in his spending up to 40 years in prison.
![]() |
Steven Schulman
Federal prosecutors say Schulman met one of the kickback recipients at a Howard Johnson’s restaurant and passed the cash to him under the table, literally.
Mark Tapscott is the editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner.
"Lawyers Gone Wild" is a series of special reports by The Examiner looking at the cost and consequences of class action lawsuit abuse in the United States. Read the latest articles in the series.
# 4,611 of 4,690 |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY
Comments from Examiner Readers
11:40 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 re: "Strongest lawsuit abuse reform opponents in Senate received the most Milberg Weiss cash"
Report as inappropriate
1:46 PM MST on Fri., Oct. 19, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
1:43 PM MST on Fri., Oct. 19, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
5:20 PM MST on Tue., Oct. 16, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
8:43 AM MST on Sun., Oct. 14, 2007
re: "Liability lawyers offer corporate America a deal it can’t refuse"
Report as inappropriate
3:00 PM MST on Fri., Oct. 12, 2007
re: "Liability lawyers offer corporate America a deal it can’t refuse"
Report as inappropriate
5:23 PM MST on Thu., Oct. 11, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
6:53 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "How they do it: Favorite tactics of liability lawyers that tip the scales for their fame and fortune"
Report as inappropriate
6:48 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Hard times descend on super-lawyer land"
Report as inappropriate
6:18 AM MST on Fri., Oct. 5, 2007
re: "Hard times descend on super-lawyer land"
Report as inappropriate
8:48 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 3, 2007
re: "How they do it: Favorite tactics of liability lawyers that tip the scales for their fame and fortune"
Report as inappropriate
1:37 PM MST on Mon., Oct. 1, 2007
re: "How they do it: Favorite tactics of liability lawyers that tip the scales for their fame and fortune"
Report as inappropriate
1:32 PM MST on Mon., Oct. 1, 2007
re: "How they do it: Favorite tactics of liability lawyers that tip the scales for their fame and fortune"
Report as inappropriate
1:28 PM MST on Mon., Oct. 1, 2007
re: "How they do it: Favorite tactics of liability lawyers that tip the scales for their fame and fortune"
Report as inappropriate
1:25 PM MST on Mon., Oct. 1, 2007
re: "How they do it: Favorite tactics of liability lawyers that tip the scales for their fame and fortune"
Report as inappropriate
1:15 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 24, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
7:31 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 24, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
7:00 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 24, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
4:10 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 23, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
8:08 AM MST on Sun., Sep. 23, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
9:18 PM MST on Sat., Sep. 22, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
3:36 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
1:21 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
11:29 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
11:21 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007
re: "Lawyers use campaign cash to buy friends in high places"
Report as inappropriate
12:30 PM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
12:22 PM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
9:41 AM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
9:30 AM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
9:16 AM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
9:51 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
12:42 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
11:51 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
11:00 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
1:45 PM MST on Sat., Sep. 15, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
10:59 AM MST on Sat., Sep. 15, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
7:41 AM MST on Sat., Sep. 15, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
7:14 AM MST on Sat., Sep. 15, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
10:44 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
4:00 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
10:40 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
9:41 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
9:08 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
8:21 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
4:15 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
4:14 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Report as inappropriate
3:51 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 14, 2007
re: "Is there a doctor in the house ... who hasn’t been sued?"
Examiner Reader said:
Greed is a Disability of the Soul (ref. Matthew 4:1-11).
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
(2) Re: Proposed Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2007). What has and is happening is that for no reason, the proved Legal U.S. Citizens and Legal Immigrants, have been devalued and practically encaged to fight the powerful in a timely manner, then they get labeled with some sort of imposed “disability” without their knowledge and due-process, forced to work at lower salary to manipulate their wages and benefits. At the same time, all so-called “humanitarians” concerned get rewarded: The employers and their cronies get pork-bonuses, and the promoters get more political power-clout in the business, and dirty money-laundry and votes. Uh! The only way to stop these wrongdoings is: Make the promoters and employers to return all the money: Pay back-wages and benefits from the time discrimination started, plus fines, additional repairs for damages to their “persona” and to pay attorney fees. Close their business and put them in jail. Make justice on earth and God will bless you.(end).
142 agree | 120 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
(1) Re: Proposed Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. This Act is necessary to protect employees/workers against corruption, including identity-theft and fraud, obstruction of justice, fear of retaliation and intimidation by their employers. These proved discriminatory factors, over the years, have truncated good American workers from achieving up to their full talent and potential, and have been forced to live within lower salary brackets, if not poverty, for themselves and their families. This Act should be applicable to protect only the proved Legal U.S. Citizens and proved Legal Immigrants, who have proved that they have been discriminated and treated like illegal and vice-versa. (cont’d.)
