4 Jun 2015

A thought on lawsuits

Speaking of lawyers, I was talking to a reporter about the MWD-SDCWA dispute over delivering water in Southern California (yes. again) that's been going on for 20+ years.

I pointed out that the lawsuit has been going so long because each side is using Other People's Money (ratepayers) to pursue their personal interests (mostly about money and power) and because few ratepayers even know that they suit is happening or that they are paying its $50 million (and counting) tab.

This leads me -- in the absence of firing Jeff Kightlinger and Maureen Stapleton -- to think of ways to end zero-sum lawsuits that are destroying value with every passing day.

So, let's say that after a limit (two years?) that one of these events will occur:
  1. Flip a coin, declare a winner.
  2. Allow each side to argue its case for one hour to a jury who then picks a winner.
  3. Trial by combat.
Which do you like? Pros/cons? Better ideas?


Anonymous said...

Add pay per view and wagering to #3 and maybe some of the prior costs can be recouped.

Anonymous said...

such lawsuits are not only destroying value with every passing day - they are also filling lawyers pockets with every passing day! beware, they and their lobbies might find a way to sue you for your proposal ;-)

NM said...

The other side of expensive lawsuits is the judiciary, having no incentive other than to keep their business flow going. The more cases and longer, the more money and resources go to the judiciary. Judges often have no incentive or accountability for the public resources they consume and allow to be consumed.

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.