"its", not "it's". Noticed that just as I pressed Submit...

Yes, it also has traces of methane in it's atmosphere...

In summary: The legal system is imperfect, and I have an idea how we could change it, but I think that the existing way is probably better than my proposition anyway. What do you all think?

I hate the fact that money perverts justice.

I think that this is what you meant to say.

Most doctors charge per service (or at least the hospitals employing them do) as is necessitated by HMOs. When I go to the dentist (okay, some don't consider them proper doctors, but I'm getting there), a teeth cleaning is, say, $80, whether I have almost no plaque or plaque completely covering my teeth. If the dentist decides that my case is out of the ordinary and warrants an additional fee (must replace fillings before it is safe to clean, etc), he can make that assessment prior to doing any billable work and present me with the updated estimate. The same with most medical work - an annual checkup from a doctor has a set fee, getting shots, and so on.

Now, surgeons may bill by the hour, I don't know as I've never had to make use of such services. However, looking at elective surgery (since civil suits are more comparable to optional procedures than life threatening ones as you can always opt for the alternative[1]), they can provide reliable quotes ahead of time and you are only on the hook for what they quoted. Most hourly contractors also offer a free (or low, fixed cost) consultation to determine the cost and likely results of your proposed job.

So, with that in mind, let's look at your scenarios. I understand that this is just a small sampling of what could go wrong, but even so, you should get my point.

Scenario 1: I don't know how frequently such misreadings of the law are made, but your quote to the client should have been for the motion to dismiss only. You would explain it to the client like this: "To draft this motion will be $1,000 and that is likely all that will need to be done as the case is pretty clear. However, there is always the risk that the judge may not agree. I can't quote a fee for the case without seeing why the judge denied the claim, but at a guess (NOT an official quote), it could turn into X type of a case, which would then cost you an additional $Y". The client is also free to seek other estimates from other lawyers at that point if the judge fails to dismiss the case as expected.

Scenario 2: Again, I don't know how often such a scenario occurs, but this would likely fall under the assumed risk that all professionals assume when quoting work. Some you make the expected profit on, some you make boatloads of profit on, and some you lose money on. Additionally, you could always have a clause in your contracts covering specific scenarios (such as this) that trigger a re-visit of the fees. Most contracts have such clauses for circumstances beyond the control of the entity promising the work (acts of God, etc).

Scenario 3: As in scenario one, you should quote the motion separately from the remainder of the case, though in this case you would inform the client that the motion was almost guaranteed to be denied.

In all cases, the quotes for going to trial would cover a specific set of arguments. If the client or the opposing party started going off on tangents, then you could quote additional fees for adding those in to the case (scope creep to programmers). As mentioned in the article, your client could always choose to concede points brought by the opposing counsel that do not directly pertain to the case as originally quoted. The opposing party would be made aware of the additional fees as well, as they may have to pay them if they lost, and so they could also choose whether or not to pursue their additional claims.

[1] Yes, I understand that you can also opt for the alternative in life threatening situations, but you are unlikely to. Also, many times such operations are done without your consent due to circumstances (you are unconscious or worse).

However, their win/loss history is a matter of public record, and their performance would travel by word of mouth. That, and lawyers are bound by law to try a case to the best of their ability or risk disbarment (if they are truly incompetent or found to be putting forth criminally low levels of effort). Granted, none of these provisions is foolproof, but certainly encourage an acceptable minimum level of performance if a lawyer wishes to remain in business. There will always be ambulance chasers and unethical lawyers, but at least here they won't be able to swindle you for as much. Lastly, even if all of the lawyers just put forth the minimal amount of effort, that means the opposing party's attorney will be too, making it still a fair fight.

Not to spark a conspiracy theory, but how much do you suppose some over-worked, under-paid, and under-appreciated Microsoft employee was paid by an agent of the Chinese government to provide this flaw from the list of yet to be addressed flaws? How much money do you think there is in selling these exploits in major software products to enemies of the state? I'm not implying that Microsoft does this intentionally, but I can see how their cavalier attitude can certainly create such an opportunity for Microsoft employees in the know. This should certainly be looked into by law enforcement officials to make sure that such leaks don't actually exist.

Still doesn't complicate matters much - some software will have to be updated, but if the option were added to refuse to resolve websites that use a particular registrar, or to ignore results from specific DNS servers, then they can be shut out of the average user's Internet experience. Granted, this would have to be done at the DNS provider level (your ISP, or OpenDNS, etc) so the individual user wouldn't have as much control (unless they host their own recursive DNS), but it presents a pretty minor speed bump over all.

The Procrastinator's Society called and they want their slogan back. They would have called sooner, but, well, you know, this and that...

Hence the inclusion of the word "not".

Another consideration is that many websites, for "security" reasons, refuse to allow access if you originate from an IP outside their country, making an in country VPN provider an exceptionally good option.

Hmm, that'd actually SAVE on taxes for most of them...

I think you missed the memo - Europe is the new Apple and thus is above all recrimination (except for when they try to pass 3 strike laws and justify all of Britain's CCTV cameras). And Americuns is dumbestest and must submit to any and all insults about their intelligence and lack of culture, even if the post itself proves insightful and the poster has demonstrated time and again that (s)he does not fit the mold of the uneducated American.

In other words, America is universally reviled and you are expected to just shut up and accept the hatred, but don't stop writing those support checks to the rest of the world.

At least it wasn't the Climactic Research Center.