Pretty much everything I've ever seen from "reason.com" is material promoting a libertarian viewpoint. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's pretty much just politics.
Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
11–20 of 55 posts
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#12Comparison between the US and Europe in this area is close to meaningless, because of fundamental differences in how the two tend to view the roles of the judicial and executive branches of government in the enforcement of laws.
The US has a greater tendency, particularly in the areas of civil rights but also torts in general, of structuring the law so it gives the injured party a private right of action, which they enforce in courts, and leaving the executive out of it.
Europe has a greater tendency in these areas to have the executive branch deal with enforcement.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#13Pretty much everything I've ever seen from "reason.com" is material promoting a libertarian viewpoint. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's pretty much just politics.
Probably because its the website for a libertarian magazine? They don't even pretend that's not the case, unlike something on Fox News...
From the about page:
Reason is the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets." It covers politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews. Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#14"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…
While 'loser pays' might benefit your particular case, it's easy to imagine an equal number of scenarios where a guilty corporate defendant uses the threat of running up huge legal fees to discourage valid lawsuits against it. The result is a windfall for corporations with no net improvement in actual justice. To put it another way, it decreases the likelihood of frivolous plaintiffs but increases the likelihood of frivolous defendants.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#15"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…
While 'loser pays' might benefit your particular case, it's easy to imagine an equal number of scenarios where a guilty corporate defendant uses the threat of running up huge legal fees to discourage valid lawsuits against it. The result is a windfall for corporations with no net improvement in actual justice. To put it another way, it decreases the likelihood of frivolous plaintiffs but increases the likelihood of f…
According to TFA that's not how it works in Europe: if you deliberately run up costs, the court will not assign them to the loser. Only reasonable fees are passed on to the loser. And the loser can challenge.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#16"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…
While 'loser pays' might benefit your particular case, it's easy to imagine an equal number of scenarios where a guilty corporate defendant uses the threat of running up huge legal fees to discourage valid lawsuits against it. The result is a windfall for corporations with no net improvement in actual justice. To put it another way, it decreases the likelihood of frivolous plaintiffs but increases the likelihood of f…
Don't guilty corporate clients already spend heavily to defend themselves necessitating a concomitant response by the righteous(?) plaintiff who can't afford it? At least with loser pays, the plaintiff has the option of finding a lawyer who will accept the case contingent on recouping his presumably huge legal fees.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
While 'loser pays' might benefit your particular case, it's easy to imagine an equal number of scenarios where a guilty corporate defendant uses the threat of running up huge legal fees to discourage valid lawsuits against it. The result is a windfall for corporations with no net improvement in actual justice. To put it another way, it decreases the likelihood of frivolous plaintiffs but increases the likelihood of f…
Don't guilty corporate clients already spend heavily to defend themselves necessitating a concomitant response by the righteous(?) plaintiff who can't afford it? At least with loser pays, the plaintiff has the option of finding a lawyer who will accept the case contingent on recouping his presumably huge legal fees.
That's why there are lawyers who take cases on contingency. And while some of them are quick-buck artists just looking for a quick settlement, most are looking for real cases with a high likelihood of success, with plaintiffs who simply couldn't afford to bring their solid case otherwise.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#18Not 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.…
IANAL, but TFA states that this would also happen here in the USA because many states have a one-way loser-pays.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
While 'loser pays' might benefit your particular case, it's easy to imagine an equal number of scenarios where a guilty corporate defendant uses the threat of running up huge legal fees to discourage valid lawsuits against it. The result is a windfall for corporations with no net improvement in actual justice. To put it another way, it decreases the likelihood of frivolous plaintiffs but increases the likelihood of f…
According to TFA that's not how it works in Europe: if you deliberately run up costs, the court will not assign them to the loser. Only reasonable fees are passed on to the loser. And the loser can challenge.
A big corporation can run up an awful lot of perfectly legitimate legal fees. And the challenge remedy is not going to be much comfort to an indigent plaintiff as it's unlikely his lawyer is going to take that challenge on contingency.
Re: Loser-Pays makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to TFA that's not how it works in Europe: if you deliberately run up costs, the court will not assign them to the loser. Only reasonable fees are passed on to the loser. And the loser can challenge.
A big corporation can run up an awful lot of perfectly legitimate legal fees. And the challenge remedy is not going to be much comfort to an indigent plaintiff as it's unlikely his lawyer is going to take that challenge on contingency.
At least in Germany, what is a reasonable fee is strictly regulated and tied to the total value disputed. At the very least, you'll know the cost (roughly) at the outset of the case.
Good luck trying that kind of regulation in the US.