sehr gut Saite. Was machen Sie mein Freund?
keep it up !

sehr gut Saite. Was machen Sie mein Freund?
keep it up !

Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me.

Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me.

A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs
but I’ve never seen wheat in a pile :)
did you like it?

A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs
but I’ve never seen wheat in a pile :)
did you like it?

The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude.

The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude.

weight loss pill http://www.nofatonline.com

weight loss pill http://www.nofatonline.com

Dave–Would you be offended if I offered some counter-comments on my blog?

Dave–Would you be offended if I offered some counter-comments on my blog?

Interesting perspective, Stuart, and I shall mull it over. The notion of MTLA advocating the veto to protect defendants seems a bit counter-intuitive. I sent the text of your Comments to HALT, which was a major proponent of the legislation, for their input. If I get a useful response from them, I’ll post it.

Dave–You’re way off base with respect to the “award” to the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association (of which I am not a member).

Maryland has two trial courts, the District Courts (our “small claims court”) and the Circuit Courts. Currently, the District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction of civil cases up to $2500 and concurrent jurisdiction of civil cases up to $25,000.00.

Exclusive jurisdiction means that neither party may request a jury trial. The bill in question was introduced and passed in the 2001 session and was vetoed by then Governor Glendenning. A similar bill was introduced and passed in the 2003 session and was signed by Governor Erhlich. It is effective 10/1/03.

The increase in the District Court’s exclusive jurisdiction may be good or it may be bad, but it’s clearly not good for small defendants, usually individuals seeking to fend off claims (presumably disputed claims) of corporate creditors. The bill strips the right to have the claim tried before a jury. Thus the bill was sought by large commercial interests who saw it as a way to expedite their ability to collect debts and claims against consumers. The intent of the bill in no way was to lower the attorneys’ fees consumers are exposed to.

P.S. There is absolutely nothing stopping a lawyer, law firm or bar association from using advertising with a message that truly informs consumers and helps them to make a decision between various levels of legal services. For example, a matrimonial firm can surely say — without fear of bar discipline — “If you and your spouse are not in agreement on important issues, such as child custody and support, or how to share assets and liabilities, you need a lawyer [or a mediator], not a computer.”