So, Instalawyer shows up and takes umbrage with an earlier post, and alerts me in the comments that he has responded on his own site. Interesting that he didn't want to debate on my turf, but I guess seeking the sanctuary of a familiar place is common when you first stop blogging. Actually, I didn't attack him personally at all (except to point out his hyperbole when describing the Columbia debris), but he seems to feel the need to express just a wee bit of hostility my way. And I'm not sure what type of folks I may be by being one of "these type of folks". Apparently I am an "irresponsible" "Bucko" for relating my experience that many of my MD friends' receive frivoulous suits all of the time. Better watch out lest I get sued for giving trial attorneys a bad name.

Perhaps if Instalawyer would have read my post more carefully before launching a strike in favor of his own little personal crusade, he would see that my "greedy trial lawyers" comment suggested that that wasn't the root cause of all evils - rather I suggested the number of frivolous suits played a more significant factor. Do I have hard data? Nope, not at all. Do I work with lots of MDs who get sued for absolutely ludicrous things by people trying to place blame where none exists - you betcha, all of the time. It seems that Instalawyer is suggesting that there is NEVER a frivolous suit, because they are targetting "zillionaire" doctors and insurance companies - as I pointed out in my original post, it seems that everyone exceot trial attorneys are to blame in his worldview.

Unfortunately Instalawyer doesn't allow comments on his site, so I can't present my side of the argument in his venue. And frankly, I guess I don't see the need. I was trying to give the guy some props because I thought his site offered an interesting prospective on a problem that most people are going to say is a lawyer problem, not an insurance company problem. If he has a problem with contrary views, it's probably good that he has his comments section turned off.