4 ms·
Here's the thing. It wasn't the normal people who paid 400k for some lawyers. That was the bank's legal fee. So if you have loser pays, and you're a megacorp
by jbooth 16y ago
Here's the thing. It wasn't the normal people who paid 400k for some lawyers. That was the bank's legal fee.
So if you have loser pays, and you're a megacorp, spending 6-figures defending every lawsuit becomes a great move. Enhances your chances of winning since you're pitting a department of lawyers against whoever the plaintiff could retain, and then assuming your department of lawyers wins, you don't even have to pay for them. Totally broken economics which incentivize overdefending with a huge team of lawyers on every single case.
- Silhouette 16y ago> It wasn't the normal people who paid 400k for some lawyers. That was the bank's legal fee. I realise that it's the big organisation fees we're talking about, but please understand that even here in the UK, it is not automatic that the loser pays, it is just the default result most of the time. Please see my other post. > So if you have loser pays, and you're a megacorp, spending 6-figures defending every lawsuit becomes a great move. Only if you permit unlimited and arbitrarily disproportionate costs. No-one says you have to do that, even if you require or default to the loser paying.
- jbooth 16y agoWell, we're already at a much higher level of detail of implementation than the article even thought of approaching or than most of the supporters of this policy have likely thought through. I'd just like to note that. Further, good luck getting any consumer protection aspects through congress. The only way this happens is as a giveaway to large corporations.