158 agree | 123 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I practiced law for 32 years, did a lot of very successful tort work, but never even dreamed of such goings-on. The big change came when the US S. Ct. authorized lawyers to advertise. If you look at the litigation records, you will see that the current situation grew directly out of lawyers advertising for clients. What was a profession, of which I was a very proud and competant member, is now a business, seeking only to blackmail businesses (and individuals) into paying "go away" money. The movement away from elected judges has contributed, as appointed judges get there because the plaintiffs' bar makes hefty campaign contributions. I am ashamed of my own profession, and when asked what I did (I am now 77 and a slumlord), say that "I practiced law--until I grew up."
122 agree | 115 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Excellent, If this case is won, many cases on Monopolies under the guise of one company should be able to be heard for fraudulent embezzling financial records! Constipation Energy and BGE, as a start.
172 agree | 163 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Next time some toxic chemical is released and innocent people are hurt, we can all expect the chemical companies and the insurance carriers to self-regulate and help the injured, right? I think weighing insurance company profits against those of trial attorneys may show who actually profits here. This is quite an inflammatory article without being a fair representation of reality.
155 agree | 159 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Revilo said:
We need to change the law to allow defendants to counter-sue the plaintiff's attorneys for mental anguish, suffering and financial loss incurred when, in the judgment of a jury, the suit was unreasonable. Defendants should be entitled to punitive damages as well. Give them a dose of their own medicine and maybe they'll become a bit more circumspect about their irresponsible greedy actions.
110 agree | 109 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Insurance industry propaganda - and thinkly veiled at that.
182 agree | 165 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The insurance industry is much more powerful than the plaintiff's bar. The insurace industry wants to take away individuals right to a jury. The plaintiff's bar wants to protect it. Are their bad cases? Sure. But lawsuits are expensive and lawyers lose lots of money by filing meritless suits. Prisoners are the only group of people with the time to waste filing frivolous lawsuits. In the end are you going to support those who want to maintain your rights or those that are trying to take them away? The insurance industry is 50 times as evil as plaintiff's lawyers.
168 agree | 153 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
does it bother you that you wrote this 1000 word piece and added virtually nothing new to your report. its not actually reporting if all you do is read other stories and recycle them into your paper. are there more high paying jobs like yours at this paper? let me know. regards
188 agree | 182 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Juanita Rodriguez said:
Isn't it interesting that this article uses hurricaine Katrina as a comparison. It's good to see from the comments that not everyone who reads this paper is a gullible lemming. Delaware, the state of one dollar incorporation that it is.
168 agree | 106 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What about the cozy relationships between insurance companies and people in positions of political power? Are you really more concerned about the well being of insurance companies and large corporations than you are about the well being of someone who coughs up blood from asbestos exposure or someone who has been living in a FEMA trailer for way too long?
176 agree | 177 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
You are implying that the reported rise in litigation in Delaware is due to money hungry lawyers. Is it possible that there is an enormous amount of litigation filed in Delaware because the coporations made greed based decisions to incoporate there in the first place?
160 agree | 167 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I wonder, did these poor corporations do anything in Delaware that opened themselves up to tort litigation in Delaware? Is it possible, to do their best to avoid paying as much tax as possible and to benefit from favorable corporation law in Delaware, that they decided to create the fiction that they are actually based in Delaware? Now that they are seeing a downside to this, they are suddenly crying foul and saying that Delaware law is out to get them. Give me a break.
205 agree | 172 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
So, the Examiner, Tapscott and Chumley are siding with insurance companies in disputes involving victims of Katrina? Is it really the whole story that judges are reinterpreting insurance contracts to benefit victims? Isn't it possible that insurance companies are reinterpreting contracts to leave Katrina victims out in the cold and courts are stepping in to make insurance companies pay what they promised?
206 agree | 136 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Lose or misplace documents? You mean like the millions of emails Bush and Rove seem to have misplaced?
146 agree | 146 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is why we need a lawyer we can trust in the Whitehouse. Nobody can "loose or missplace" supeonaed documents like the Clintons. Join Norman Hsu & friends, lets vote for the best President money can buy in 2008.
