No Watermelons Allowed doesn't like me much. Let's see if greedy [:)] li'l me can form a response.

"Of course he can't speak for the whole dirty business, although if you read it long enough you'd think that trial lawyers were the only friends you'll ever have. That might be true for him and some others, but not for the likes of the creeps shaking down tobacco and asbestos companies and who have now set their boundlessly greedy eyes upon fast food."

Well, I don't think it's dirty little business, and I suspect that my clients don't think that way, either. Apparently, Mr. Watermelon doesn't need a lawyer just now. If he ever does, he will find out that trial lawyers like me are the only friends he will ever have, at least in the context of his case. As to tobacco and asbestos cases, he's got it way wrong if he thinks that lawyers like me are "shaking down" those industries. Believe me, Big Tobacco and Asbestos have fought tooth and nail, spending millions of dollars and decades worth of time against any kind of plaintiff recovery. Take a look at the destroyed, fabricated and out and out false documents that have been uncovered in the various tobacco cases and then decide who's shaking whom down. Anyone with a memory will remember not too long ago, when tobacco companies won all these cases. It's only been in the last few years that plaintiffs have prevailed in any of the tobacco cases. And, as to "boundlessly greedy," I think that's an overstatement of immense proportions. Look, everybody wants to make a living, and some lawyers want to become wealthy. There's nothing wrong with that, especially if the defendants have done wrong and are deserving of getting hit with a verdict.

"it would seem to me to be only equitable to insist that claims against the manufacturers be limited for each individual, if only to make sure that there is enough to compensate every aggrieved party."

Claims are limited, by the evidence, the efforts of defense counsel, and the reduced verdicts by judges and appellate courts. Mr. Watermelon has an underlying assumption here that any large verdict is unjustifiable, which is a false assumption. He also seems to think that a lot of defendants are put out of business by large verdicts; it happens rarely.

There is also criticism of attorney's fees. First, our fees are subject to ethical constraints; they must be reasonable. An excessive fee may result in ethical sanctions. Second, our fees are reasonable, especially in light of the extraordinary financial and time risk we take in prosecuting our cases for nothing, until or unless we make a recovery. Plaintiff's lawyers are the best deal in town: a client gets a [hopefully[ first rate lawyer, and has to pay nothing, unless there is a recovery, at which point the client has to pay a percentage of what the client didn't have in the first place, except for the efforts of that lawyer who took a chance on the client and the case. Third, no one ever seems to moan about the defense lawyers, some of whom charge $500 per hour and more. I could do that, but no regular person could ever afford such rates.

Mr. Watermelon takes issue with a study I linked to saying that tort limitations do not lower insurance rates. Apparently, because that study was commissioned by a consumer advocacy group, it is invalid. Why should I give more credence to studies by tort reform groups which are beholden to and run by Big Insurance and big business concerns? Not coincidentally, Mr. Watermelon failed to include links to studies that came different conclusions.

"And let's not lose sight of the fact that Mr. Weinstein is not contending with insurance companies - he's opposing their lawyers. Are the lawyers on the corporate side doing something unethical in the course of doing their jobs for the insurance companies? If so, then let the legal profession police itself - we'll see if it does as well as, say, the medical profession. Ha - when was the last time you heard of a lawyer besides Bill Clinton getting disciplined, or any lawyer being hit for big malpractice damages?"

Well, I am contending with insurance companies. At least in theory, those insurance defense lawyers are hired by the insurance company to represent the defendant, who is not the insurance company. As for the legal profession policing itself, we do it all the time, a lot more aggressively than the doctors. Here's the Tennessee Bar Assoiciation link that lists the disciplinary violations recently in Tennessee.