Wrong on so many levels. A criminal victim does become a bit player. That's why the government prosecutors can make any plea deals they want, regardless of what the victim wants or thinks is right. You want the government to create a huge civil complaint bureaucracy to provide free attorneys to anyone who thinks they have been "wronged" by someone else, to investigate and prosecute the claim, then enforce any judgment? And you are complaining about frivolous lawsuits now? What controls would there be on the system you suggest? ... and you claim not to be a socialist? For your information, we can't make a living on only "big" cases. They take too long, require too many resources, are fought harder by big business, and are more risky. The vast majority of personal injury lawyers make our living helping individuals with relatively small claims who wouldn't be able to afford representation without a contingent fee arrangement, and who are happy with the results. The problem comes when there is too big an imbalance of power, regardless of whether it is to the left or right. That's what's wrong with the laws. Texas, Rick Perry and the Texas Supreme Court are owned by "tort reformers" and big insurance right now - and the pendulum needs to start swinging back. There are plenty of insurance defense lawyers out there who are out of work because they were pushing so hard for tort reform, and now they have no clients to defend... served them right.

"Dumbass"? - Typical Alinsky progressive name-calling crap. If you've ever looked at any criminal case, it's not "victim" v. "accused", it's "The State of __", "The City of __", etc. A crime is considered to be committed against all the people of a jurisdiction, the victim is just a witness - that's why they're called the "complaining witness". That's why fines are paid to the court, not the victim. Our CONSTITUTION guarantees a criminally accused the right to force the government to prove its case to a much higher burden of proof than is required in a civil matter. An accused gets a court-appointed attorney ONLY if he can prove he doesn't have the resources to afford one, and it's to protect him from the vast resources of the government. In a civil case, whether someone thinks they are "wronged", "damaged", etc is purely a matter of perspective between the 2 parties - I'm sure most civil defendants think they are the "victims" of frivolous lawsuits. I don't enforce civil laws, I just get paid to argue my client's version of the facts, and it's left up to the jury to decide. The government has no business getting involved in individual disputes. If you don't like the system, move! Better yet, get out of your mother's basement, get an education, and do something about it!

“They should be paid by the government, who is responsible ...” So your mother should have been provided with a free, taxpayer provided, attorney? Just like we should all have “free” healthcare - what’s next “free” housing, “free” food, “free” cars - the only thing we are losing is our “free”dom. THIS IS AMERICA “We, the people”, not “They, the government”. Stop drinking the kool-aid !!! The whole reason for contingent fees is to allow people who can’t afford to pay for an attorney to still have access to the legal system - the contingent fee contract (yes, it’s just a contract - just like the one you sign when you take your car in for repairs) is merely a means to allocate the inherent risk the attorney is taking that the case may not be worth what is originally anticipated. Capitalism - plain and simple.

Don't recall me saying ethical rules are onerous - I have always aspired to live and work ethically. I just trust Judges and juries more than the big centralized bureaucracies. We are a country based on capitalism (that's why I immigrated here). Yes - I believe I should be able to decide who I represent, and that I be rewarded for my hard work and sacrifices in getting an education. Perry's actions are no better than that Socialist Muslim sitting in the White House.

News Flash - Texas has had rules in place since 1940 that provide for sanctions, including dismissing the lawsuit, holding the party in contempt, and awarding attorney fees from the party and/or his attorney, for filing groundless or harassing lawsuits. Up until now, it's been left up to the Judge, who actually hears the facts of the case, to determine whether a case is frivolous (and yes, the big insurance companies have hoards of lawyers on their side arguing that every case they defend is frivolous). Apparently, Perry thinks it's better to leave this decision up to him, just like his medical malpractice reform that took the power away from the juries to determine damages, and instead imposed fixed, arbitrary limits to the value of someone's injuries.

So I assume your mother was willing to put up a retainer for the attorney's hourly fee, and pay in advance for all the litigation expenses and expert witnesses. I don't see anybody else working unless there's something in it for them.