Why don't we compromise on tort reform so that you can prove to us how pure your intentions are towards these "victims"?

Let's not cap awards to the "victims" instead lets cap compensation to the lawyers. Maybe we could limit it to provable costs plus 20%? This would go a long way to showing the public that your sincere interest is in making the "victims" whole and not just enriching yourself like you accused the insurance companies of doing.

Now normally I would never support or advocate for compensation limits but if you are going to try to claim a moral high ground to your profession and accuse others of simp,y trying to enrich themselves at the expense of these "victims" then shouldn't you show us how pure your motives really are and limit your compensation to a reasonable amount?

And yes I've heard the arguments before, how you can work for years on a case so if you get a few hundred thousand dollars for it then it needs to be looked at as multi year compensation. That might fool some but not those of us that actually think. You see we realize that isn't your only case, you've probably got dozens more going on at any given time and hundreds more over the course of time that one takes, while being compensated for all of them, so you're really just a part timer on any given case so why do you deserve massive returns for it?

Of course you'll never agree to that, you'll have some reason to justify you cashing in on another personal tragedy whose trying to claim you're standing up to the other party who is only in it for the money.