Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#2It seems like the real impetus for this kind of law (in the US) is that lawyers would oppose it. The article touches upon this at the very end.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#3Extensive discussion last time this was posted: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1792353
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#4"The practical case for loser-pays is equally compelling. Litigants naturally think too well of their cases; loser-pays pushes them to size up their prospects more realistically. It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the costs of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents into settlement."
I'm facing this very scenario right now. We're being sued by a lawyer who is working on contingency for a client who is so delusional it makes me sick to my stomach to think about it. The really ugly side of this is that lawyers of the ilk that are suing us find specific loopholes through which they can (or attempt to) attach you personally, even if you're incorporated. We're being strong-armed to settle, and will likely pay these jerks something, just to have it go away.
If "loser-pays" applied here, this lawsuit would have been wrapped up after the very first round of inquiry.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#5Not so sure about this:
"It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the costs of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents into settlement."
There was a great interview on SGU with Simon Singh, the British writer who was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. He talks about how they kept on inflating their costs during the lawsuit to try to force his hand, knowing that he'd have to pay an exorbitant amount if he lost.
Relevant links:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid...
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#6Not so sure about this: "It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the costs of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents into settlement." There was a great interview on SGU with Simon Singh, the British writer who was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.…
Libel laws are extremely strong in the UK; the closes thing we have here would be anti-trust laws.
As a fun historical example, Richard Branson felt BA was acting monopolistically in England; they both kept Virgin out of Heathrow for some time, and one of their senior execs badmouthed the airline in England.
Virgin took the court to New York State (since, you know, JFK Airport), won the anti-trust case there, then returned and won the libel case in the UK based on evidence in the US case. At least, that's how Branson tells it.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#7Let's not forget that legal fees are not entirely the fault of the litigants. The burden of laws and rules is so great, you need expensive experts to navigate it. The weight of the laws themselves is promoting abuse and injustice.
Consider the analogy of a number of prisoners being forced to walk through a different minefield each day. Even if they are given a map to memorize the night before, it does not make the event fair.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#8"The practical case for loser-pays is equally compelling. Litigants naturally think too well of their cases; loser-pays pushes them to size up their prospects more realistically. It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the costs of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents…
[deleted]
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#9Not so sure about this: "It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the costs of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents into settlement." There was a great interview on SGU with Simon Singh, the British writer who was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.…
For frivolous litigation, the loser pays, but the standard for litigation being frivolous is pretty high. Maybe there could be a position in between loser always pays and loser almost never pays. Say, loser pays if there's no "reasonable" argument for his side of his case, analogous to how you only go to jail (in theory, anyway) if there's no reasonable doubt that you are innocent.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#10Does Europe have punitive damages? Who gets them?
The US does and they go to the winning plaintiff, which is sort of odd. After all, if someone is fined for assulting me, I don't get that money.