Comments on: Michigan man’s 24th lawsuit threatens family business

By: Bill Smith

Bill Smith — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:52:16 +0000

Let’s all get the records straight. All legal professions in most every state in the United States requires an individual or business to be licensed by a branch of the state government. All except one! Attorney’s are not licensed by any branch of the state government. No the bar association is not a licensing bureau of any branch of government. When you turn the fox lose in the hen house, what do you expect? The system is in dire need of repair. Attorneys not licensed by any branch of state government is no different than your brain surgeon operating on you with a degree or license. Under the orginal constitution of the United States, attorneys can only represent those who are a ward of the court. We the people have allowed this mockery to take place. Want to fix the system? Put it on the ballot, all attorneys will need to be licensed and monitored by a branch of the state government. If then an attorney screws up, or misrepresents you in a case, you “SUE” the attorney for shotty services.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Wed, 19 May 2010 02:08:47 +0000

Our system is broken and the lawyers are the only ones making a profit. The one who files the lawsuit and it is dismissed or loses should have to pay for all court costs and lawyer fees. That would stop a lot of silly lawsuits. Things like this are tying up the courts and, again, just making the lawyers rich.

This is like the lady who sued McDonalds because she got burnt with hot coffee because the cup did not have a warning on it….HELLO…..coffee is hot!!! or the guy who got injured while breaking into a house….he won is law suit…rediculous. They should outlaw lawyer advertising….websites like…Who can is sue.com…and so forth. This is now how the law was suppposed to be used.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:55:04 +0000

Simple solution: “loser pays” tort reform. You must be sure enuogh of your case before you sue someone that you are willing to pay the defense and court costs if you lose.

Of course, we will probably never see this common-sense system put into place, as Democrats oppose it – and guess which group’s political donations go almost entirely to Democrats? Why golly gee, it’s the trial lawyers. What a surprise.

By: John Corey

John Corey — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:36:24 +0000

After 23 suits it is clear this is just legal stalking to harrass. Singer should file suit for all costs and damages associated with all 23 suits. I think he has a good shot at recoverery with 23 failed pointless suits filed against him by the same party. Would definately make this false filer take notice and put them on the defense and out of pocket for a change.

By: John Fitzpatrick

John Fitzpatrick — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:02:45 +0000

While these gentlemen paint a sympathetic picture, I have to wonder why they had so much expense since prudent businessmen buy liability insurance to defend them. Also, according to the Michigan Legislature’s website, that state’s law includes: “600.2591 Frivolous civil action or defense to civil action; awarding costs and fees to prevailing party; definitions.

Sec. 2591.

(1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney.” If so, they have a remedy.

By: ZORIADA

ZORIADA — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:41:40 +0000

I HAVE THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM. I CONTRACTED WITH AN ATTORNEY IN FORT LAUDERDALE TO REPRESENT MEI A LAWSUIT AND TOLD HIM HE COULDN’T EXCEED $5000 IN LEGAL FEELS. AFTER 6 WEEKS HE HANDED ME A BILL FOR $13,000 AND I ENDED HAVING TO SETTLE MY LAWSUIT ON MY OWN. I REFUSED TO PAY ANYTHING OVER THE $5000 I GAVE HIM IN RETAINER AND BEACUSE HE IS AN ATTORNEY,HE FILES MOTIONS AND DEFAULTS AND LIES TO JUDGES AND EVEN HAD A PATIENT OF MINE SIGN A FALSE AFFIDAVIT AGAINST ME WHICH THE PATIENT ADMITTED “I DIDN’T READ WHAT HE PUT IN FRONT OF ME”A AND STILL I CAN’T HIS CASE AGAINST ME DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH I SIGNED NO CONTRACT WITH HIM NOR AGREED TO HIS EXORBITANT COSTS. I HAVE ALREADY SPENT IN EXCESS OF $2,500 BUT UNTIL I CAN’T I WON’T PAY THIS BUZZARD LOW LIFE A DIME.
THE LEGAL SYSTEM NEEDS TO POLICE ITSELF TO RID ITSELF OF THE BAD APPLES LIKE THIS GUY.

By: Ross Newsom

Ross Newsom — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:54:30 +0000

I wil keep you in my prayers and keep strong in this time-Ross

By: sharon fomby

sharon fomby — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:48:21 +0000

I worked for an attorney for a year. I learned that many times, these suits come before a different judge each time. That is why the judge does not know of the 23 previous suits.

By: Rainer

Rainer — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:16:14 +0000

It’s probably no good to counter sue. You have to prove the fool knew the stuff on the cars/siding/carpet was not from the casting company. Probably can’t sue for much. He probably has little money and the lawyers fees would cost more than the return. Suing is a time consuming business, it’s not their business unlike the other person, they are trying to cast parts and keep their business running in a recession, not spend all days in court.

By: chris pedersen

chris pedersen — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:04:44 +0000

The Federal courts have “Rule 11 for this purpose and believe me it works. All jurisdiction should adopt it because if the plaitfiff can’t pay the sanctions of attorney’s fees and cost the attorney of record has too under threat of losing their law licence