Plaintiff Hit With $520,153 in Fees, Costs

FindLaw ^ | 2-21-05 | Nick Sullivan

[marblehead17]

ping

[ex-Texan]

In a case I heard about over twenty years ago a defendant lost a multi-million dollar case on a Motion for Summary Judgment. After he lost, the defendant's lawyer submitted a bill for outrageous fees. The defendant shot himself.

Our 'justice system' works both ways.

[Dan from Michigan]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahha.

[CT CONSERVATIVE]

[CT CONSERVATIVE]

[DeltaZulu]

A true loser. He should have shot his lawyer. He'd have room and board for life, but at least he wouldn't have to put up with bill collectors. And he would have been a local hero in the jail. "What're you in for?" - "Oh, I shot my lawyer." - Instant respect.

[OneTimeLurker]

That's a very reasonable solution.

[Squawk 8888]

Canada has loser-pays but it is neither blanket nor automatic. When the defence prevails in a lawsuit here, they have to ask for costs after the verdict has been rendered. The amount awarded, if any, is entirely at the judge's discretion.

[cksharks]

HEHEHEHE MY thought also.

[cksharks]

It didnt kill the SOB so it couldnt have been too grave a harm.

[RossA]

When you have a wife and three teen-agers, you're lucky if your 5th car is a Honda rather than a Yugo.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

Not on this. A lawyer cannot control what settlement value a client puts on a case, other than to quit the case. Had it been for sanctions for a frivolous suit, the lawyer might be on the hook, but even that is doubtful because he had physicians who were in a better position to know and signed on. Too bad, IMO, because this junk science stuff has ruined products law. The trial bar will have to sit up and take notice of this one.

FWIW, the Offer of Judgment is a wonderful tool that should be used far more often. I use it more than most, though I never get costs awarded. It is more just a machanism to transfer risk to the Plaintiff. It helps a lot in settlement.

[LibertarianInExile]

Fair solution BUMP!

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Well, somehow these protection haven't stopped me from being notified of my status as a class action plaintiff in a case which I have never heard of, from which I stand to gain only a token benefit, but which promises to net the crusading plaintiff's attorneys a fat multi-million dollar payday

Well, there's a really easy way to solve that problem. Just advocate for a "loser pays" system where the prevailing party in a lawsuit is entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred in obtaining a favorable verdict.

Of course, that will never, ever, ever, happen because Big Business and Insurance interests in this country would be forced to settle claims reasonably up front, or face paying attorney's fees if they do not.

You want real tort reform? Loser pays.

[Darth Reagan]

Hallelujah!!!!

[Maceman]

You want real tort reform? Loser pays.

I don't think loser pays is the answer. Litigation is always a crapshoot, and even when one has justice on one's side there is no guarantee the verdict will go the right way. Who will dare bring a legitimate claim against any well heeled defendant if the loss of the case means potential financial ruin for the plaintiff?

Whereas these idiotic and parasitic "class action" suits brought by entrepreneuerial lawyers in search of a payday really are a plague on society, and bring no justice even in those cases where the plaintiffs plaintiffs prevail. They win their coupon for a free cup of coffee from McDonald's and the lawyers split millions in contingency fees.

[balch3]

This should happen to every losing plaintiff. It would solve the lawsuit problem overnight.

[Fabozz]

"I don't think someone should have to put their livelihood on the line if they have a reasonable case to bring."

So the plaintiff shouldn't have anything at risk, but it's okay for the defendant to have his livelihood on the line? Nice sense of fairness you've got there.

The defendant will always offer a settlement in any reasonable case—any business has something to lose and thus will act to minimize risk by settling. The only plaintiffs who get punished by an automatic "loser pays" rule are those who have frivolous cases, or those who obstinately pursue the lottery payout rather than settle for reasonable compensation for actual damages. Those people deserve to be punished. Loser pays is the only way to go.

[cyn]

2004 Political Campaign Contributions from Las Vegas, Nevada 89144:

Name: Variale, Vincenzo
Occupation: Universal Health Services/Controlle
Amount: $ 250
Date: 08/25/2003
Contributed to: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN HOSPITALS PAC (FEDPAC); (FKA AMERICAN HEALTH SYSTEMS PAC) - Unknown

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

The defendant will always offer a settlement in any reasonable case

As an attorney for 8 years, having done both defense work and plaintiff's work, in areas such as personal injury, employment law, discrimination, and business litigation, I can tell you with 100% accuracy that you are dead wrong. While your comment is what should be true, it just isn't the case.