- Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, long a forum-shopping destination, draws lawyers to sue over cladding after London’s Grenfell Tower fire [David Murrell, Philadelphia magazine]
- Georgia lawprof Elizabeth Chamblee Burch argues in new book that lawyers are enriching themselves at the expense of their clients in mass tort multidistrict litigation [her site; Katheryn Tucker, Fulton County Daily Report; Leigh Beeson, UGA Today, more]
- “Court cases reveal secret litigation networks for trucking accidents” [Aaron Huff, Commercial Carrier Journal]
-
U.S. Chamber report on private rights of action and privacy claims by Mark Brennan, Adam Cooke, and Alicia Paller of Hogan Lovells;
- “Is PFAS the next asbestos? Probably not, lawyers say, but it may come close” [Daniel Fisher, Legal NewsLine]
- Uh-oh: “Progressive advocates have recently begun working with legislators in a handful of states to provide a qui tam mechanism for enforcing state statutory rights.” [Myriam Gilles and Gary Friedman, SSRN]
Filed under: ethics, litigation finance, Philadelphia, privacy, product liability, qui tam
6 Comments
re: secret litigation networks
We would not have this type of issue if there were single-payer health care. I would think that casualty insurance companies (as opposed to health insurance companies), as well as the trucking business, would support a change to the way we pay for health care. If there are “loopholes” bad actors will find them and try to exploit them.
Do not take this as a pro-single-payer position. There are certainly are counter-points I am just noting one data point.
US reliance on the tort system as a (wasteful and capricious) backstop for health insurance is the original cancer from which most abuses of our tort law have metastasized.
The usual free-market arguments against a government role break down with health insurance, because we as a society are not willing to let those without health insurance die in the streets.
“we as a society are not willing to let those without health insurance die in the streets.”
I think you mean medical care – not health insurance. If so, I agree with you,
“we as a society are not willing to let those without health insurance die in the streets”
Yes. So this means that medical care for individuals who cannot afford it must be paid, one way or another, by individuals who can afford it, regardless of whose fault it is that medical care is needed.
Once everyone agrees with this proposition, the next step is determining a way for it to be done. Generally, it seems that there is only one way: taxes. Either we have a taxe: mandatory (government collects taxes or forces medical care providers to provide the service) or a voluntary (charitable giving).
To put a finer point on it: the question is how best to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor to pay for health care. If you support this idea, you are a socialist. If you don’t support this idea, you believe in “survival of the fittest.”
sorry for the typos. Second paragraph should read:
Once everyone agrees with this proposition, the next step is determining a way for it to be done. Generally, it seems that there is only one way: taxes. Either it is mandatory (government collects taxes or forces medical care providers to provide the service) or voluntary (charitable giving).
“Georgia lawprof Elizabeth Chamblee Burch argues in new book that lawyers are enriching themselves at the expense of their clients in mass tort multidistrict litigation ”
Not news. I think I’ll pass.