Get the full facts
I am compelled to disagree with Richard Heston's assumption that the two jury
verdicts he singled out for criticism were irrational (July).
In the case of the medical malpractice verdict of $84,750,000, presumably all
the damages awarded in excess of $250,000 were to compensate for economic losses,
since California's MICRA restricts pain and suffering damages in medical cases
to $250,000.
Without having heard the evidence presented to the jury, it seems inappropriate
to assume that the jury's finding was anything but rational and geared to compensate
for such a devastating and continuing loss.
With respect to the other verdict criticized — $14,456,000 for the loss of
an eye — it would be helpful to know what portion of the verdict was for non-economic
damages. Here again, we are in the dark as to what economic damages were proved.
My own experience as a trial lawyer is that juries do not give away money;
they must be convinced that there is a compensible loss.
A reading of the Trials Digest section indicates that when it comes to medical
malpractice cases especially, California juries are vey stingy, since they award
zero dollars to medical malpractice plaintiffs the great majority of the time.
Is this irrational? Before I would come to such a conclusion, I would demand
more facts.
Stephen V. Petix
San Diego
War and peace
I was dismayed to read that the State Bar Board of Governors had voted unanimously
to waive the bar dues of members "who were called to active duty to serve in
the military in the Iraq war."
Quite aside from the fact that the board's unanimous vote seems an endorsement
of this crime, it seems singularly bad fiscal policy. Lawyers called to active
duty are almost always officers and are therefore well paid for their work in
the military, with excellent fringe benefits.
They ususally serve as JAG attorneys and, ironically, one of the qualifications
for being able to do so is the fact that they pay bar dues.
The Bar Journal has given us the impression, perhaps a misleading one, that
the bar today works on a fairly tight budget. If, however, the bar has money
to squander on dues waivers for people who "volunteer" for highly paid employment
in the service of a crusade whose questionable legality is matched only by its
questionable morality, why not also waive dues for those of us who volunteer
long hours, for no pay, in antiwar organizations?
Is war really that much more worthwhile than peace?
Dave Linn
Berkeley
Forget the ABA
I make reference to Alfred P. Carlton Jr.'s (July) column in which he encourages
us California lawyers to join the American Bar Association.
Could Mr. Carlton, or anyone for that matter, explain why the many of us who
oppose abortion would pay money to support the ABA, when since the early 1990s,
it has formally endorsed and supported abortion?
Sadly, history now shows that in taking this religio-socio-political position,
the ABA forfeited what had been longstanding recognition of its ability to speak
for American lawyers.
Dennis Pearce Kelly
Lake San Marcos
Impediments for disabled
I was delighted that the State Bar is trying to make an effort to reach out
to lawyers with disabilities. However, why is the bar's survey only available
online? Not everyone can utilize that format.
In order to make the survey accessible to all attorneys with disabilities,
alternative methods of responding should have been offered.
Betty Rome
Culver City
|