Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShawnJ 
You're wrongly politicizing the federal rules of civil procedure when you say there's a "proliferation of frivolous lawsuits." . . . A second point is that "frivolous" has a different meaning to lay people such as yourself.
Snore...
we lay people are voters and on juries, and, indirectly, are the law. The fact that common perception is that legal procedure is in so many way full of itself is because we lay people have dealt with it, and realize how inefficient and often ridiculous it is.
We all know that these so-called frivolous lawsuits are made by larger players in order to squeeze out small-guys who don't tend to be as appreciative of ponying up cash so that a bunch of overpriced lawyers can quickly dismiss proceedings that should never have been respected in the first place. It's a typical business tactic, and it's a dirty one, but it's not a case where you should be throwing your hands up saying "don't shoot the messenger." The tactic only works because either the legal system itself or the law profession makes it work: there should be a simpler way to dispute ridiculous claims that doesn't cost a shit-ton of money and time. But as far as I know, there isn't, and you can bet the house that no lawyer would ever consider marginalizing his own meal plan by doing the right thing and fixing this problem.
Maybe you'll understand this when you actually graudate, pass the BAR, and are introduced to some real work. Until then, no amount of rote coursework recital is going to impress me.
).
