If Lawyers Are Parasites, They Are Not Alone
Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday June 6, 2002
Dr Andrew Biankin (Letters, June 4) reminds lawyers of ``the basic biological fact: when the host dies so do the parasites". Presumably, he considers lawyers are parasites because they earn a living as a result of someone's misfortune. He overlooks the fact that members of the medical profession derive substantial income from personal injury claims.
Two months ago I received a letter from an orthopedic surgeon in response to my letter regarding his forthcoming court appearance to give expert evidence in such a matter.
It read, in part: ``A standby fee of $3300 will be charged and needs to be couriered to our office 48 hours prior to the hearing to confirm Doctor's attendance. Balance of payment will be required to be made within 28 days.
``Fees will be charged based on calculations made by our accountant as to income lost:$4400 (including GST) if attendance at Court does not exceed four hours.$1100 (including GST) for every full hour after the first four hours or proportion thereof if not for a full hour."
He also suggested that telephone conversations regarding the matter would carry a fee of ``$250 (including GST) per 15 minutes".
The Civil Liability Bill caps lawyers' fees but not the fees that doctors or any of the many other experts who can be called upon in personal injuries claims charge for their reports or attendances at court.
If the lawyers are parasites then what are these experts?
Richard Reading,
Cessnock, June 4.
What a surprise to hear from Rob Davis of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association of the association's concern ``that NSW citizens are about to have some of their rights removed" (Letters, June 5).
Could it be that a number of these hapless NSW citizens are members of Mr Davis's association whose rights to very handsome incomes from leech-like behaviour might just be interfered with?
Dr Dick Crane,
Castle Cove, June 5.
In New Zealand you can bungy jump, ride horses or go white-water rafting. Third-party car insurance is between a half and two-thirds of Australian charges and medical specialists can run their practices without crippling insurance fees and no talk of them leaving their professions. Yet every person injured is looked after by the no-fault compensation scheme.
In Australia we worry whether we can surf, or ride horses in community events; our doctors are reluctant to practise; and medical specialists are subject to crippling insurance premiums for a system that is a legal lottery. Isn't it amazing that a system in practice in New Zealand for 30 years and fully funded is not being investigated by our governments to see what can be learnt and what it might gain for the community?
W.M. Gale,
Terrey Hills, June 5.
In response to Terry O'Riain's comments (Letters, June 5), which echo the arguments of personal injury lawyers, I have one final remark: you speak of time and money we speak of life and wellbeing.
I rest my case.
Andrew Biankin,
Consultant surgeon,
Sydney, June 5.
In defence of lawyers, Terry O'Riain states that they do not pursue a case unless they study it first and truly believe they will win, because their reputation is at stake.
That may be so for the lawyers on the winning side, but didn't the losing lawyer follow the same path? In every case there is at least one loser represented by a lawyer.
Adam Lyons,
Springwood, June 5.
Although Bob Carr has yet to receive my vote, I am impressed with his leadership in taking the hard decisions on the outrageous growth of the litigation industry.
This stands in total contrast to the gutlessness of John Brogden and the Coalition in showing definite signs of caving in to the plaintiff lawyers' tactics.
Wasn't it only a fortnight ago that they issued a press release giving bipartisan support on this matter? If they are hoping for support from business and community organisations in next year's election they are going to be sorely disappointed.
Ian Carrington,
Alstonville, June 5.
Netball Australia banned a pregnant netballer from playing for fear of the potential litigation. The Australian Sports Commission found that banning pregnant women could contravene anti-discrimination laws, so Netball Australia lifted the ban. Now the player is suing because ``there were also matters of principle involved" (``Netballer sues over pregnancy ban", Herald, June 5).
A possible win for the player but, I suspect, a loss for sport overall. Sporting authorities are seemingly doomed no matter what measures they attempt to put in place to keep liability insurance in check.
Kerry Gonzales,
Oatlands, June 5.
© 2002 Sydney Morning Herald
Share This