3 ms·

> but rather in frivolous cases, the losing lawyer ought to pay. nobody would take jobs then unless the chance of winning was 99%. The lawyer would also in th

• JediWing 7y ago
  If the finding of frivolity was separate from the verdict, though, it could work. Set the standard as, on a unanimous verdict for the defendant, the jury may decide the case was frivolous on the standard that "no reasonable jury would find the facts as applied to the law to render a verdict in favor of the plantif". It would cause greater scrutiny but cases that have merit would still go forward. Edit: Also the lawyer would not being charged money to work, they would be getting fined for wasting the court and jury's time. That's like saying a contingency lawyer is working without pay: well yeah, but it's factored into the cost of business. There are still chances for high payout but now there is also a much needed downside.
  • lawlessone 7y ago
    >the finding of frivolity was separate from the verdict, though, Oh ok, as long as it isn't applied to every case.
  • lscharen 7y ago
    > If the finding of frivolity was separate from the verdict Isn't this somewhat handled by awarding "token damages" of $1 or similar? The litigating party "won", but it was determined that they were not actually harmed as claimed.
  • mr__y 7y ago
    >If the finding of frivolity was separate from the verdict this on the other hand further increases costs of those frivolous cases requiring a second trial to test frivolousness of the case
    • JediWing 7y ago
      I would think this could be simply another (probably quick) round of deliberations by the jury, not a whole other trial.
  • papln 7y ago
    That's how it works today. A party can claim legal expenses.