No More Frivolous Lawsuits?

Guest Post by Mark Nestmann

I just finished a series of meetings with a client, a lawyer who no longer practices law but has shrewdly invested in a series of startups. He’s amassed a multi-million dollar fortune – and a collection of frivolous lawsuits.

One such lawsuit came after he decided not to invest in a company because he didn’t think he could trust the company’s owner. The owner then sued him for fraudulent legal representation, even though he’d never hired my client as a lawyer. It took five years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before the case was dismissed.

More than 15 million civil lawsuits are filed annually in the US –  that’s more than 40,000 per day. But it should come as no surprise that the US is the world’s lawsuit leader, since 80% of the world’s lawyers practice in the US. President Donald Trump has been involved in a staggering 4,000 lawsuits during his career. At the time of his election, 75 suits were still pending.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

One reason that lawsuits are so prevalent in the US is that lawyers in every state can take cases on contingency. The lawyer handling the case receives no fees unless money is recovered from the defendant. As a result, anyone with a chip on their shoulder can sue you and risk nothing more than time and energy.

Another factor encouraging litigation is the growing number of federal and state laws that give a plaintiff (the person suing) grounds to recover damages against employers, landlords, and other businesses. Examples include the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and many others.

The concept of “strict liability” means that even if you’re in no way negligent, you can still be liable for damages in a lawsuit. And under the theory of “joint and several liability,” you can be held fully financially responsible regardless of your individual share of the liability. If you’re 1% responsible for a $10 million loss, you might be required to compensate the successful litigant the full $10 million!  Almost every state has some form of joint and several liability law in force.

Most civil lawsuits originate in the concept of tort, a French word meaning wrong. In every state, those who believe they have suffered an injury have the right to sue the person or company they believe caused their injury. The injury can be financial, physical – even emotional.

For instance, in 2014, a baseball fan sued ESPN for $10 million for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ESPN’s offense? Their announcers made fun of the man after he fell asleep at a game broadcast by the network. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2015, no doubt after ESPN paid thousands of dollars in legal fees.

But my all-time favorite example of a frivolous lawsuit happened in 2005 when a former administrative law judge filed a $67 million lawsuit against a dry cleaning service for losing his favorite pair of pants. After the owners spent more than $100,000 defending themselves, a judge threw the case out. But the damage was done: the business was forced to close.

No more frivolous lawsuits, indeed!

More than a decade ago, a group of legal scholars at the Pacific Research Institute tried to calculate the full socio-economic costs of America’s lawsuit obsession. The results were stunning. In a report published in 2006, the researchers concluded that the then-total cost of the tort system was $865 billion annually – at that time, more than 6% of the total value of the US economy. According to the report, the annual price tag, or “tort tax,” for a family of four in terms of costs and foregone benefits was nearly $10,000.

Tort reform efforts have lowered lawsuit risks in some states. In Texas, for instance, legal reforms enacted in 2003 to limit damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice claims led to some very desirable results. In 2007, even the liberal-leaning New York Times had to admit:

Four years after Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are responding as supporters predicted, arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals and bring professional healthcare to some long-underserved rural areas.

By the end of 2013, a decade after the reforms were enacted, medical malpractice premiums had fallen 50% in Texas, and the number of physicians practicing medicine in the state had almost doubled.

The process has been less smooth in other states. In 2017, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that tort reform legislation that limited pain and suffering awards violated the state constitution. The Supreme Courts of Illinois and Georgia have rejected pain and suffering caps as well.

One practice that encourages lawsuits has exploded in the last decade: the litigation funding trend. If you search the term “lawsuit funding” on Google, you’ll get back an amazing 130,000 results. The top results on my search:

Litigation funding made the headlines in 2016 when Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal and advisor to Donald Trump, paid a lawyer more than $10 million to sue Gawker, an online media portal and blogging network. Thiel paid the lawyer on behalf of numerous plaintiffs, although he didn’t sue Gawker himself.

It’s no surprise that Thiel didn’t like Gawker. In 2007, it “outed” him with an article entitled “Peter Thiel Is Totally Gay, People.” But Thiel had the last laugh. In 2016, a Florida jury awarded $140 million to former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan in litigation that Thiel financed against Gawker. Within weeks, the site was forced into bankruptcy and shut down.

Could you be the next defendant forced to fork out hard-earned cash to settle a frivolous lawsuit? If you’re wealthy, you’re a prime target, especially if you display your wealth openly. Professionals — doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. — are frequent targets. Disputes among relatives often lead to unwanted litigation, particularly after the death of a wealthy family member.

How can you protect yourself? Liability insurance is a great start, but it’s not always enough. For instance, it’s now routine in professional liability cases for a plaintiff to allege fraud, which liability insurance rarely covers. It’s a good practice to avoid obvious invitations to litigation, such as offering personal guarantees. Try to isolate liabilities by using corporate entities — especially limited liability companies — to operate any businesses you own. And moving assets outside the US is a great strategy to make your wealth less visible and gain greater protection for it.

