md. v. jd?
world of pain–
and the cherry blossoms
add to it!
from Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
I just heard Jennifer Ludden‘s NPR presentation on Tort Reform as a Campaign Issue (audio link,
Sept. 25, 2004), billed as a talk with Frank Cross, Michael McCane, and Overlawyered’s Walter Olson
on the “link between litigation and the economy.” I think the “litigation does more good than bad”
guys won this skirmish.
If you haven’t followed the sparring at Point of Law on Tort Reform and the Election, I urge you to
do so. Physician Ron Chusid (for Kerry) and Lawyer Ted Frank (for Bush) both have stamina,
Check out Lessig vs. Tucker at the Legal Affairs Debate Club, on whether being a Trial Lawyer hurts John Edwards in the election. (via Ernie) — Champion of the underdog or shark in a suit?
Three things that pain me but seem to have no cure: (1) the idea that physicians and lawyers are natural enemies; (2) the purchase of the Democratic Party by Trial Lawyers, Inc.; and (3) the Republican Party’s blanket condemnation of “trial lawyers” and simplistic approach to tort reform.
Did Ron consider the topic? To me, he dodged it by calling it “minutia.”
Comment by Ted — September 26, 2004 @ 6:25 pm
Did Ron consider the topic? To me, he dodged it by calling it “minutia.”
Comment by Ted — September 26, 2004 @ 6:25 pm
Hey, Ted, I said “considered,” not “fully considered” or “usefully considered”. [One-breath punditry can’t be bothered with such minutia!] Of course, at times, I just point and let the reader decide whether the writer has said anything worthwhile.
Ron did point to an experience he had personally, where pre-review prevented a case “with no plausible connection between my care and the problems [the plaintiff] faced.” That’s certainly one definition of frivolous.
I’m waiting for George M. Wallace, Esq., to fulfill his promise to address this definition issue — and I bet he will do so fully and usefully.
Comment by David Giacalone — September 26, 2004 @ 8:33 pm
Hey, Ted, I said “considered,” not “fully considered” or “usefully considered”. [One-breath punditry can’t be bothered with such minutia!] Of course, at times, I just point and let the reader decide whether the writer has said anything worthwhile.
Ron did point to an experience he had personally, where pre-review prevented a case “with no plausible connection between my care and the problems [the plaintiff] faced.” That’s certainly one definition of frivolous.
I’m waiting for George M. Wallace, Esq., to fulfill his promise to address this definition issue — and I bet he will do so fully and usefully.
Comment by David Giacalone — September 26, 2004 @ 8:33 pm