Posted on 05/22/2004 12:34:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON – Greedy trial lawyers would have to think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit if legislation introduced by Congressman Chocola becomes law. The Legal Expense Equity Act of 2004, which is companion legislation to Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) version, establishes a set of guidelines under which the either party of a civil lawsuit in federal court could be required to pay the opposing side’s attorney fees.
“Frivolous lawsuits brought by irresponsible trial lawyers are hurting our nation-driving up healthcare costs, putting doctors out of business, eliminating thousands of jobs, while devastating our economy,” Chocola said. “It is time to reform the tort process by ensuring that both defendants and plaintiffs have a vested interest in each case brought before a judge.”
The legislation establishes a set of guidelines under which either party of a lawsuit in federal court could be required to pay the opposing side’s attorney fees. It applies to cases in which the parties are from different states, which are the large majority of cases in federal court. In order to receive compensation for attorneys’ fees, the party filing the claim must have made a settlement offer that was rejected and then have the final award be less then the rejected offer. Then the party must file a petition with the judge requesting compensation for attorney fees. The judge will make the final determination.
The Legal Expense Equity Act of 2004 is supported by 26 original co-sponsors, as well as the following organizations: Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Real Estate Roundtable
“Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, an independent consulting firm, reports that in 2002, the total costs from tort litigation jumped by 13 percent to $233 billion. That's an astonishing 2.23 percent of our entire Gross National Product, and these costs are passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. According to the Department of Treasury, this "tort tax" works out to $809 for every individual and more than $3,200 for a family of four, every year,” Citizens for a Sound Economy Chairman Dick Armey noted, explaining the need for such legislation. “On behalf of Citizens for a Sound Economy members in every state, I’d like to commend Congressman Chocola and Senator Graham for their hard work towards ending lawsuit abuse.”
“The Legal Expense Equity Act is long overdue policy and the Real Estate Roundtable supports its immediate enactment,” Jeffrey D. DeBoer, President and COO of the Real Estate Roundtable said. “This Act will bring about balance in our legal system by providing parties an equal incentive to settle claims fairly and equitably rather than running to the courthouse. Frivolous lawsuits are rampant and a serious drag on our economy. Quite simply, they are a hidden tax on every person and business in the country. The Real Estate Roundtable commends Representative Chris Chocola and Senator Lindsey Graham for their leadership and we look forward to working with them.”
“Our judicial system is being manipulated by the very people required to defend it and without new standards for filing lawsuits the situation can only worsen,” Chocola concluded. “It is time to institute a ‘loser pays’ system that encourages potential litigants and their attorneys to think twice before filing frivolous lawsuits.”
Oh, if only this passes! Our legal system is SOOOOO in need of reform!
GWB would be well advised to jump all over this. It's a winning campaign issue.
"I'm the one candidate who wants to put a stop to Jackpot Justice!"
This would be especially great for malpractise suits.
Doctors win most of them but their insurance goes up anyway (just because they were sued) & they are driven out of business.
THIS IS BS LEGISLATION BECAUSE THESE ARE ALREADY THE RULES.
A MAJOR DUH!!!
FIRST Rule 11 sanctions provide for lawyers to be PERSONALLY held responsible for the other sides attorneys fees in frivolous suits.
SECOND Offers in compromise ARE THE RULE. You offer the other side a deal in writing, if the other side rejects it and then fails to get at lease 75% (or a set amount) of the offered result, you get your attorneys fees.
THIRD Almost UNIVERSALLY contracts contain a prevailing party clause. LOOSER PAYS! The issue here is merely attorneys fees, you are ALWAYS ENTITLED TO YOUR COURT COSTS (deposition costs, expert fee costs, travel expenses, parking expenses.)
Will this "legislation" mean the looser will get the same discounted rate as the insurnace companies in house lawyer? If the lawyer is on salary will the salary be broken down hourly?
As I said this is BS legislation because THE RULES ARE THERE RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND. The issue is when you have a judge who will not enforce the rule.
BTW look at the BStreisand case where she is being forced to pay 170,000 dollars in ATTORNEY FEES because she lost. No need for this redundant law there.
This is a modest reform, one I think I could support, though I'm not sure how much it would do. The trial lawyers will crank out their propoganda to oppose it, naturally.
I'm filing my own lawsuit, pro se, over a real estate deal. A few days ago I received a reply from one of the defendants lawyers charging my complaint was frivolous and threatening to countersue. I'm satisfied his charge is groundless, but the threat sent a chill down my spine when I first read it.
For me this is a solemn undertaking; it's given me a different perspective. We'd better be careful what we wish for, lest the cure turn out worse than the affliction.
Looser pays exists NOW. If you sue under an insurance policy you have a prevailing party clause. THIS IS NOW!
Every state has an "offer in compromise" provision in their tort law, and the feds too.
This legislation is manure because Judges do not enforce the rules now, another ignored rule will only add to the useless nature of this.
Who does this benefit? Insurance companies will do what they always do, they will simply write off the lawyer expenses in their bottom line.
Even if you do get a loosing PENILESS plaintiff to pay, one trip to bankrupcy court and the defendant gets ZERO.
The system in england is not all that great either because there are different tort laws and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. NO RIGHT TO SUE the governemnt. Translation, the medmal case never starts and the patient with the wrong foot cut off is screwed twice.
datum.
Real tort reform, would be when lawyers who sue for a billion and it's deemed frivolous, the firm owes a billion dollars to the other party. That would stop ambulance chasing overnight.
newsflash, Federal Rules provide for such sanctions RIGHT NOW. They are Rule 11 sanctions and the lawyer AND THE FIRM are personally responsible to pay the other side's lawyer fees.
It has been the rule, it IS the rule of federal procedure NOW!
What this is seeking to do is to almost make "offers in compromise" mandatory, this will FORCE more nusance settlements. This legislations screams of unintended consequences of making MORE frivolous claims. This legislation makes no sense because "looser pays" is what we have in essences now as a matter of common "prevailing party" clauses being universally in all contracts and insurance policies.
I am will to bet this is an election year effort to neutralize the donations of the American Trial Lawyers Assoc. or at least get parity donations.
How about professional jurrors? We could end this forum shopping by buying two pills in the most uneducated per capita county in Mississippi in order to get the jury most likely to hate the pharmacutical company.
How about making a cap which states you can't bankrupt a corporation via civil litigation.
How about making specific laws against "shakedown" litigation(ala every ADA suit, ala Jessie Jackson vs Nissan or "get my buddies to distribute the bond offering or else" suits, ala here is your worthless coupon class actions.)
BTW this does not affect the "winner gets paid rule" So edwards would be fairly unaffected. The rule also does not affect the 85% of cases which are settled for various reasons.
We also need protection against frivolous lawsuits. They have become legalized extortion.
Uh. The plaintiff won that one, so under loser pays McDs would have had to pay even more than they did.
If you are thinking that the McDs suit would not have brought because regular folks would not want to risk paying McD's huge legal fees, you are describing how this law would favor the well-funded over the less well-funded.
The best solution would be for us keep our current system but really use the sanctions for frivolous claims and defenses-- it goes both ways, you know. Still, sometimes loser pays sounds appealing.
Man,I used to love that drink...haven't seen it for years!
I don't know if you're accurate in what you are claiming. But if you are speaking the truth, then why aren't you neutral towards the proposition?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.