Now republicans want government to set what prices businesses can charge consumers?

RexTalionis: kxs401: Now republicans want government to set what prices businesses can charge consumers?

I think it's less what businesses charge consumers so much as attorneys fees from the losing party.

I actually didn't read the article and assumed it was a tort reform thing.

kxs401: RexTalionis: kxs401: Now republicans want government to set what prices businesses can charge consumers?

I think it's less what businesses charge consumers so much as attorneys fees from the losing party.

I actually didn't read the article and assumed it was a tort reform thing.

I'm being particularly inarticulate. A contingency fee thing.

In other words, lawyers will be even less inclined to help individuals and will instead focus their energy primarily on class action lawsuits.

SnakeLee: Republicans who control the Legislature introduced the bill in response to a case involving Milwaukee attorney Vince Megna, who has built a national reputation representing clients who sue under Wisconsin's lemon law, which is designed to protect consumers who buy faulty vehicles.

Megna, a 67-year-old Democrat, brought a lawsuit in 2007 against Burlington car dealer John Lynch Chevrolet-Pontiac, alleging the dealership performed $5,000 in unauthorized repairs on his client's truck. Days before the case was set to go to trial in Racine County, the two sides reached a settlement calling for the dealer to pay $12,500 for damages, $151,250 in legal fees and $5,284 in costs.

The dealership's owner, David Lynch, is a Republican donor.

So it's like a Rick Perry situation, where he had girls get the HPV vaccine in school (right thing to do) but only because his buddy owned the HPV Vaccine provider and was a major donor (wrong reason).

This is also a funny little coincidence when the bill was proposed by co-sponser Robin Vos Link (new window)

Jesus fark Wisconsin, hurry up and come up with a Candidate that can kick this tool's ass. I mean, what does he do, wake up in the morning and think "What can I do to be an asshole today?".

Nabb1: I'm sorry, I really don't have an interest in this bill one way or another, but there is no way a $5000 case should generate $151K in legal fees.

I dunno... how much time was spent? I don't really want to have to choose a side in a lawyer vs. car dealer battle. However, the dealer did agree to the settlement so...

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I'm no lawyer, but this seems to sound like a good thing on paper. That being the case, I'm more than likely am missing the catch here that makes this really bad in the long run. Any Fark legal gurus care to elaborate?

The catch is it will make it harder for people who aren't rich to find attorneys to take cases that to outsiders seem "small," but to them are huge. Buy a truck for $5000, and it turns out to be a lemon? All the corporate dealership has to do is spend $5001 on frivolous defenses to make it not worth your while to pursue the case at all. Of course, $5001 is chump change to a big corporation, and can be run up with just a few hours of a big corporate attorney's time. To the guy trying to get by on $30,000/year, it's a significant loss.

Another point: you're not going to hit any attorneys in the pocket book with these kinds of laws. The Lemon King, who is serving a valuable social function by making sure car dealerships face consequences for consumer fraud, will just change his practice. He'll soak you on your divorce case, or your DWI, or for writing your will. But at least it will be a friendlier business environment for car dealerships that sell lemons.

In the end, this bill means irresponsible megacorporations win, and middle class consumers lose. Which is exactly the goal of this legislation, and the modern Republican Party.

Divide and conquer. One of the oldest tricks in the book.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: karmaceutical: Nabb1: I'm sorry, I really don't have an interest in this bill one way or another, but there is no way a $5000 case should generate $151K in legal fees.

I dunno... how much time was spent? I don't really want to have to choose a side in a lawyer vs. car dealer battle. However, the dealer did agree to the settlement so...

I have no idea, but I'll be generous to the Lemon Law King and assume that attorneys in that area bill, say, $200 per hour. I think that's probably high, but that would be 750 hours of work, or about four months of billable hours. I'll wager he put in a lot less time than that.

Or, its one months work for a team of four. Not entirely implausible if you are fighting a huge corp doing everything they can to gum up the works.

Corporate media have gotten the American people so riled up over "frivolous lawsuits." We need to interject the idea of "frivolous defenses" into the national discourse. "Frivolous defenses" are defenses aimed at driving up the cost of lawsuits for plaintiffs. Thus, for example, if a plaintiff alleges something that the defendant in fact did, but the defendant denies having done it, and forces the plaintiff to spend time and money at trial, that is properly considered a "frivolous defense." Both the defense attorney and his client should be sanctioned.

1. Screws abusive tort lawyers

2. Implements Castle Doctrine

3. Teachers fired for not teaching students

4. Make it easier to buy booze

This guy is full of win.

In Walker's defense, in the article it says he did sign a bill that would allow stores to start selling alcohol at 6AM, rather than 8AM..... It must have been a mistake.

