5 ms·

I found this to be the most informative and relevant response to the questions posed. Of course, it's frustrating to see the aspects of this situation that are

by mr_luc 11y ago

I found this to be the most informative and relevant response to the questions posed. Of course, it's frustrating to see the aspects of this situation that are (practically) unsolvable. But one item jumped out that I'd be interested in knowing more about: > Nissan Motor was ordered to reimburse Mr. Nissan only $52k in legal fees, of the over $3 million Mr. Nissan was forced to spend What are the reasons for that disparity? Would fixing the way we calculate those legal fees help to fix these kinds of abuses?

mattlutze 11y ago
Well, in general, loser-pays provides some protection from frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits. Though, it does then put a greater risk perhaps on the little guy if the smaller firm doesn't successfully defend.
- sandstrom 11y ago
  Except it (mostly) doesn't exist in the US, but does in almost all other democracies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_f...
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    Indeed, that was my point in suggesting it as an opportunity for improvement.
- mr_luc 11y ago
  To make that greater risk concrete, and play Devil's Advocate to my own query by thinking of the societal benefits of the current system: would that make it much riskier to sue, say, Big Tobacco? I understand that the American legal system is a bit unique when it comes to lawsuits, but I'm hampered by not understanding exactly how, and what the positives and negatives of that are.
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    Well, the risk comes when you don't have a strong footing for your suit. And I think that's the philosophy behind "loser pays". As I'm thinking about it, one of the other big benefits is at-risk speculation. Say I'm a small fish with a few hardware patents and I'm pretty sure Honeywell is infringing on them. Currently, I need to ask my good-for-what-I-can-afford attorney to have a look at it, then debate whether I have the cash on hand to take the suit, and figure out the economics of sustaining my business while I try to seek damages from Honeywell's wanton disregard for my IP. I have to do all this because I'll likely have to pay as I go unless I have a slam-dunk case, and even then, a lot of my winnings would go to the attorney if they'd foregone payment until verdict. In a loser pays system, there's a greater guarantee of payment if they win -- so it can be beneficial when the possible case looks good on the surface, to do some at risk research to determine its real viability. I can take that case, then, to a larger or more experienced firm because the economics of the win are advantageous to them. Hypothetically, it could help in that second way to level the pitch for the "underdog." As well, knowing I can take my case (or defense) to a larger firm who would be better protected from loss in an at-risk or deferred payment agreement, means that larger corporations will necessarily be dissuaded from the more frivolous or speculative suits they're wont to bring. Even for corporations with large litigation coffers, running a negative balance sheet will get a firm or legal team replaced.

by mr_luc 11y ago

mattlutze 11y ago

Well, in general, loser-pays provides some protection from frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits. Though, it does then put a greater risk perhaps on the little guy if the smaller firm doesn't successfully defend.

sandstrom 11y ago
Except it (mostly) doesn't exist in the US, but does in almost all other democracies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_f...
- mattlutze 11y ago
  Indeed, that was my point in suggesting it as an opportunity for improvement.
mr_luc 11y ago
To make that greater risk concrete, and play Devil's Advocate to my own query by thinking of the societal benefits of the current system: would that make it much riskier to sue, say, Big Tobacco? I understand that the American legal system is a bit unique when it comes to lawsuits, but I'm hampered by not understanding exactly how, and what the positives and negatives of that are.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  Well, the risk comes when you don't have a strong footing for your suit. And I think that's the philosophy behind "loser pays". As I'm thinking about it, one of the other big benefits is at-risk speculation. Say I'm a small fish with a few hardware patents and I'm pretty sure Honeywell is infringing on them. Currently, I need to ask my good-for-what-I-can-afford attorney to have a look at it, then debate whether I have the cash on hand to take the suit, and figure out the economics of sustaining my business while I try to seek damages from Honeywell's wanton disregard for my IP. I have to do all this because I'll likely have to pay as I go unless I have a slam-dunk case, and even then, a lot of my winnings would go to the attorney if they'd foregone payment until verdict. In a loser pays system, there's a greater guarantee of payment if they win -- so it can be beneficial when the possible case looks good on the surface, to do some at risk research to determine its real viability. I can take that case, then, to a larger or more experienced firm because the economics of the win are advantageous to them. Hypothetically, it could help in that second way to level the pitch for the "underdog." As well, knowing I can take my case (or defense) to a larger firm who would be better protected from loss in an at-risk or deferred payment agreement, means that larger corporations will necessarily be dissuaded from the more frivolous or speculative suits they're wont to bring. Even for corporations with large litigation coffers, running a negative balance sheet will get a firm or legal team replaced.