176 agree | 96 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Luis Gonzalez said:
I suggest that the first lawyers we get rid of are the immigration prosecutors. I've been trying to get my brother-in-law Jose deported for five years, but since he is a gardener for a federal judge they won't do it. I'm never going to get my living room couch back and I'm legal.
178 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Start taking courses to make this country smarter than any other, sciences, global warming, solar, clean energy, engineering, computer science, Math and Law Great, for the financial lawyers needed for the corporate end.
175 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
LAWYERs are the reason that this country is in such a state of disarray.. They sue for everything and establish laws that keep them in business. Lets get rid of 75 percent of this ambulance chasing money hungry sharks and start acting like a decent civilized society again !!!
193 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I believe the main goal in these article's pertaining to Lawyers started out as Tax payers funds depleting due to friviolous suits, insurance cos. not complying, high insurance prices, caps on fees and policies, and helping to fix the judiciary system on all levels, Federal, state and County. One article all tax payers can relate, any race, any income, any religion and political party. Good Non Bias, sorry if the comments offend.
184 agree | 241 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
examiner reader said:
i did not realize the examiner became a muck rakeing, one sided forum aimed at injuring the reputation of the many lawyers who work very hard for others' rights. Mencken was a bigot, Hearst a capitalist and the Examiner a sensationalist. does it need this type of shoddy reporting to distribute free papers and attract advertisers? what did lawyers do to it?
161 agree | 142 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If terrorists started exterminating ambulance chasing tgrial lawyers and crooked judges, millions would cheer them on. Of course in Louisiana it would take a long time as LSU and Tulane produce lawyers like rabbits.
183 agree | 141 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I quit practicing medicine because some poor person at the clinic where I worked for free and his high priced lawyer sued me. It ended up costing me $280,000 and 3 years of court. If a new patient comes in who is a lawyer I tell them to go elsewhere. I also quit volunteering my time at the free clinic. Screw the poor. They ar e just out for themselves. Am I bitter? You bet and frankly my dear I don't give a damn.
124 agree | 121 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It is called the DEMOCRAT Party. NOT the Democratic party. There is nothing democratic about the DEMOCRAT party. It is a party controlled by special interests and us poor peons have to put up with the crap they sell us. At least we know the Republicans are up to no good but the Democrats are selling out to big business while pretending to be for the little guy. Which is worse????
166 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
And the Pacific Research Institute has also sided with voting machine coporations and fought against paper trails for voters. They are clearly a "research" firm that pursues agendas.
115 agree | 293 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Another gem. The Pacific Research Institute is used for statistics. While it is correctly identified in the article as conservative, it is also not very reliable. It supports "research" that denies global warming. Also was implicated in the wrongdoing of the tobacco companies. Independent eyes have looked at their litigation research and criticized them for making false claims and exaggerating the costs of the tort system.
238 agree | 147 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Oh boy. And it turns out Mr. Tapscott, the other writer is a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Nothing wrong with these opinion pieces, as long as they are clearly identified as opinion. And, unless you want to be labeled as a "such and such" publication, you might want to consider that there are probably more sides to the story. Again, shame.
193 agree | 245 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I just Googled Cheryl Chumley, one of the authors of this article. She is described above as an "independent journalist and researcher". Well, journalist might be stretching it a bit. She has written often for Christian Right groups and seems to only do opinion pieces. Examples: anti-United Nations, anti-Kyoto protocol, anti-forest conservation, anti-hate crimes law. It seems she makes a career of this opinion-masquerading-as-fact "journalism". Shame on you Examiner. We are not stupid.
153 agree | 277 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I can't believe this, but I am going to point to the Sun for balance. They have an article today that makes it look like there is another side to this story. Do the writers and editors for this "Special Report" also work for Saturday Night Live?
231 agree | 271 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Lawyers are worse then Car salesmen, at least there a lemon law, Esquires they will sell anything to anyone at any price with out a lemon law or warranty.
232 agree | 130 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is entirely slanted and one-sided. It reads much like the propaganda insurance companies regularly put out.
177 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I know of two lawsuits involving brain-damaged babies where John Edwards represented the plaintiffs so I'm not sure which one this article was referring to. One of the babies was brain-damaged because the doctor dropped the baby on the floor shortly after birth! The other baby was deprived of oxygen during birth because the umbilical cord was around the baby's neck and the doctor didn't notice. My father is a doctor who has delivered many babies and he said a doctor should absolutely have noticed this. When there is serious medical malpractice like this that causes lasting harm, the lawsuits are not frivolous. Not everyone who files a lawsuit is as irrational as Roy Pearson.
