3 ms·

Yes, I believe our system should be amended to ensure that roughly equal resources are available to both parties. The court should require an accounting of all

Yes, I believe our system should be amended to ensure that roughly equal resources are available to both parties. The court should require an accounting of all legal fees to be filed. In certain cases, the wealthier party to the litigation should be obliged to pay an amount of money equal to their own expenditures on legal fees into a trust run by the court, which would ensure the less-wealthy party gets equally-solid representation and would prevent a lot of the bullying-by-lawsuit that goes on. Far fewer ridiculous bluffs will come out of international firms like Skadden or MTO when their client knows that they're also going to need to forward that $1,000/hr to the party they're threatening. Would Donald Trump have sued the journalist who published a piece estimating his true net worth if this was in place?

CM30 10y ago
How about a differet system? Both parties pay into a pot based on how much money they have. Then the only legal advice can they take is set by random rather than by anyone's choice, out of roughly equal quality legal teams paid for by the money from the pot? Just make it so money cannot buy better lawyers or legal advice, and the court system would be made far fairer to everyone.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  The problem is that specific issues need specific expertise. The client should have the right to pick his/her attorney if he has the resources. This keeps attorneys interested in keeping a competitive skillset and a good track record. It's too important to leave to chance. You really need an attorney who understands the subject matter if you want a good outcome. We just need to equalize the buying power so that one side is not deprived of the ability to obtain equal representation.
zeveb 10y ago
> In certain cases, the wealthier party to the litigation should be obliged to pay an amount of money equal to their own expenditures on legal fees into a trust run by the court, which would ensure the less-wealthy party gets equally-solid representation and would prevent a lot of the bullying-by-lawsuit that goes on. Sounds like that could be gamed by lawyers to turn into a full-employment-for-lawyers act.

CM30 10y ago

How about a differet system? Both parties pay into a pot based on how much money they have. Then the only legal advice can they take is set by random rather than by anyone's choice, out of roughly equal quality legal teams paid for by the money from the pot? Just make it so money cannot buy better lawyers or legal advice, and the court system would be made far fairer to everyone.

cookiecaper 10y ago
The problem is that specific issues need specific expertise. The client should have the right to pick his/her attorney if he has the resources. This keeps attorneys interested in keeping a competitive skillset and a good track record. It's too important to leave to chance. You really need an attorney who understands the subject matter if you want a good outcome. We just need to equalize the buying power so that one side is not deprived of the ability to obtain equal representation.

zeveb 10y ago

> In certain cases, the wealthier party to the litigation should be obliged to pay an amount of money equal to their own expenditures on legal fees into a trust run by the court, which would ensure the less-wealthy party gets equally-solid representation and would prevent a lot of the bullying-by-lawsuit that goes on. Sounds like that could be gamed by lawyers to turn into a full-employment-for-lawyers act.