People will always gravitate to do what they are incented are rewarded for. Last time I checked that was a fundamental premise of the system on which our economy is based.
Moaning and complaining about the results of the system isn't appropriate IMHO. The vile, scumbag lawyers are not necessarily the problem. Rather that there are marginal players in this game with obtuse interpretations of what is right and wrong, is just a part of living these days. Not everyone shares our values (the beauty of old Hatts?). If everyone did, then I probably would have been bid out of the old Hatt market due to scarcity of product (and lack of money on my part).
If you want to complain, complain about the lack of tort reform. Complain about the power of the trial attorney lobby that defeats changes to the system (in defense of the little guy (who has trouble climbing ladders)).
My own thought (or one I shamelessly stole from someone assuredly a lot smarter than I am) is that a simple guide line that would make the legal costs of the winning side of a court case the responsibility of the losing side would solve our problems.
The vile, scumbag lawyers still get paid (mostly good). The system is still there to provide financial incentive - read penalty - to the transgressor (builder of the offending ladder?), but with a check on the "roll the dice" court cases that get settled for nuisance values. Such a system would incent people to fight for what they believe in (and what they believe they can win), and discourage lost cause, load 'em up with paperwork crap cases as inspired by the previously referenced vile, scumbag lawyers. If anything it would encourage that the vile, scumbag lawyers would actually have to be good at arguing the merits of their customer's case in court, as opposed to just negotiating a beneficial deals that are 'least cost' alternatives. The economic evaluation of the decision would still remain; it would move the "mid-point" of the decision close to actions personified by the words of Stephen Decatur. "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute". Let's get away from the mindset that it's "cheaper to settle".
My own thought (or one I shamelessly stole from someone assuredly a lot smarter than I am) is that a simple guide line that makes the legal costs of the winning side of a court case the responsibility of the losing side. The vile, scumbag lawyers still get paid (mostly a good thing). The system is still there to provide financial incentive - read penalty - to the transgressor (builder of the offending ladder?), but with a check on the "roll the dice" court cases that get settled for nuisance values. Such a system would incent people to fight for what they believe in (or at least that which they believe they can win), and discourage lost cause, load 'em up with paperwork cases as inspired by the previously referenced vile, scumbag lawyers.
I shall now climb down from my soap box and close with the statement that the vile, scumbag lawyers are not the problem. You cannot fault someone for doing something that they are paid to do. If you don't want them applying their vile, scumbag cleverness to the purpose of furthering their vile, scumbag wealth (used to purchase beautiful old Hatts?), then change the system that so encourages them to do so.