279 agree | 253 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am glad the Examiner is finally exposing the malpractice that has led insurance companies to make Dr s and hospitals pay attention to the mistakes that killl and maim hundreds of thousands of patientss each year. Now how about a feature on the revolving door at the FDA? All those poor starving Drs and attorneys what a sad commentary on our medical system which allows 47 million to beg for care. Liability is cost of doing business in America and medical liablity is not what is prevcenting full coverage for our citizens. It is greed and waste. Thank you for muddying the waters and speaking up for the wealthy who never worrry about where their healthcare will come from.
181 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Frivolous suits are no knew thing, should be a panel implemented to review suits validity before they are even allowed to be heard. The tax payers pay and the insurance rates increase. We should be able to purchase higher value insurance policies at lower cost if it weren't for the outrages unacceptable suits. Fix it with legislation and track people who file multiple suits for a living, this is America get her done. Limit the amount an attorney can be paid on class action, they are the biggest winners and that should be criminal.
158 agree | 209 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Don't call a lawyer the next time you are injured due to the poor job of a professional you trusted. Just deal with it. How dare we have a judicial system to resolve disputes. I am happy to now know what an influence big business has on the Examiner. What about the little guy?
196 agree | 120 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Boy, sure woudl be nice if you actually did some research instead of just regurgitating junk you were handed by the insurance industry and insurance industry funded think tanks. Lazy, stupid, irresponsible journalism.
228 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
next time your cconstitutional rights are violated, or you are charged with a serious crime...call a plumber.
160 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
God forbid it is your child, your spouse, your parent who ends up brain damaged. You will be begging that someone helps you and your family against big business. Hopefully you're not driving a Ford Pinto on the way to meet your lawyer.
124 agree | 127 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It is lawyers like Edwards that hate the working poor and middle class. They make themselves and their clients rich. But the rest of the working poor and middle class are faced with higher health care cost and higher costs for goods. The $50million dollars that Edwards made came from somewhere ...and the buck gets passed from the insurance companies to the doctors to the health insurers to the people paying for health insurance. So a good portion of our higher insurance premiums eventually find their way into rich trial lawyers' bank accounts. And these lawyers don't actually produce anything. They don't make medicine or cure the sick or anything. They simply take money from all of us and give us nothing in return ...except if we are one of their clients. It is like a manditory lottery where the tickets cost thousands of dollers each year.
219 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The swimming pool law suit was likely valid, much if not most of Edwards other work/scams was not. Many of his law suits were based on junk science that OBGYN's caused CP in babies. He severly limited access to OBGYN's here in NC, while causing massive malpractice premium increases. OBGYN's, smart, hardworking, capable people whose life work was medicine were pushed out of medicine by Edwards.He is a real fraud. Listen to the people of NC where he is behind Billary in the polls. Another reason for that is he was a poor, absentee senator.
158 agree | 121 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Another Examiner hit piece on John Edwards! Hmmm....if my daughter's guts had been sucked out while swimming in a pool without a proper $.25 drain - ALTHOUGH the company owners had been warned - who would I call - the Examiner or a plaintiffs' attorney?? Obviously, the Examiner is trying to connect ALL bad lawyers with Edwards - a fine and honorable man who has fought for the little guys all his life. In states where tort reform has been enacted - health care premiums have NOT decreased. One reason our health care costs are high is ads on corporate media - sponsored by the Insurance and Pharma industries - which Edwards has fought and WON! Bingo! That's why the corporate media and the Examiner smear him. Why does the corporate media and Examiner hate the working poor and middle class?
224 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Tort Reform will not lower premiums guy said:
The tie between lawsuits and malpractice insurance premiums is much weaker than your article assumes. The strong link is between insurance company investments and premiums - if their investments do not perform - insurance companies charge us more. Simple.
163 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
examiner said:
John Edwards certainly exemplifies this behavior!
181 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Come on. Malpractice is an easy target for the anti-lawsuit side, but for victims of malpractice, the bad guys are the doctors, not the lawyers.
200 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I can understand and share the outrage over many of these cases, and agree that the profit some attorneys make is disgusting. But I also still feel that the process, even if it's being abused, is fundamentally fair in that it allows the little guy to fight the Goliath of big business. In the case of doctors being sued, sure, the lawyers might be greedy, but aren't some doctors also being greedy? Shouldn't they be punished for wrongdoing and poor treatment?
139 agree | 146 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
So John Edwards' presidential campaign is being paid for by this kind of lawsuit, that's taking hundreds of billions of