Chikezie wrote:Are lawyers positioning lobbyists to encourage lawmakers to enact laws that limit a plaintiff's damages in a malpractice suit against an attorney? Not to me knowledge, no.
Because such a thing is patently silly. What would a plaintiff do, bring a suit in civil court against a lawyer for beating his or her brains in in court? Or would a plaintiff bring a suit against his own lawyer for being shitty (i.e., I hired a shitty attorney, help me sue this shitty attorney (i.e., non-deep pockets in order to recover---what?---money you "expected" to win in a suit?)? Besides, in criminal cases, such a thing is already done through the appeals process.
Chikezie wrote:Or is that doctors? We got on this topic discussing tort reform, so that judgments against doctors could be capped, no?
No, to determine why doctors these days order a plethora of tests.
Chikezie wrote:I used the medical school example as something the medical insurers/industry can do to try and help their own cause instead of just trying to pass laws. I don't know how we turned this to lawyers and law schools.
Do you actually think that the reason there are so many medical malpractice suits today is because medical schools have somehow "slacked off," standards-wise?