Are Class Action Law Suits A Good Thing, Or A Bad Thing? Why Or Why Not? Might Get A Forum Discussion Going If Warranted

[Tahbert]

Has anybody ever heard of a CAL resulting in actual tangible final results for the plaintiffs? All I've ever heard of resulting from them are $ten present cards or a statement credit of 50¢, all the whilst the lawyers in the lawsuit reap massive amounts of cash in salary and legal charges.   MrItty 38 months ago

[Beartlaidh]

I agree with PPurdue: class action lawsuits sound great on the face of it, but they are often frivolous. And those with merit typically finish with the attorneys getting the vast majority of the settlement or trial award, and the individuals who have been hurt acquiring tiny amounts.The real winners in most class action lawsuits are the lawyers. Numerous of these lawyers are seldom observed in courtrooms. They use publicity to sling mud(and at instances, junk science) at a company till the company agrees to settle. They also cautiously choose their court jurisdictions, filing lawsuits in 'favorable' jurisdictions. Favorable jurisdiction: friendly judges, effortlessly swayed jurors.One of the most famous(and wealthiest) lawyers is Mississippi's Dickie Scruggs. Scruggs is the star lawyer from many CALs, and is quoted thusly:"What I get in touch with the 'magic jurisdiction' is where the judiciary is elected with verdict cash. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected they are State Court judges they are populists. They've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal, they're obtaining their(piece) in numerous circumstances. And so, it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's nearly impossible to get a fair trial if you are a defendant in some of these areas.........The instances are not won in the courtroom. They are won on the back roads extended before the case goes to trial. Any lawyer fresh out of law college can stroll in there and win the case, so it does not matter what the proof or the law is."Great book to study on this situation: Mississippi's most popular lawyer, John Grisham's book: The Appeal. http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-John-Grisham/dp/0385515049   charlie95 38 months ago http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/sam-friedman-on-dickie-scruggs-and-the-courtroom-as-a-profit-center/

[Camshron]

The Supreme Court tends to decide only hard cases, and the cliche is right that hard cases make bad law.Class action lawsuits are one of those solid ideas that are easily abused. If they exist, companies will be taken advantage of, pressured to settle frivolous class-action suits because it's cheaper than litigating. If they do not exist, people will be taken advantage of, forced to fight for their rights individually in cases where the court costs outweigh the gains.Consider the case at hand: AT&T took $30 in extra sales tax from these people. They are simply wrong on the face of it, and that fact is not in dispute. The question is whether every single customer screwed out of $30 should have to litigate it individually. The company would basically get to keep it. No rational person thinks that's fair.But there have also been a great many frivolous class action suits; I've been part of more than I can count. Including cases where I've effectively been suing myself, clearly cases where a greedy lawyer and a stupid single plaintiff got together to make my life miserable.What's needed here is clearly not a balls-or-strikes decision, but a new framework under which such obvious injustices can be righted. That's not the sort of thing that the Supreme Court can really do.What I predict will happen is that the Supreme Court will side with the big business, telling Congress that it's their job to set up the new framework. Which is simultaneously legally valid and utterly unjust, since it's obvious that Congress is not going to be righting any wrongs or restoring any customer rights any time soon.More just, and just as legally valid, would be to make a narrow decision, but they won't. They tend to make narrow decisions when it favors the individual, with broad endorsement. And when they get a 5-4 decision favoring big businesses, they make wide decisions. Cf. Citizens United.   PamPerdue 38 months ago

[oswald]

It is a great thing to do to correct the injustice to a large group of individuals but, in most cases retribution is small and the only one who makes out is the attorney.   Denjord 38 months ago

[Audwine]

Ditto what Mr. Itty said.   DanZee 38 months ago

[celeste]

If they give power to the otherwise powerless, they are good. But there needs to be merit to the case. Some rich can tie us up in legal blather for years if they can pay the lawyers enough.   Gary4books 38 months ago

[siuaghan]

That is true,this is a way to get to the company. but, what were the payouts to the victims? How many were there? and there retribution? LEt me ask you this,(I really do not know if this is better or not)Would it be better for the victims to go as individuals in the law suit?   Denjord 38 months ago

[Pfeostun]

In most cases I would say no. I get requests from attorneys to joing a CALS occasionally even though I don't think I have been harmed sufficiently to have standing. The ambulance chasing lawyers will earn millions of dollars from many of the suits while the beneficiaries may get a gift card or a check for less than $10.   Directmale 38 months ago

[Joanie]

It is good they paid the price, but it is a shame the victims who suffered only got what they got.   Denjord 38 months ago