4 ms·

If both parties have enough money to litigate, the relative wealth might not matter as much. But if one of the parties cannot afford to litigate, they are scre

If both parties have enough money to litigate, the relative wealth might not matter as much. But if one of the parties cannot afford to litigate, they are screwed. Considering that 40% of Americans can't even afford a $400 unexpected expense[0], it means most people are extremely vulnerable to legal liability, as they would barely be able to afford maybe 1 hour of consulting with a lawyer. My guess is that you've mostly dealt with people and companies that had the money to go through the legal system. Most people don't. Also, in my experience, it is very (extremely?) rare to find a lawyer that will work on a contingency basis, especially on short notice. So unless you know it's coming, and you've already spent the time to interview a bunch of lawyers (most of which are not even going to give you the time of day without having an open case) ahead of time, then you'll most likely be out of luck when you get served and have 30 days to respond (and if you don't respond they get a default judgement against you). You just can't deny that the (American) legal system is, in practice, based on money and resources, rather than on justice and fairness. 0: https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-americans-struggle-cover-400-emergency-expense-federal/story?id=63253846 https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-americans-struggle-cover-400-em...

indymike 7y ago
Stereotypes are horrible and often used as an substitute for reason. Lawyers will take a solid case on contingency especially against "deep pockets". People have families and friends. People can change their spending habits. Courts exist to bring disputes to a just resolution. The whole meme that justice is only for the rich and average people can't fend for themselves is intellectually lazy and relies on generalization.
- ta1234567890 7y ago
  Well, my personal experience is in direct opposition to what you are exposing here. I've been dealing with a vindictive plaintiff for a few years now. No lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis, especially against a plaintiff with "deep pockets", if there's no money to be made (which is usually the case when you are on the defending side). Let me illustrate, let's say a company gets a loan from a creditor, then the company fails to pay, the creditor sues, the company doesn't have the money to pay. At this point lawyers see that there's no money to be made and will rarely touch the case. The defendant is out of luck and will most likely have to file for bankruptcy (which at the minimum will cost $10-15k in legal fees, so it might not even be an option). As long as the creditor wants to keep spending money, they can keep going after the company, its founders and directors. Most lawyers will say that it doesn't make sense because the creditor is very unlikely to recover anything. But if the creditor still wants to spend the money, the defendants will be forced to keep paying to defend themselves for as long as the creditor attacks them, even if they didn't do anything wrong or ilegal and they prevail in the end. So most lawyers will recommend to settle and pay the creditor, because you'll have to spend about $100k defending yourself anyway, hence you might as well pay that in a settlement and not go through trial. Lawyers will also note that 90%+ of cases settle. In the end the company officials/founders might unfairly pay a bunch of money to someone, just so they can get rid of them. Then, even after the defendants pay, everyone might have lost a bunch of money and not found any justice whatsoever. Now, regardless of the example above. It costs about $5k to file a lawsuit and about $50-150k to go through with it. How many people have the means to pay for that? I'd say very few.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    People can be awful, I learned that at my first customer service job. However, from 40,000 feet, one might listen to your story and think, ok, you took money from someone and didn't give it back, and now you're being inconvenienced and harassed, and this is supposed to be a major societal problem? What about people that get sent to prison for stealing the same or less money? Or a candy bar? To be sure, I can imagine being in the same place, and I can imagine dealing with a crazy/obsessive litigant and being very unhappy about it. But if it were me, I wouldn't expect people to sympathize or agree that it's a problem with society.
    - ta1234567890 7y ago
      The problem with society is not that people can be sued for a loan. The problem with the legal system is that if you get sued, for pretty much anything, you'll need to spend several thousands of dollars, regardless if you are actually liable or not. And if you want to sue someone, it will cost you several thousand too. 40% of people in the US cannot afford a $400 unexpected expense. That means that a huge portion of the population, is extremely susceptible to any legal issues, as they won't be able to properly use the legal system to fairly represent them and seek proper justice/relief. Ie. If those people get sued, they'll most likely not be able to afford defending the lawsuit - or if someone did something to them, they won't have the money to sue them. A proper legal system should not discriminate by level of wealth and should represent everyone equally.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        "40% of people in the US cannot afford a $400 unexpected expense" It's my understanding that is a bullshit statistic as I said in another comment. I can't afford an unexpected expense of $400 right now, in the sense that if I really have to pay that bill immediately, I'm going to put it on a credit card. That doesn't make me financially strained.
perl4ever 7y ago
"Considering that 40% of Americans can't even afford a $400 unexpected expense" That's based on the idea that people who put a random $400 expense on a credit card that they pay off next month "can't afford" it.

