2/15/2005

Who's the Client? The Plaintiff or the Lawyer?

One thing that really annoys me are "ambulance chasers. " Something that annoys me more are lawyers who are ambulance chasers and/or engage in similar activities. Lawyers are intelligent enough to realize the perverse consequences of such practices but continue because of greed. These "ambulance chasing" lawyers ignore people who truly need the help of a legal expert so they can devote their time to some person who allegedly had been "wronged" by a drug company. That's a discussion for another day. The economics behind my griping is that the lawyer industry has created its own demand and supply curve. The demand curve being those lawyers who are looking for people who have supposedly been taken advantage of and want to stick their hands in some kind of lucrative compensation that a drug company is issueing. The supply curve would be the people who have taken the drug. I used the example of drugs and drug companies, but there are other examples as well. For a more thorough analysis on the economic effects of this issue, please refer to my hyperlink above.

4 comments:

Mack said...

In class we talked about how there is a demand for BS and politcs. From the trend that as technology increases so do law suits it is safe to say that there is a demand for Lawyers that act in what we see as an unethical way. Demand for things that don't benefit society will always be present. It is like the Principal agent problem we learned in class, lawyers are agents of the court but they will push for more business because it benefits themselves.

sam said...

I agree 100 percent with mack on this issue. The only reason that we have these "ambulance chasers" is becuase there is a demand for them. It has become very apparent to me that there is a large amount of people looking for the quick dollar. Thus, we have gambling, lotteries, business scams, and also lawyers who are willing to take ludicrous cases that will give them large profit with little work.

Dr. Tufte said...

-1 on Sam's comment for spelling mistakes.

I think Sandy is a little off in saying that lawyers have created both demand and supply. I think this is good example of a shift in one curve causing a movement along the other. In this case the demand for plaintiffs has shifted to the right, moving us up the supply of plaintiffs into a region where people used to be too busy to sue.

I think Mack's insight that the proliferation of tort cases is because of a principal-agent problem between society and lawyers is astounding. I think this is absolutely right, and I've never heard that point made that way before.

C-Dizzle said...

People are GREEDY! Everyone feels that they’ve been wronged and that money is a perfect compensation for the ‘wrong doing’. What ever happened to the ‘golden rule’ and ‘turn the other cheek’? Last time I checked, what doctors do for a living was called the “PRACTICE” of medicine, not the “PERFECTION” of medicine. When people take prescription med.’s they often feel it’s a cure-all solution. Forget the well-written side effects and complications given on paper with each bottle of medication; let’s all sue the drug companies when the drugs don’t work! What a perverse thing that has come about by greed and even more greedy lawyers!

On the other hand, when drug companies deliberately hide side effects and associated problems, I say take them for all they’re worth and then some. The only way to get through to large organizations like those that produce drugs is through their pocket books.

It’s true that many lawyers hype up a small drug issue to make money and that’s a shame. It’s individuals like those lawyers that make the costs of prescription medication so high today.