The richest men in our city belong to our local ambulance chasing lawyer firm. One constantly reads in the paper about the houses they are buying, the houses their children are buying. Their ads are constantly on the TV and radio.
They have giant billboards across from the local country hospital where all the medicaid patients go.
They produce nothing, and merely drive up costs for the middle class, and turn doctors and hospitals into lawyers and extreme bureaucrats. Its disgusting.
Across the board “loser pays” would be horrible. However, the idea that, on a case by case basis, the loser pays, is a great idea. It would stop frivolous lawsuits.
That is, if a jury can be convinced that not only did you lose, but you were so obviously wrong to sue in the first place, that maybe forcing you to pay attorney’s fees would be a good idea.
Not awake enough for the content. The problem with this system is it can of course be abused. Just keep suing someone till they go bankrupt defending against nothing.
Because it would cost the lawyers money.
Easy for them to make such a decision, THEY ARE ALL LAWYERS.
THEY ALL HAVE A BUILT IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Around here the sole supporter of television seems to be ambulance chasing law firms or the my pillow guy or drugs and drug rehab outfits.
Perhaps what is needed is the ability to sue for damages if someone can be shown to abuse the legal system to harass and bankrupt?
>>, the circuit court included $1,600 in counsel’s fees as part of the damages. 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306, 306 (1796)<<
$1,600 in 1796 is $30,544 now.
Pretty good chunk of change. Good to see lawyers stuck it to their clients back that far. ;)
The US doesn't have a loser pays system because it discourages lawsuits. The legislators are lawyers and would do nothing to damage their profession.
[Lawyers shouldn't be permitted to be legislators (or judges) as this is the ultimate conflict of interest; and not just as it concerns discouraging lawsuits.]
ML/NJ
I don’t agree. Loser pays should be the default ruling in civil trials. In criminal trials the state should be on the hook for the defendant’s attorney if the state fails to secure a conviction.
Fro mwhat i understand, the ACLU files cases via taxpayer funding and doesn’t pay if they lose- so they have a win win situation-
I agree 100% with JamesP81 at post # 10.
“I don’t agree. Loser pays should be the default ruling in civil trials. In criminal trials the state should be on the hook for the defendant’s attorney if the state fails to secure a conviction.”
Part of what is wrong with our “adversary” system is it has become a game, where solid conviction that the facts are on your side is absent, if you want to sue, because its all about using the court system to make and publicize your claim, knowing the media is all about guult and conviction by allegation, and hoping to get the “defendent” to pay up, before your game, and your lack of sufficient facts, is exposed. Who convinces the “plaintiffs” to join in this game? The lawyers who stand to gain from how time is on their side in forcing the “defendent” to pay up, not because they are wrong, but just to avoid further court costs.
We not only need loser pays as the rule, but also that lawyers taking cases on contingency cannot charge the plaintiffs they represented for the legal costs the lawyers lost.
“Feeling aggrieved” and that “somewhat should have to pay” has become what it should not be, a de facto legal standard by which thousands of suits are initiated and by which many of them result in lucrative settlements FOR THE LAWYERS as the defendents calculate it is less than continuing to defend what they know is right.
Loser pays will end all that.
Lawyers will not take frivilous cases solely for obtaining lucrative settlements, when they know THEY will have to pay if they lose, and the defendent has a solid case; meaning they have lost the leverage to just get a settlement.
Yeah I disagree with this and much prefer the English Rule.
If you have a good enough case, you can get tort or contract lawyers to take your case on commission like they do now anyway. If your case is so weak it is very unlikely to prevail, then those same lawyers will be unlikely to take your case without you paying money up front. This will have the effect of reducing frivolous and nuisance lawsuits.
Our litigiousness not only costs us in terms of attorney’s fees and insurance costs but also all the added costs tacked on to products and services by companies to protect themselves from ridiculous lawsuits. Think of all the idiotic warning labels telling you not to do things like get in the bathtub and throw a live hairdryer in while standing in the water, etc.
Of course the Tort lawyers will be bitterly opposed to anything that reduces “business” for them.......
Besides a lot of donation money coming from lawyers to keep things just the corrupted way they are, there is also the fact that a great number of today’s political class at every level are themselves lawyers. I don’t know the exact number, but it’s a large one.