At a certain level it sounds good to cap attorney's fees like this, since $150K for a $5000 damages suit is insane, but since it's Walker, it's a foregone conclusion that he did this to line the pockets of corporations that have him on the payroll.

The man is remarkable. Simply amazing. The Democratic Party needs to vote him some sort of medal for making Wisconsin a red state for the next generation.

I'm sorry I had to leave WI so I can't vote him out.

Nabb1: Do you really think any company is going to spend that much with a team of lawyers on a lemon law claim?

Yes, because if they cave on one lemon law claim, they'll have to take responsibility for other lemon law claims. But if they vigorously defend all lemon law claims, and there's no provision for plaintiffs to collect attorney fees, the plaintiff's bar will stop bringing the suits altogether.

Apparently enacting heavy handed regulations is a good thing when the regulations are targeted at a group that tends to lean Democratic.

It's going to be very satisfying seeing this cross-eyed mongoloid recalled from office.

beta_plus: 1. Screws abusive tort lawyers

The main people it screws are the victims of auto dealer consumer fraud, who will no longer find it worth their while to pursue claims against auto dealerships. The main effect of this law will be to transfer the greater risk of loss in consumer fraud from the fraudster to the victim.

Apparently every retarded liberal in here missed the "unless warranted," in other words if the business tries to delay with injunctions and such, attorney fees can be more than triple.

Thus is to stop retarded 30x award fees on attorney costs. Many lawyers specialize in these consumer protections because they are cheap, easy, and profitable based in fees. There was a recent case of lawyers doing this for prisoners where lawyers basically admitted the fees were an easy cash cow on minor issues.

No business is going to spend 150k to fight a 5k suit, yet attorneys charge this after the fact.

beta_plus: 1. Screws abusive tort lawyers

2. Implements Castle Doctrine

3. Teachers fired for not teaching students

4. Make it easier to buy booze

This guy is full of win.

---------------

The hypocrisy here is unbelievable. This is a government regulation, and a heavy handed one at that. You stand for nothing.

Aarontology: I wonder how Governor Walker would feel about a law that says CEOs can't get paid more than three times what they pay their employees.

this

Nabb1: If they vigorously defend all lemon law claims, they'll throw away way too much money on legal fees.

No they won't, because plaintiffs will stop bringing them altogether when there's no money to be made in them. Or when the amount of work required to pursue the suit doesn't justify the reduced award. Eventually, fraudulent dealers will have to defend few or no lemon law cases.

Nabb1: I'm sorry, I really don't have an interest in this bill one way or another, but there is no way a $5000 case should generate $151K in legal fees.

I laugh at that thought. The best example I have is a ridiculous case where a business owed my friend $14k for a contract. They fought so long the bill they had to cough up for was over $320k.

Nabb1: DamnYankees: Nabb1: DamnYankees: Nabb1: Do you really think any company is going to spend that much with a team of lawyers on a lemon law claim? This is not complex litigation. He probably had a paralegal cranking out cookie cutter form pleadings.

Maybe, who knows. It's entirely possible that this lawyer fights these small time battles because he believes corporations need to pay the punitive damages for their horrible behavior, and the statutory attorneys fees basically function as punitive damages.

Them the bulk of that should go to the aggrieved party, not some ridiculously disproportionate attorneys fee.

It's perfectly proportionate to the amount of work they put into it, assuming this bill was calculated normally.

As I'm sure you know, the value of a transaction or lawsuit has basically zero correlation to the amount of work it takes the lawyers to make it happen. Where is your evidence that the size of this bill is not proportionate to the work done?

On a lemon law claim? I think the largest bill I ran up on a case was a third of that, and that case lasted three years, involved a trial, an appeal on the merits, and then settled right before the retrial on remand. I'm calling shenanigans.

The defendant in this lawsuit could have settled sooner and paid a lot lower attorney fees. Instead, it pursued frivolous defenses, and drove up its own punishment. It was justice.

tomWright: Aarontology: I wonder how Governor Walker would feel about a law that says CEOs can't get paid more than three times what they pay their employees.

this.

.+++++++++++++++++

THIS

/More if they are republican donors

If he thought public employee unions were bad just wait until he deals with the BAR.

Nabb1: I'm sorry, I really don't have an interest in this bill one way or another, but there is no way a $5000 case should generate $151K in legal fees.

If the defense pursued frivolous defenses it should. For example, if the defense denied committing consumer fraud, when in fact it did, who should prevail? The plaintiff, who rightfully wants a refund of his $5000? Or the defendant, whose sole purpose is to drive up the cost of litigation so plaintiff will drop the suit?