Legal System Through Frivolous Lawsuits example essay topic

Justice, Tranquility and The Greed for Money Lynn Hubbard is handicapped. She happens to also have her own law firm. In the past year, she sued more than 600 nearly irreproachable institutions for over two million dollars. Hubbard and her entourage of scheming lawyers have not done anything illegal. Some may argue that she has simply exercised her right to the legal system.

In any case, Hubbard is part of the growing American society that has discovered large money in mass litigation. This rise in greedy and manipulative lawyers has provided Americans with a skewed financial interest in the American courtroom and has hindered the justice system as a whole. Congress must reexamine tort reform to provide Americans with a trustworthy and secure justice system from frivolous lawsuits. As American citizens we do it everyday: we see something wrong and form ideas of suing. Whether our intentions are resolute or passive, the simple gesture itself poses a series of questions for why Americans find the courtrooms a haven to the solutions for their troubles. Although our forefathers didn't plan on suits like suing McDonalds for serving hot coffee or causing obesity in children in America, they did create a judicial system that was easily accessible and fair.

If examining the root of the problem, we must look back over 200 years ago, when our forefathers envisioned a country with justice and equality, without the idea of abusing the legal system with the intention of financial betterment in mind. In fact, over the past 50 years, America has resorted to the legal system with that exact intention. A major gateway to this broad social change occurred when congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This era, known as the "due process revolution", was when lawyers won criminal defendants the right to a lawyer and a hearing (Jost).

The aged and disabled began fighting for their rights, and eventually employees in the workplace caught on to the courtroom trend and established sexual harassment laws in the 1980's that brought the courtroom into the workplace. While ease of access to the courtroom is a major advantage in America, this ongoing trend has provoked too much interest in swindling money out of the judicial system. This rise in greed has replaced fairness and community values. In Thomas F. Burke's book, Lawyers, Lawsuits and Legal Rights, he proposes that we "blame the founding fathers for their deep mistrust of centralized authority and their glorified view of self-reliance" (Burke 12). His argument, which focuses on the separation of powers in the American government, explains why Americans rush to the courtrooms unlike other democratic countries.

The concept of "checks and balances", America's system of separated powers, limited national control over state and local police forces and independent judiciary, was intended to protect American citizens from tyranny (Burke 24). However, it has also made it harder for elected leaders to get things done. Take Britain, Germany, or France, for instance, all of which have centralized governments that provide them with safeguards and social welfare benefits. Instead of national healthcare that is practiced throughout Europe, "Americans get proposals for a 'patients' bill of rights' that would allow the sick to sue their managed-care companies" (Burke 22). The problem has become so out of control in the United States, doctors in Florida, New Jersey, and West Virginia went on strike earlier this year.

Delaying surgeries, in an effort to decrease annual insurance premiums of over $100,000, doctors asked Congress for reform on malpractice liability and lowered caps on "pain and suffering". Eduardo Espe r, a cardio thoracic surgeon in Wheeling, West Virginia, was part of the walk out that occurred early in January of 2003. "We " re not prepared, having spent all night with a patient, for that patient to come back and sue us. And the majority of the time those suits are promoted by lawyers that I believe are greedy", (Adamson 18).

On the other hand, Dante Marra, an orthopedic surgeon who was also part of the strike, is prepared to face the changes that have complicated his career. "Everything is in my wife's name. I can't even participate in the American dream of owning a home, because it would be fair game for a trial lawyer", (Adamson 18). Bush and his administration have focused on this problem and have proposed a cap on so called "pain and suffering" for $250,000. Pain and suffering is referred to as non-economical damages that will not hinder a person's capability to earn an income. Take Forest Bounds, for instance.

The three-year-old had a rare condition that would make it difficult for him to urinate. During surgery in an effort to correct the problem, something went wrong and Forest will have to urinate through a hole created by his doctors. He will most likely be sexually impaired for the rest of his life. Despite his disability, Forest will function normally in all other human aspects. His parents have asked the courts for nearly over $750,000 dollars in compensation for pain and suffering. If Congress passes legislation proposed by President Bush, insurance companies will be protected from paying such high reimbursement rates, in effect lowering premiums for doctors and hospitals.

However, this issue becomes much more complex when viewing this tort reform as placing a price on life. In the recent unfortunate death of 17-ya er-old Jesica S antillian, doctors inserted the wrong blood type for her heart transplant, forcing her body to reject all organs and die. Under Bush's plan, Jesica's family will receive $250,000 for the doctor's mistake. While I applaud the Bush administration for taking viable steps towards stopping the practice of frivolous lawsuits, I do not feel that it is in my position to place a price tag on a human life. While tragic cases such as these place insurance companies, doctors, legislators and families in an ethical and legal dilemma, it is the lawyers who pursue a common practice known as "ambulance chasing", that causes the root of all of these problems.

Having originally acquired its name from personal injury lawyers, this immoral method is applied when a law firm contacts a recent accident victim and pries them into taking their cases to court. In many states, laws have been instilled that ban ambulance chasing - specifically accident victims - however money-hungry lawyers have found ways to outthink the system. Hubbard is a perfect example of such a lawyer. Hubbard and her hired associates have visited hundreds of businesses, which offer services to the public. Prying their way into restaurants, malls, and medical offices, to name a few, they search for deficiencies that do not comply with the 1990 American Disability Act. By law in the state of California, one is able to prosecute for up to $250,000 for "pain and suffering" in addition to the $100,000 in penalty fees.

In a sense, many of these cases end up being more like insurance fraud. Since many of these large corporations have insurance that cover potential cases like these, most of these fraudulent cases barely make it to court and end in a large settlement in order to avoid any public media. Congress has pursued several key steps towards protection against frivolous lawsuits. This past month, the Bush administration addressed Congress with several tort reforms, including a $250,000 pain and suffering cap.

