4 ms·

This kind of naïveté about the legal system is dangerous. I know someone who spent 4 years of his life in court in a case where he was obviously in the right Bu

by Lewton 10y ago

This kind of naïveté about the legal system is dangerous. I know someone who spent 4 years of his life in court in a case where he was obviously in the right But every time he won, it was escalated to a higher court and it ended up costing him several magnitudes more than the sum the case was about ($10k, yes, seriously) Just the opportunity cost lost due to spending 4 years in litigation is insane in itself This was in Denmark, not the us. But if someone has it out for you, in any court system, they can make your life hell And the Danish system is in many ways a lot saner than the us one anyway

alkonaut 10y ago
Presumably, in most systems, the loser pays all (legal) costs for both sides at least.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Not in the US
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    That gives a larger/richer entity the power to use litigation as threat/bullying only by having deeper pockets. It means there is a legal advantage of having more money. That's insane. As I usually say re the US "How is THIS not an issue in the election?" If I was reasonably sure I had the law on my side I'd dare go to court against an entity of any size, relying on the convention that the loser pays, and the rulings are nearly always in favor of an employee.
    - misterhtmlcss 10y ago
      Ever wonder why Apple, Microsoft and Google keep billions of dollars on hand for no reason? Now you don't need to wonder.
    - yongjik 10y ago
      If you have 95% chance of winning a lawsuit, and if the company you sue can afford to spend $10M on it, loser-pays-all means you have 5% chance of going bankrupt (unless you have >$10M in your account). I don't think it's any more fair than the current US system.
      - alkonaut 10y ago
        First of all most would be better chance than 95% in favor of the employee in almost all cases like this, and second even $1M would not be considered reasonable costs (they can spend what they want but the court won't rule their costs to be paid by the other party if they aren't reasonable in comparison to the case itself). I'd most likely face a less than 1% risk of paying less than $100k, even if the other party is a global mega corp. Also, the tech workers union I'm in can step in to back legal fees.
- Lewton 10y ago
  the cost involved was not in legal costs Time spent preparing (four years, preparing for three different court cases in the three different circuits) high paying job offers that fell through because of the uncertainty involved Living under constant stress for four years straight I wouldn't even dare to put a number on this
- Lewton 10y ago
  the cost involved was not in legal costs Time spent preparing (four years, preparing for three different court cases in the three different circuits) high paying job offers that fell through because of the uncertainty involved Living under constant stress for four years straight I wouldn't even dare to put a number on this

by Lewton 10y ago

alkonaut 10y ago

Presumably, in most systems, the loser pays all (legal) costs for both sides at least.

brianwawok 10y ago
Not in the US
- alkonaut 10y ago
  That gives a larger/richer entity the power to use litigation as threat/bullying only by having deeper pockets. It means there is a legal advantage of having more money. That's insane. As I usually say re the US "How is THIS not an issue in the election?" If I was reasonably sure I had the law on my side I'd dare go to court against an entity of any size, relying on the convention that the loser pays, and the rulings are nearly always in favor of an employee.
  - misterhtmlcss 10y ago
    Ever wonder why Apple, Microsoft and Google keep billions of dollars on hand for no reason? Now you don't need to wonder.
  - yongjik 10y ago
    If you have 95% chance of winning a lawsuit, and if the company you sue can afford to spend $10M on it, loser-pays-all means you have 5% chance of going bankrupt (unless you have >$10M in your account). I don't think it's any more fair than the current US system.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      First of all most would be better chance than 95% in favor of the employee in almost all cases like this, and second even $1M would not be considered reasonable costs (they can spend what they want but the court won't rule their costs to be paid by the other party if they aren't reasonable in comparison to the case itself). I'd most likely face a less than 1% risk of paying less than $100k, even if the other party is a global mega corp. Also, the tech workers union I'm in can step in to back legal fees.
Lewton 10y ago
the cost involved was not in legal costs Time spent preparing (four years, preparing for three different court cases in the three different circuits) high paying job offers that fell through because of the uncertainty involved Living under constant stress for four years straight I wouldn't even dare to put a number on this
Lewton 10y ago
the cost involved was not in legal costs Time spent preparing (four years, preparing for three different court cases in the three different circuits) high paying job offers that fell through because of the uncertainty involved Living under constant stress for four years straight I wouldn't even dare to put a number on this