3 ms·
Right, that's a potential downside. Makes me think the personal injury attorneys would be more likely sue big fish in an attempt to win the legal lottery. Of
by drblast 16y ago
Right, that's a potential downside. Makes me think the personal injury attorneys would be more likely sue big fish in an attempt to win the legal lottery.
Of course, the smart company has a defense against this tactic: only use the funds provided by the opponent. This would eventually bankrupt the frivolous lawsuit trolls, since it would cost them real money to continue the case at the risk of losing it all while costing the defendant nothing.
The more I think about it, the more this seems like a system that provides an incentive to only sue when you have a legitimate claim. Anything else wouldn't be worth the risk for either side.
- notahacker 16y agoBut if I'm a troll representing myself I don't spend any money (only time, which I don't bill for if I'm a non-practising entity) in filing lawsuits claiming $10million in damages On the other hand BigCorp which stands to lose a claimed $10m in the unlikely event of losing the suit needs to retain the services of a lawyer, which will probably not be a cheap one as they have a lot more at stake. So BigCorp will certainly need to put enough money into the pot to cover their own expenses, and the troll will pocket half of that even if the case gets thrown out.
- drblast 16y agoThat would necessitate some sort of minimum wage law for people doing legal work. A solvable problem, I think. If I have to pay myself $50 an hour to represent my cause, it only hurts me if my cause isn't legitimate. Or maybe set some threshold for legal expenses; the system could work as it does now up to a maximum, then a pay pool is implemented.