ZOMBIE CONTENTIONS

But I was contemplating the Health Care Reform Act and basically came to the conclusion that the only people who wouldn’t suffer in all of this would be the plaintiffs attorneys. So I was noodling about my “snappy” sign for the August 22 Recess Rally and I thought I’d use some Obamatron quote about “Shared Sacrifice” and Shakespearionically suggest that we sacrifice some lawyers, or more specifically, some plaintiffs attorneys (“ambulance chasers.”)

That was a nice little noodle about the sign, but the real problem is a nightmare. Then I run across this gem, via James Taranto.

This legislation to allow plaintiffs’s attorneys to deduct their upfront expenses in bringing a contingency-fee suit as a business expense, is a parasite that has to find a suitable host apparently, and is backed by the usual Democrat suspects (you know them by heart: Reid, Pelosi, Leahy, etc., etc, and Arlen “Switch Hitter” Specter, who wrote the measure) and three Republicans: Lindsey Graham (I’m shocked), Mike Crapo (ID) and Mel Martinez (FL).

This modification of the tax code would cost the Government $2 billion, give or take, meaning that we the taxpayers would be subsidizing the costs of bringing a suit- those costs already being met through interest on a “loan” from lawyer to client. As the Washington Legal Foundation points out,

Thirty years ago, trial costs were relatively modest. But today, if a plaintiffs’ attorney wishes to pursue a major case, particularly against a pharmaceutical, insurance, automobile or other large manufacturing compahy, or even in a medical malpractice claim, expenses can total a quarter to a half a million dollars or more. Thus, what some consider a charade of the “laon system” has become increasingly important. These “loans” create economic risk for plaintiffs’ lawyers and can act as a deterrent against binging marginal cases.

Normal people read that last sentence and say, “That sounds good.” Trial lawyers however, want to expand their markets.