andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> OK, I was wrong, so we as a profession are doing
> better than I thought. It still doesn't affect the
> basic point I was making, that the prospects for
> contingency fees from cases where punitives are
> possible make it more like that those cases will be
> brought. So the adovocy of having those fees paid to
> the govt means advocacy of a position that would mean
> less representation for poorer people injured by
> government, corporate, and employer misconduct.
This is so obvious that supporting it could even be a litmus test for whether a person is a leftist or not. The only way poor people get a break in the courts is through contingency fees. Opposition to such fees (or to high punitive damages) is spitting in the face of the victims of corporate ruthlessness -- if it isn't actually evidence on being on the payroll of the corporate lobby. It shouldn't need to be debated among leftists.
Carrol