tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post681534448784442478..comments2024-03-29T09:46:23.216-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Schwartz wants to keep moneyKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-49097543963162515972010-12-29T08:10:08.259-06:002010-12-29T08:10:08.259-06:00Duggins v. Guardianship of Washington, 632 So. 2d ...<i>Duggins v. Guardianship of Washington</i>, 632 So. 2d 420 (Miss. 1993).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-80520436954583968312010-12-28T16:18:55.854-06:002010-12-28T16:18:55.854-06:00Oh please. Former VP Cheney had a serious heart co...Oh please. Former VP Cheney had a serious heart condition and that didnt stop liberals from hammering him daily for years. And still doesnt. If Richard S has such bad health, then he needs to retire and get out of the kitchen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-54862421721806105132010-12-28T16:05:37.295-06:002010-12-28T16:05:37.295-06:00323, in your example, no you would not be responsi...323, in your example, no you would not be responsible for your child's damages. However, a lawyer's duties are a little different. <br /><br />If I am handling a case for a client, and I use another lawyer to perform some of the work, then I am responsible for any acts or omissions by the other lawyer.Curt Crowleyhttp://www.thecrowleylawfirm.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-80026001422866905662010-12-28T15:40:19.229-06:002010-12-28T15:40:19.229-06:00Please lighten up on mr. Schwartz. He suffers from...Please lighten up on mr. Schwartz. He suffers from severe hypertension already. It's so bad that a nurse has to stop by every afternoon to check his blood pressure.Sammynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-50786294844863722082010-12-28T15:23:04.057-06:002010-12-28T15:23:04.057-06:00I'm having a little trouble with the reasoning...I'm having a little trouble with the reasoning of many of the posts here.<br /><br />Let me start by saying that I in NO way am a fan of Richard Schwartz (or any of the other scumbag plaintiff lawyers, for that matter). They have, single-handedly, fomented enough litigation to where they have transformed an otherwise noble profession into just an ordinary for-profit business.<br /><br />That being said, my questions are this: Irrespective of what you think of Schwartz personally, as well as the amount of his contingency fee, I don't understand the reasoning behind Schwartz being responsible for the actions of someone he "hired." ("Hired being the operative word here. Unless I misunderstood the way in which KF used this term, I assume he was hired by Schwartz to perform a service for him.) I could understand liability arising out of Schwartz being in partnership with Leonard or if Leonard had been an actual employee of Schwartz (vicarious liability), but my impression of the current arrangement is that Leonard would be considered to be, at best, an independent contractor.<br /><br />For example, let's say I paid (hired) an Orthodontist to correct my child's teeth, and let's say that Orthodontist was negligent and made a mess of my child's mouth. Under the reasoning of the posts above, if I were to sue that Orthodontist for negligence, wouldn't I have to include myself as a co-defendant? I mean, wouldn't I also be liable for the actions of the person I hired to perform the work?<br /><br />Again, I'm not trying to be provocative here. I just get the impression that many of the posters have enough disdain for Schwartz, personally, that they are using that as the reason to want their pound of flesh. I've lived long enough to know there's 2 sides to every story, so someone please explain it to me if I'm wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-87433231198103577452010-12-28T12:05:14.632-06:002010-12-28T12:05:14.632-06:008:26- don't know how it could be the wife'...8:26- don't know how it could be the wife's fault as Neither of them are raising those wild ass- misdirected - not in the real world kids! The Nannies are!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-2506830022027923462010-12-28T10:50:35.453-06:002010-12-28T10:50:35.453-06:00where is the money? does van leonard still have i...where is the money? does van leonard still have it? everyone is quick to try to allocate fault....but why not just go get the cash from Van Leonard?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-73484922897063267662010-12-28T09:07:32.419-06:002010-12-28T09:07:32.419-06:007.54:
not necessarily; i recall again that vxbg a...7.54:<br /><br />not necessarily; i recall again that vxbg atty duggan 20 yrs ago, who associated an atty with spotty ethics who ended up stealing the settmt; duggan was held liable as much as the thief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-63662424793192891972010-12-28T08:56:38.257-06:002010-12-28T08:56:38.257-06:00Wonder if Ms. Douglas would have had to file bankr...Wonder if Ms. Douglas would have had to file bankruptcy had they gotten the settlement in a timely manner? Sounds like she had no chance to negotiate with her creditors. Perhaps, the insurance company wanted to use her financial straits ( or put her in financial straits) to make her more amenable to a reduced settlement.<br />It seems to me that Schwartz, despite my disdain for him , and aside from the fact the contingency seems an outrageous percentage) is not the culprit ( unless he didn't act in a timely manner on Ms. Douglas' behalf), but Mr. Leonard is, for certain, a scoundrel and the insurance company may well be equally reprehensible.<br />Something is systemically wrong with the contingency fee system and with the lack of penalties for insurance companies who fail to negotiate in good faith so as to pressure clients to settle. I'm sure the insurance company knew in the first month exactly how much they were liable to pay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-32295616895887897302010-12-28T08:36:22.469-06:002010-12-28T08:36:22.469-06:00His 'waterloo' will be when those wild ass...His 'waterloo' will be when those wild ass kids of his that he has never, ever corrected clean him out. Oh, yeah, guess he'll blame that on his wife....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-91597823003751967742010-12-28T07:57:29.992-06:002010-12-28T07:57:29.992-06:00Changed. Thanks. It happens.Changed. Thanks. It happens.Kingfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-64197063833278016492010-12-28T07:54:40.337-06:002010-12-28T07:54:40.337-06:00"Mr. Schwartz claims no partnership existed b..."Mr. Schwartz claims no partnership existed between he and Mr. Leonard"<br /><br />It's dangerous to comment on a legal matter w/out having all the facts, but it seems the big question is, whose attorney was Leonard: Schwartz's, or Douglas's?<br /><br />(And btw, there is no such animal as Hinds County District Court, is there?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-33358333022880830162010-12-28T07:08:40.719-06:002010-12-28T07:08:40.719-06:00this might be his waterloo; long past due.this might be his waterloo; long past due.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-64612216842776984842010-12-27T20:05:04.282-06:002010-12-27T20:05:04.282-06:00It would be news if Schwartz actually stepped up a...It would be news if Schwartz actually stepped up and took responsibility. Through his fraudulent asbestos and phen fen cases, and numerous former clients who've sued him, schwartz's modus operandi is always the same: claim ignorance and blame someone else. <br /><br />And yet his pathological greed goes unchecked by authorities, while he one call that's all the way to the bankGentile Lawyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-72411836703057986272010-12-27T19:08:26.072-06:002010-12-27T19:08:26.072-06:00There is obviously something going on here that ha...There is obviously something going on here that has not yet surfaced in the pleadings. I cannot imagine an attorney stupid enough to retain money intended for the trustee or to believe that the plaintiff would sit back and do nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-44500417222775672682010-12-27T10:30:30.637-06:002010-12-27T10:30:30.637-06:00shameless!shameless!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com