Background: Internet “Search sites” like Yahoo and Google bring up “sponsored links” when a search is done. These are links that would not have made it to the top based on the search algorithms, but are shown on the first page because someone pays Yahoo and Google to show it. Usually, the bulk of the payment is made to the search site when a user actually clicks on the link.
Current Event: Lawyers are paying Yahoo and Google to list their web sites when people search for terms like “VIOXX”. These search terms are in such demand that the price charged has gone (from a typical few cents) to a few dollars per click.
According to the Forbes article that mentioned this, the winner is “mesothelioma”. If a user searchs for this term and then clicks on the link to go to the lawyer’s site, the lawyer pays Yahoo over $100 (yes, one hundred dollars).
According to the Forbes article that mentioned this, the winner is “mesothelioma”. If a user searchs for this term and then clicks on the link to go to the lawyer’s site, the lawyer pays Yahoo over $100 (yes, one hundred dollars).
Let’s see: lawyers might wait advertize their services and wait for clients come to them, or they might actively seek out clients. In many contexts, the latter would be the more moral thing to do.
There are many sales techniques. Some are rational and some are not. Other sales techniques thrive on the irrationality of the customer. (This is not just true of lawyers, but of any sales person.)
If by “ambulance chasing” one means actively seeking out clients, then it is perfectly fine. If it means convincing a client who has suffered an ill to sue just because he can, even though in justice he should not, then it is not moral.
According to the Forbes article that mentioned this, the winner is “mesothelioma”. If a user searchs for this term and then clicks on the link to go to the lawyer’s site, the lawyer pays Yahoo over $100 (yes, one hundred dollars).
If that’s true, I just made Google a few hundred dollars richer.
Possibly. On the one hand, if there is a real tort action, then the wrong-doer should pay appropriately. But the legal system we have is not the most objective, and threatening someone with a lawyer is a form of initiation of force. The trick is to settle out of courts for nuisance change, so that it’s cheaper to pay someone $50,000 than to pay $50,000 in attorney’s and forensic costs, especially when you’re threatening someone with a million dollar pain and suffering suit. If you could count on the jury to dispassionately judge the facts and if plaintiffs had to take some risk in filing a suit, things would be different. As it stands, some instances of ambulance chasing are immoral because they are initiatoin of force (under color of law).
If you could count on the jury to dispassionately judge the facts […]
For anyone: In the U. S. generally, are jury trials mandatory? My understanding is that in criminal trials, the defendant can waive a jury trial and let the judge decide the issue. But what about civil cases, such as with personal injury suits? Are jury trials mandatory or can the defendant waive that right, regardless of the plaintiff’s choice?
For anyone: In the U. S. generally, are jury trials mandatory? My understanding is that in criminal trials, the defendant can waive a jury trial and let the judge decide the issue. But what about civil cases, such as with personal injury suits? Are jury trials mandatory or can the defendant waive that right, regardless of the plaintiff’s choice?
That’s (implicitly) a good point. Apparently in Canada, jury trials are mandatory in some instances (dunno when). This page claims that jury trials are mandatory in the US for major criminal cases, which I must say surprises me (though the guy is a lawyer). Otherwise, I would assume that you are never compelled to a jury trial in the US (in fact in NJ, you’re compelled to submit to nonbinding arbitration for a range of civil matters). That could be one way to protect yourself against nuisance suits, if you could trust the judge. However, this article leaves me thinking that perhaps the plaintiff is held to have an equal right to a jury trial. A key concept here sems to be “mandatory jury trial waiver”, apparently meaning that you waive your right to demand a jury trial (this is apparently used in employment law cases, where employers require employees to waive their right to demand a jury trial). Compare the subtle difference in wording of the 6th Amendment “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” and the 7th “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…”, the latter not restricting who enjoys that right.