Follow POL on Twitter Yes, there are certainly times when the court system provides the appropriate forum to address corporate wrongdoing. But just as often -- more often, in my view -- plaintiffs' lawyers gin up cases because, well, that's what they do. Like the corporations they sue, big-time plaintiffs' lawyers have a business model. Theirs requires them to constantly seek out cases that can be blown up into giant mass torts, as they're called, which can then be used to extract billions from companies.I've seen mass torts where the actual plaintiffs get coupons while the lawyers reap millions. Mass torts where the connection between the product and the harm is illusory. Mass torts built on fraud (silicosis). Complex litigation settled for billions even when the government implies that consumers are responsible (Toyota sudden acceleration). I've also seen cases where some victims hit the jackpot with a giant jury verdict and other victims come up empty. Or where a corporation really has done harm but pays off the lawyers instead of the victims. Over the years, I've thought: There's got to be a better way.
Joe Nocera nails it
Related Entries:
- CAFA violation in Korean Air Passenger settlement
- Opening brief in In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation
- En banc denied in Inkjet, but attorneys still evading CAFA
- In re HP Inkjet Litigation (9th Cir. 2013)
- CCAF objection in Southwest Drink Voucher case
- Class action settlements in the news
- In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation class action settlement
- RICO jury verdict on fraudulent asbestos claims
- What does a $1.1B class action settlement have in common with Gilad Shalit's rescue?
- Second Circuit "punts" in Blessing v. Sirius
- O'Quinn silicosis clients sue
- LRANY on New York Trial Lawyers Association political spending
- Breaking News: Request to remove judge in Accutane litigation
- CCAF objects to Easy Saver coupon settlement
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Katherine Lazarski Press Officer, Manhattan Institute klazarski@manhattan-institute.org |
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.