Lawyer’s contingent fees are like physicians getting a percentage of the income of the patients that they treat. Under such a wacky system those patients who earn a huge amount would likely get much better care than say. . a patient who earns only minimum wage. Obviously trial lawyers follow such a system where only cases that have rich defendants are pursued. It’s a disgrace. Who could defend such a tort system?

Ny system of justice, unfortunately, is perfect, particularly when money becomes the paramount motive. Caps on lawyers’ fees and non-economic damages, as are best exemplified by MICRA in California, have proven to be the best instruments in stabilizing smoldering malpractice crises in several states, particularly in the context of trial lawyers putting up every obstacle to retain a lucrative status quo.

The question here has always been whether we should continue to pursue the larger public goal of preserving our current health system, with access to medical services open to all patients, as opposed to the narrow, money-guided narrow interests of a few trial lawyers. The answer ought to be obvious.

There are other things we can do besides capping fees and non-economic awards to reform our tort system, including abolishing contingent fees altogether as Great Britain, France, Germany, and other civilized countries across the globe have done. Those fees are considered to be unethical, and no malpractice problems of the sort we have here exist in those countries.

Trial lawyers, for too long, have bamboozled the public into believing the contingency fee system is the key to open the doors to the court system, neglecting in the process to say it is a gold mine for them, creating potential conflicts of interest, ethical transgressions, and other abuses.

The public should be told ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!