6 ms·

If loser pays, poor people would be discouraged from even attempting to sue rich people. Even if the poor person has a legitimate claim, there is a small proba

If loser pays, poor people would be discouraged from even attempting to sue rich people. Even if the poor person has a legitimate claim, there is a small probability that the rich person will win with their superior lawyers and the poor person will be bankrupted by the legal fees. Since they will know that from the beginning, they won't sue in the first place.

kefka 10y ago
It could be done that it is not loser pays by default. Instead, if a case is won, and the case was deemed frivolous, only then could loser-pays be enacted. But it still doesn't solve the idea that the "Law is more equal the more money you have." .
- brianwawok 10y ago
  This is essentially how it works today, from my understanding. If you lose and your suit was 100% without merrit, you can be sued for lawyer fees. From what I understand, the problem is the bar for meritless is very very very high. Not sure how you legislate that. I think most lawsuits are meritless. A lawyer may have a very different opinion.
  - igravious 10y ago
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” A lawyer's salary depends on him not having the opinion that most lawsuits are meritless.
merpnderp 10y ago
This only favors rich people when the case is questionable. So it slightly favors them. The current situation massively favors rich people.
jules 10y ago
This comes up every single time, but it remains false. Loser pays does not mean that the loser has to pay a gigantic amount for the opponent's extremely expensive lawyers. Loser pays means that the judge determines what is a reasonable amount for the legal fees. Often the amount you have to pay for your opponent's lawyers is limited to what you paid for your own. So unless you hire extremely expensive lawyers yourself, you won't have to pay a huge amount if you lose. If a party wants a much more expensive defence they have to pay for that extra cost regardless of whether they win. Almost every country except the United States uses this system.
- distances 10y ago
  Indeed. I'm living in a "loser pays" country, and it's definitely not a limitless tap. Judges quite often settle the loser's extra costs down to a more reasonable number.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Curious, what if the reasonable number is more than the lower could possibly pay? As in, they simply do not have the resources to pay it?
    - distances 10y ago
      I'd say it's just a debt as any other then. Not directly related, but personal bankruptcies aren't a thing here. If a debt can't be paid, it goes to recovery proceedings, and will stay like that until it expires in (generally) 15-25 years.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      In some US jurisdictions you will eventually be sent to jail for failure to pay court fees.
- golergka 10y ago
  > judge determines what is a reasonable amount for the legal fees That just gives financial unsupervised power to the judge, without any clear definition of involved terms. Which doesn't really sound like a good idea.
codeflo 10y ago
A small probability of a high (but known) fee is something that can in principle be insured against, no?
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  And then insurance companies will become the toll collecting gate-keepers of yet another domain. This time the entire judicial system.
cortesoft 10y ago
How would a poor person be able to sue now? They don't have the money to hire a good lawyer. If the lawyer is working on contingency, then they are only going to take cases they are pretty sure they are going to win anyway, so they will still take cases where 'loser pays'. Granted, a contingency lawyer is probably going to need a higher guarantee of victory in a 'loser pays' system in order to agree to the case, but I don't think that would be a HUGE factor.

kefka 10y ago

It could be done that it is not loser pays by default. Instead, if a case is won, and the case was deemed frivolous, only then could loser-pays be enacted. But it still doesn't solve the idea that the "Law is more equal the more money you have." .

brianwawok 10y ago
This is essentially how it works today, from my understanding. If you lose and your suit was 100% without merrit, you can be sued for lawyer fees. From what I understand, the problem is the bar for meritless is very very very high. Not sure how you legislate that. I think most lawsuits are meritless. A lawyer may have a very different opinion.
- igravious 10y ago
  “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” A lawyer's salary depends on him not having the opinion that most lawsuits are meritless.

merpnderp 10y ago

This only favors rich people when the case is questionable. So it slightly favors them. The current situation massively favors rich people.

jules 10y ago

This comes up every single time, but it remains false. Loser pays does not mean that the loser has to pay a gigantic amount for the opponent's extremely expensive lawyers. Loser pays means that the judge determines what is a reasonable amount for the legal fees. Often the amount you have to pay for your opponent's lawyers is limited to what you paid for your own. So unless you hire extremely expensive lawyers yourself, you won't have to pay a huge amount if you lose. If a party wants a much more expensive defence they have to pay for that extra cost regardless of whether they win. Almost every country except the United States uses this system.

distances 10y ago
Indeed. I'm living in a "loser pays" country, and it's definitely not a limitless tap. Judges quite often settle the loser's extra costs down to a more reasonable number.
- talmand 10y ago
  Curious, what if the reasonable number is more than the lower could possibly pay? As in, they simply do not have the resources to pay it?
  - distances 10y ago
    I'd say it's just a debt as any other then. Not directly related, but personal bankruptcies aren't a thing here. If a debt can't be paid, it goes to recovery proceedings, and will stay like that until it expires in (generally) 15-25 years.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    In some US jurisdictions you will eventually be sent to jail for failure to pay court fees.
golergka 10y ago
> judge determines what is a reasonable amount for the legal fees That just gives financial unsupervised power to the judge, without any clear definition of involved terms. Which doesn't really sound like a good idea.

codeflo 10y ago

A small probability of a high (but known) fee is something that can in principle be insured against, no?

marcosdumay 10y ago
And then insurance companies will become the toll collecting gate-keepers of yet another domain. This time the entire judicial system.

cortesoft 10y ago

How would a poor person be able to sue now? They don't have the money to hire a good lawyer. If the lawyer is working on contingency, then they are only going to take cases they are pretty sure they are going to win anyway, so they will still take cases where 'loser pays'. Granted, a contingency lawyer is probably going to need a higher guarantee of victory in a 'loser pays' system in order to agree to the case, but I don't think that would be a HUGE factor.