Jonesboro, Ga.: the defense lawyer called it “a fun fact pattern” involving “quite a cast of characters,” while the plaintiff’s lawyer acknowledged taking the case to trial even while knowing “that there was a less than 10 percent chance of winning on liability. … I never turn down the chance to take a case to trial when there is a real injury involved, no matter how tough the liability picture.” Does that imply that he represents other clients whose injury isn’t as “real”? [Fulton County Daily Report]
8 Comments
A remarkable admission about the perverse effects of jackpot justice. Given that he asked for $1.4M, but was willing to settle for $50k, it seems like “less than 10%” should read “a lot less than 10%.”
plaintiff’s should be sanctioned for bringing this claim.
It is ambulance chasing, but wouldn’t the settlement — even without admission of guilt — be prima facie evidence that the claim had validity?
Bob
I was amazed by the overt demonstration of resentment against Indians (not native American Indians.) Holy Cow!
The idiots who confess animosity towards Indians haven’t tried their food.
If you figure he asked for $1.4 million and believed he had a 10% chance of winning, he should value a judgment at $140,000. If he expected to have to spend $90,000 to get the judgment, then offering to settle for $50,000 makes sense. This assumes he places no value on certainty versus uncertainty.
Of course, bringing a suit you believe you have at best a 10% chance of winning (barring exceptional circumstances such as trying in good faith to obtain a precedent that might make other cases practical) is an admission of abusing the legal process to obtain a nuisance settlement.
David, I don’t agree with what this lawyer said. But how you view the potential success of a lawsuit is not related to the merits of that case. Plessy v. Fergerson was a long shot but I’m glad someone brought it anyway.
You should bring cases where you believe justice would be served by a verdict in your client’s favor, not some calculation of the likelihood of success. I think just about everyone agrees with this.
Ron: I mentioned that there are exceptions, such as trying in good faith to obtain a change in the law. However, I disagree with your rule that you should bring cases if you believe justice would be served by a verdict in your client’s favor. You should act base on what the law *is*, not what it should be. Otherwise, you are burdening random, innocent people.
If you know a case has no chance of success under current law, barring narrow exceptions, bringing the case will only harass someone into a nuisance settlement. People don’t have to obey what you think the law should be, only what the law is.