Wow, all I can say is wow!

yea it is strange...you mean people actually go watch the Oakland A's?? (sarc font)

seriously though this is another one of those topics of peope sueing for stupid reasons...Do you think the moms get the free Golf Club Keychain or whatever it is they hand out for Dads day? doubt it but I bet you after this next time they do a fathers day give away to only the dads...some "incensed" mother will get pissed off and sue...

People really need to get a grip on it.

Two positives came out of this, at least.  1 - No one is calling in for a settlement.  That's what you'd hope to see.  And 2 - Rava got nailed in this article.  He deserves it.  I hope it comes across the desk of everyone he knows.  He is, at best, a pathetic, disgusting human being.

In case anyone wants to call or write to send a friendly hello his way:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=188318

What a d-bag.  Hopefully his clients all hear about this and he loses them all.  Don't forget to send a congratulatory message to his District Representative of the State Bar of Cali...
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=11622&id=10082

It's things like this that help prove there are still low-lifes hanging around.

Guess some people will do anything for a dollar these days...

I'm a lawyer, I take pride in my ethics and in trying to help people with real problems, and it is sleaze-balls like this that make our whole profession look terrible.  It really, really ticks me off.  I guess this is why I am not one of the wealthy high-fallutin' lawyers, but at least I can sleep at night and look at myself in the mirror. 

Edited by OldAg92 2009-06-16 9:58 AM

Wrong. You are very, very wrong. It is not sleaze-balls like this that make your profession look like a cess-pool of greed and immorality.

It is the system built to allow sleaze-balls like this to profit. How in the world did a judge look at this case and allow it to come to this? The system is close to broken. Lawyers, including you, need to start fixing it.

Hey, I want a free fishing hat too.

That's not really strong logic, and it's a bit accusatory.  Let's say that OldAg92 is an attorney that specializes in child welfare.  How is that person going to fix a system that enables petty sex-discrimination lawsuits?  That's like being mad at your friend, a pediatrician, because everyone doesn't have affordable healthcare.

Get a grip.

First things first:  This is a stupid lawsuit.

BUT....

I have never been a fan of the whole Women get in Free/Drink Free/$10 off on Wednesday thing.  Why is that not considered a form of discrimination?

FWIW, there was a bar in Orlando that had ladies drink free and then they changed it to anyone in a skirt drinks for free.(we heard someone threatened to sue)  We were in there all the time...in our skirts.

Do you think the judicial system should allow a frivolous lawsuit like this to continue or should it be changed?

It is accusatory because the judicial system is pretty much self regulated. Most legislators are lawyers. All judges are lawyers. The bar associations set standards. If something is to change, the lawyers need to do it. Otherwise, the public perception of them will continue, and IMO, be accurate.

I don't agree with your analogy with being mad at a pediatrician because everyone doesn't have affordable health care. It is more like being mad at your pediatrician if bad doctors are being protected by the hospital where he is on staff.

I agree that the judicial system needs, in some regards, to be changed.  That said, I think that it has been, is being, and will continue to change.  That's its nature.

That said, I still think your logic is flawed.  You are correct that most legislators are and all judges are laywers.  No disagreement on that note.  Unfortunately, for this argument, that is not what is important.  What is important is that, on the flip side, nearly every single laywer is not a legislator, and a very small percentage of laywers ever become judges.  As I think you were driving at, and I will agree, legislators and judges (as well as the general population, through voting) have the power to change the judicial system.  Basically, this is how the logic plays out:

Most legislators/all judges (A) are laywers (B).

Legislators and judges (A) have the power to change the judical system (C).

It does not follow that:

Laywers (B) have the power to change the judicial system (C).

In fact, you could say that:

You (D) have the power to vote for your legistator (A).

So you (D) actually have power, through your legislator (A), to change the judicial system (C).

I hope jumble has made sense...

This user's post has been ignored.

I tried to call - no answer, no answering service - nada....

what a sleaze

At least your analogies are consistently bad.

This user's post has been ignored.

Lawyers do indeed need to take accountability and responsibility for playing a part in the proliferation of frivolous litigation.

Lawyers (A) run the bar association (B)
Lawyers (A) file frivolous lawsuits (C)
The bar association (B) can fine/sanction/punish lawyers (A) for filing frivolous law suits (C)

Don't know about pediatricians

So it's agreed, pediatricians are scum.

I stand corrected (on that last little logic tree).  I wasn't aware how the bar operation operates.

I still think, though, that if someone is adament about the judicial system being improved, it's much more beneficial to go out there and do something about it yourself than drop into a game of petty finger pointing.  This is nothing more, of course, than my opinion, and I recognize that.

I think it's been factually proven using logic trees.