4 ms·

You really can't imagine? What if for example the losing party in a law suit was automatically forced to pay the legal expenses of the winning party? That is ac

You really can't imagine? What if for example the losing party in a law suit was automatically forced to pay the legal expenses of the winning party? That is actually how it works many places outside of the US. It's quite effective at discouraging frivolous lawsuits, and it means that a rich person can't bankrupt a someone by waging a legal attrition war.

qaq 10y ago
So you sue Walmart for 20K on some legitimate grounds but loose to their AAA legal team. Now you are on the hook for 700K of their legal expenses. It's already the case that a large players ability to outspend the small challenger serves as huge deterrent for smaller players to take on the big guys you want to make that deterrent X10 more powerful.
ghaff 10y ago
It also means a non-rich person can't initiate a lawsuit because they'd be ruined if they lost. There are always uncertainties. Truly frivolous lawsuits tend to be dismissed pretty quickly in any case. But there are many reasonable cases where the outcome is nonetheless uncertain.
- adamlett 10y ago
  The way that problem is solved is to grant the judge power to determine what amount is reasonable given the stakes of the case. You obviously don't get to hire 100 lawyers and claim that all of them are necessary for your defense. Really, this is a solved problem elsewhere.
bko 10y ago
Yes, that would help. However, there is still an upfront cost of being able to defend the lawsuit. I imagine the wealthy in the countries that do have this system still have advantages in litigious matters
saint_fiasco 10y ago
In that system Gawker would still be fucked. However a rich person who controls a media company can still discourage lawsuits against him by spending a lot of money on lawyers to defend him. Suppose that rich media-owner slandered you. Even if the lawsuit would not be frivolous, the small possibility that you would lose and have to pay for the rich guy's very expensive lawyers would dissuade you from suing him in the first place.
tamana 10y ago
US has SLAPP for frivolous lawsuits
st3v3r 10y ago
All that would do is cause a lot of poor people to not bring lawsuits that are just, out of fear that another company with more money and lawyers will be able to out lawyer them.
- adamlett 10y ago
  That kind of thinking is caused by living in a system where so many questionable lawsuits are brought before a court that you get used to the idea that what ultimately matters is the quality of each party's legal team. What you are forgetting is that there are many cases where the facts and the law unambiguously favours one of the parties. And in those cases, no amount lawyering up will matter, because judges are not as a rule incompetent. In a system where fewer questionable lawsuits are brought to begin with, the clear cut cases will become more visible, verdicts will be less controversial, and people's faith in the system will rise. To the extent that some cases are not brought, because the facts don't support them well enough, that's a good thing. To the extent that some cases are not brought, because the law is unclear, making a lawsuit risky, that's a problem for law makers to solve.

qaq 10y ago

So you sue Walmart for 20K on some legitimate grounds but loose to their AAA legal team. Now you are on the hook for 700K of their legal expenses. It's already the case that a large players ability to outspend the small challenger serves as huge deterrent for smaller players to take on the big guys you want to make that deterrent X10 more powerful.

ghaff 10y ago

It also means a non-rich person can't initiate a lawsuit because they'd be ruined if they lost. There are always uncertainties. Truly frivolous lawsuits tend to be dismissed pretty quickly in any case. But there are many reasonable cases where the outcome is nonetheless uncertain.

adamlett 10y ago
The way that problem is solved is to grant the judge power to determine what amount is reasonable given the stakes of the case. You obviously don't get to hire 100 lawyers and claim that all of them are necessary for your defense. Really, this is a solved problem elsewhere.

bko 10y ago

Yes, that would help. However, there is still an upfront cost of being able to defend the lawsuit. I imagine the wealthy in the countries that do have this system still have advantages in litigious matters

saint_fiasco 10y ago

In that system Gawker would still be fucked. However a rich person who controls a media company can still discourage lawsuits against him by spending a lot of money on lawyers to defend him. Suppose that rich media-owner slandered you. Even if the lawsuit would not be frivolous, the small possibility that you would lose and have to pay for the rich guy's very expensive lawyers would dissuade you from suing him in the first place.

tamana 10y ago

US has SLAPP for frivolous lawsuits

st3v3r 10y ago

All that would do is cause a lot of poor people to not bring lawsuits that are just, out of fear that another company with more money and lawyers will be able to out lawyer them.

adamlett 10y ago
That kind of thinking is caused by living in a system where so many questionable lawsuits are brought before a court that you get used to the idea that what ultimately matters is the quality of each party's legal team. What you are forgetting is that there are many cases where the facts and the law unambiguously favours one of the parties. And in those cases, no amount lawyering up will matter, because judges are not as a rule incompetent. In a system where fewer questionable lawsuits are brought to begin with, the clear cut cases will become more visible, verdicts will be less controversial, and people's faith in the system will rise. To the extent that some cases are not brought, because the facts don't support them well enough, that's a good thing. To the extent that some cases are not brought, because the law is unclear, making a lawsuit risky, that's a problem for law makers to solve.