3 ms·

While certainly catastrophic, this is anecdotal at best, and similar anecdotes can be found for the companies with deep pockets using their lawyers to suck indi

While certainly catastrophic, this is anecdotal at best, and similar anecdotes can be found for the companies with deep pockets using their lawyers to suck individuals dry. Unfortunately, these are the scare-type comments that keep any reform from happening. If the US became a less litigious country as a result of loser-pay, then the system would be a benefit, IMO. The legal tax required to do business in the US is too high.

joe_the_user 16y ago
"this is anecdotal at best" Considering someone did just tell the anecdote, I'd say this is anecdotal at the very least. I've read about various abuses revolving around the Texas court system requireing the bond-posting Grellas mentioned. But I'm too tired to google-up any link, so I've leave it "anecdotal" too. The "legal tax" in the US is high but lowering it is hard when so many parties want to spin an advantage out of said lowering.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  I think it's anecdotal at best because it's a lawyer (I believe) relating it, in an issue that clearly pits lawyers against everyone else in terms of who gains and loses financially from this change. And it doesn't actually apply to loser pays, but some random contract provision within a different system. You don't even have to assume malice, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
  - jbooth 16y ago
    This issue is very much not about pitting lawyers vs everyone else. It's about pitting people/corporations likely to be sued against people/corporations who might sue someday.
sgift 16y ago
> If the US became a less litigious country as a result of loser-pay, then the system would be a benefit, IMO. The legal tax required to do business in the US is too high. To put it the other way around: Loser-Pay makes it easier for companies to screw people over. Which is exactly what happens here in Germany, where companies can pull shady tricks without fear of getting sued - the risk of having to pay all the fees is too high for the everyman. Loser-pay sounds good in theory, but sucks in practice.
- Calamitous 16y ago
  > Loser-Pay makes it easier for companies to screw people over. And this is not the case now?
  - camiller 16y ago
    Correct, now it is only easy, loser pays makes it ridiculously easy.
jbooth 16y ago
Anecdotal at best, sure, but did you read the linked article? "Ok so some courts in europe use this procedure. I could talk about it, explain how it's viewed and how it works in those societies, perhaps elucidate on the differences in legal systems and social contract between the US and europe... orrrrrrrrr I could note some liberal nobody's heard of supported it once and call current day liberals hypocrites even though most of them have never even put thought into this concept. Oh, and beefeaters! Good old England."

joe_the_user 16y ago

"this is anecdotal at best" Considering someone did just tell the anecdote, I'd say this is anecdotal at the very least. I've read about various abuses revolving around the Texas court system requireing the bond-posting Grellas mentioned. But I'm too tired to google-up any link, so I've leave it "anecdotal" too. The "legal tax" in the US is high but lowering it is hard when so many parties want to spin an advantage out of said lowering.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
I think it's anecdotal at best because it's a lawyer (I believe) relating it, in an issue that clearly pits lawyers against everyone else in terms of who gains and loses financially from this change. And it doesn't actually apply to loser pays, but some random contract provision within a different system. You don't even have to assume malice, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
- jbooth 16y ago
  This issue is very much not about pitting lawyers vs everyone else. It's about pitting people/corporations likely to be sued against people/corporations who might sue someday.

sgift 16y ago

> If the US became a less litigious country as a result of loser-pay, then the system would be a benefit, IMO. The legal tax required to do business in the US is too high. To put it the other way around: Loser-Pay makes it easier for companies to screw people over. Which is exactly what happens here in Germany, where companies can pull shady tricks without fear of getting sued - the risk of having to pay all the fees is too high for the everyman. Loser-pay sounds good in theory, but sucks in practice.

Calamitous 16y ago
> Loser-Pay makes it easier for companies to screw people over. And this is not the case now?
- camiller 16y ago
  Correct, now it is only easy, loser pays makes it ridiculously easy.

jbooth 16y ago

Anecdotal at best, sure, but did you read the linked article? "Ok so some courts in europe use this procedure. I could talk about it, explain how it's viewed and how it works in those societies, perhaps elucidate on the differences in legal systems and social contract between the US and europe... orrrrrrrrr I could note some liberal nobody's heard of supported it once and call current day liberals hypocrites even though most of them have never even put thought into this concept. Oh, and beefeaters! Good old England."