However, innocent people and institutions are still susceptible to falling victims of ambulance chasing scams, while greedy lawyers reap on the benefits of minute mistakes, like breached handicapped laws. To address this problem, congress needs to order mandates on fair warning and reasonable time to correct a problem. By issuing something through the courts, by which the accused must identify and mend all problems during a given "fix-it" period, laws will be better enforced without the financial incentive for ambulance chasers. Following a similar principal as a vehicle "fix-it ticket", the courts should amend citations after they have been inspected and properly corrected. This solution also addresses the financial advantage lawyers have in class action lawsuits, where lawyers can win millions and billions of dollars in settlements. Take a recent case with AT&T Wireless, where consumers were being charged several cents more of airtime minutes per month that did not apply.

Foley & Bezek, a Los Angeles based law firm that discovered the fraudulent actions carried out by AT&T Wireless, is suing the company in a class action lawsuit for nearly $6.5 million dollars. While effected customers will receive the appropriate compensation from AT&T Wireless, Foley & Bezek will charge the customers at minimum between 33 to 40 percent on contingency, to cover legal and court fees in addition to a severe penalty imposed on AT&T Wireless. Essentially, Foley & Bezek has all the financial interest in suing through class action, by which more customers affected equals more money in their pockets. A fair warning and "fix-it" system would be in the consumers' best interest, which would compensate them for their loss of money without lawyers having the financial advantage to sue. Some may argue that a program like this will cost taxpayers more money. However, in comparison with the costly price tag court and legal fees entail, a small tax increase, supplemented with a minute mandatory court fee, will save citizens an exceptional amount of money in the long run.

While reforms to help protect consumers and institutions from lawyers may provide a more lawful system, on a humanitarian level, we as Americans need to take more responsibility for our actions. America has become such a litigious society, we as citizens have become afraid to engage in everyday actions with the fear of being sued. We have become so codependent on lawyers to approve of our decisions, we often forget about a principle that propelled America to prominence and success - responsibility. Works Cited Adamson, Loch. "Testimony: Surgical Strike". New York Times Magazine [New York, NY] Feb. 2, 2003: p. 18 This article, which interviews six doctors that were involved in the "doctor walkout" in West Virginia, provides a first hand view of doctors emotions and reactions to the recent rise in malpractice lawsuits and the effects it has on malpractice insurance.

Their efforts for the walkout were to encourage the Bush administration to amend malpractice liability language and lower the cap on damage awards for pain and suffering. The testimonies by the doctors provide a clear understanding for the pain, grief and frustration these doctors are going through. Burke, Thomas F. Lawyers, Lawsuits and Legal Rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, Oct. 2002. Unlike popular belief, Burke rules out greedy citizens as a contributor to the rise in litigation and explores how political policies promote the abuse of the legal system. Focusing his argument on three cases: Americans with Disabilities Act, malpractice suits and accident litigation.

Burke believes that these types of cases are effects of the American constitution and separation of government. Ultimately, Burke argues that Americans have become afraid of government and have resorted to the legal system in support. Burke's examples and arguments helped me form an idea for international views of the American legal system and gave me a clear understanding for why other countries do not face the same frivolous lawsuits that America experiences. "Defending and expanding Tort Laws: The Civil Justice System". Foundation for Taxpayers & Consumer Rights. March, 2003.

Consumer watchdog. com was one of the very first sources I looked in to explore my topic. Clearly defining tort laws as a compilation of state statutes and court decisions that give one the right to sue someone who causes harm, whether it be a drunk driver, a corporation that manufactures a defective product, a credit card company that overcharges you, or a government bureaucrat that breaks the law. This basis for tort reform provided me the language and understanding of the major theme of my essay: tort reform. Forbes, Steve. "Oh say, can they see!" Academic Search Premier.

December 12, 1996. Forbes. March 3, 2003. Forbes article, which originally appeared in the opinion section of Forbes Magazine, argues that the nation's trail lawyers are harming the legal system through frivolous lawsuits.

He discusses how efforts by voters in Alabama to vote out of office those judges who support so-called frivolous lawsuits. Briefly talks about Proposition 211. Useful mostly for background information and language. Jost, Kenneth. "Too Many Lawsuits?" May 22, 1992. CQ Researcher.

March 3, 2003. Although this article was published in 1992, it provided me with an abundance of facts for the history of litigation and how it exploded into such a large industry. Focuses on the legislation proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush (the first) concerning the cap on economic damages in medical malpractice suits. This article provided me with detailed figures for the average annual increase in malpractice insurance premiums and gave a detailed explanation for the cause of rising insurance premiums. Leach, Bill. "Prop.

211 Initiative Won't Spur Lawsuits". Academic Search Premier. October 21, 1996. Electronic Engineering Times. March 3, 2003. This article discusses a major step towards tort reform that took place in 1996.

California's Proposition 211 was a ballot initiative that would alter state laws regarding securities litigation. It had a harsh penalty for lawyers who filed frivolous lawsuits, personal-liability provisions and a punitive damage proposition. I didn't use this as a source because the proposition never passed, which would have weakened my argument. However, the article did provide me with several examples for how reform could help and concepts for reform. Shapiro, Joseph P. "Defining who's disabled". Academic Search Premier.

May 3, 1999. U.S. News & World Report. March 3, 2003 Shapiro discusses three cases before the United States Supreme Court, which challenge the definition of disability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. He argues that the intentional use of broad language in the act make it easy for unlawful citizens to use the act to their advantage in abusing the legal system. His concern over frivolous lawsuits proposes several reforms within the Americans with Disabilities Act itself.

His article helped me better understand how the American with Disabilities Act works, its purposes and its faults.