Better yet, read my Lawsuit Defense Guide. Remember: The moment a court summons arrives on your doorstep, it’s too late.

Protecting your assets (and yourself) against any threat – from the government, the IRS or a frivolous lawsuit – is something The Nestmann Group has helped more than 15,000 Americans do over the last 30 years.

Feel free to get in touch at [email protected] or call +1 (602) 688-7552 to learn how we can help you.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
Llpoh
Llpoh
June 21, 2017 7:08 am

I have spent a lot of money defending frivolous lawsuits.

Three words: good Jew lawyer. Get one if you get sued.

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren
June 21, 2017 8:13 am

Lawyers are on the cutting edge of degeneracy in every society— I suspect. I am sure there is an honest one out there, but I haven’t met him yet. They are the paradigm of the Washington DC/ bureaucratic/ corporate circle jerk. There is no reason why anyone should have to sign a stack of papers 4 inches thick in order to buy a piece of real estate and real estate is probably the least corrupt sector of the law. Own nothing; control everything; convolute the fact pattern as much as possible and after 7 years in any US court system, every sane person involved will sell their first son just to get out. The word justice has no place in the modern legal system — if it has ever had a place in any legal system.

Anonymous
Anonymous
June 21, 2017 9:23 am

“Frivolous

Of minimal importance; legally worthless.

A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit. In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant. In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.

A frivolous appeal is one that is completely lacking merit, since no review able question has been raised therein.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Frivolous

We simply have way too many laws establishing legal merit of some kind that can be used to file lawsuits and give legal merit to the plaintiffs for filing them.

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren
  Anonymous
June 21, 2017 9:49 am

You said: “We simply have way too many laws establishing legal merit of some kind that can be used to file lawsuits and give legal merit to the plaintiffs for filing them.” Bingo: is it any wonder Congress is filled with lawyers?

Add that to the fact that the government has a monopoly on rendering “justice”, and you get what we have now: a broken, self perpetuating, degenerate system.

Roy
Roy
June 21, 2017 10:50 am

Loser pays. This would solve the problem but since most politicians are Lawyers don’t expect Lawyers to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren
  Roy
June 21, 2017 11:28 am

This is not a good solution for several reasons. The legal system is already tilted in favor of the party with the deepest pockets. And the person that should win rarely does in the good ole USA. A “loser pays” provision assumes the legal system generally delivers justice, which it most assuredly does not. Break their monopoly by using binding arbitration and mediation as much as possible and eliminate as many laws as possible.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Roy
June 21, 2017 11:58 am

“Loser pays” encourages out of court settlements where neither the Plaintiff or the Defendant has a win or loss. (an example of how that works that you wouldn’t anticipate: http://www.guns.com/2017/06/20/man-who-spent-10k-to-get-nics-record-fixed-refused-attorneys-fees-by-court/)

And it also lends itself to the favor of the financially irresponsible or poverty class since they just declare bankruptcy -assuming they lose and the winner goes after them- and pay nothing with the lawyer taking a profit of any win (encouraging the suit in the first place) and taking no risks other than wasting his time (trying to make the lawyer a party to the suit would be considered denying legal representation to the destitute).

It would work out well for women in a divorce though, giving them the ability to take every cent you have plus some without putting any liability on them since they can’t pay and can go bankrupt without losing anything but you can pay and will have to liquidate during bankruptcy if you’re allowed to go bankrupt instead of just having your salary and financial assets taken through garnishment.

So maybe loser pays isn’t such a bad idea.

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren
  Anonymous
June 21, 2017 12:33 pm

“Loser pay” may have some benefits (like encouraging out of court settlement), but on the whole I don’t think it is a good idea. Those who are already reluctant to use the system (i.e. the middle class) will be even more reluctant as they don’t have enough money to properly shelter their assets (like the rich), but just enough that losing it will certainly hurt; perhaps badly if that was all they had.

How would loser pay apply in divorce proceedings? Almost all of them these days are no fault. Moreover if you are rich and have a lawyer that can not figure out how to keep most of your money away from your x (or any litigant), he is either that honest lawyer that I have not met, or not that smart.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Mercy Otis Warren
June 21, 2017 2:52 pm

“How would loser pay apply in divorce proceedings? Almost all of them these days are no fault.”

A fight over assets or one of the very rare and almost non existent, but still occasionally happening, vengeful woman seeking to destroy her husband to get even divorces.

It would also be useful as a threat in child custody and child support litigation.

i forget
i forget
June 21, 2017 5:17 pm

Color of lawsuit. Emperor’s war(d)robes. Hobbes’ war of all against all, in the state of nature. Human nature.

As for limiting med malpractice awards in the absence of limits on med malpractitioners – they should be subject to the market, to customers, same as any business, & should be just as ruthlessly culled as other businesses are – this is just more color of law brigandry. The insurance companies & the malpractitioners – made guys – gaining yet more advantage via official penstrokes.