indymike 7y ago

Stereotypes are horrible and often used as an substitute for reason. Lawyers will take a solid case on contingency especially against "deep pockets". People have families and friends. People can change their spending habits. Courts exist to bring disputes to a just resolution. The whole meme that justice is only for the rich and average people can't fend for themselves is intellectually lazy and relies on generalization.

ta1234567890 7y ago
Well, my personal experience is in direct opposition to what you are exposing here. I've been dealing with a vindictive plaintiff for a few years now. No lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis, especially against a plaintiff with "deep pockets", if there's no money to be made (which is usually the case when you are on the defending side). Let me illustrate, let's say a company gets a loan from a creditor, then the company fails to pay, the creditor sues, the company doesn't have the money to pay. At this point lawyers see that there's no money to be made and will rarely touch the case. The defendant is out of luck and will most likely have to file for bankruptcy (which at the minimum will cost $10-15k in legal fees, so it might not even be an option). As long as the creditor wants to keep spending money, they can keep going after the company, its founders and directors. Most lawyers will say that it doesn't make sense because the creditor is very unlikely to recover anything. But if the creditor still wants to spend the money, the defendants will be forced to keep paying to defend themselves for as long as the creditor attacks them, even if they didn't do anything wrong or ilegal and they prevail in the end. So most lawyers will recommend to settle and pay the creditor, because you'll have to spend about $100k defending yourself anyway, hence you might as well pay that in a settlement and not go through trial. Lawyers will also note that 90%+ of cases settle. In the end the company officials/founders might unfairly pay a bunch of money to someone, just so they can get rid of them. Then, even after the defendants pay, everyone might have lost a bunch of money and not found any justice whatsoever. Now, regardless of the example above. It costs about $5k to file a lawsuit and about $50-150k to go through with it. How many people have the means to pay for that? I'd say very few.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  People can be awful, I learned that at my first customer service job. However, from 40,000 feet, one might listen to your story and think, ok, you took money from someone and didn't give it back, and now you're being inconvenienced and harassed, and this is supposed to be a major societal problem? What about people that get sent to prison for stealing the same or less money? Or a candy bar? To be sure, I can imagine being in the same place, and I can imagine dealing with a crazy/obsessive litigant and being very unhappy about it. But if it were me, I wouldn't expect people to sympathize or agree that it's a problem with society.
  - ta1234567890 7y ago
    The problem with society is not that people can be sued for a loan. The problem with the legal system is that if you get sued, for pretty much anything, you'll need to spend several thousands of dollars, regardless if you are actually liable or not. And if you want to sue someone, it will cost you several thousand too. 40% of people in the US cannot afford a $400 unexpected expense. That means that a huge portion of the population, is extremely susceptible to any legal issues, as they won't be able to properly use the legal system to fairly represent them and seek proper justice/relief. Ie. If those people get sued, they'll most likely not be able to afford defending the lawsuit - or if someone did something to them, they won't have the money to sue them. A proper legal system should not discriminate by level of wealth and should represent everyone equally.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      "40% of people in the US cannot afford a $400 unexpected expense" It's my understanding that is a bullshit statistic as I said in another comment. I can't afford an unexpected expense of $400 right now, in the sense that if I really have to pay that bill immediately, I'm going to put it on a credit card. That doesn't make me financially strained.

perl4ever 7y ago

"Considering that 40% of Americans can't even afford a $400 unexpected expense" That's based on the idea that people who put a random $400 expense on a credit card that they pay off next month "can't afford" it.