5 ms·

One tantalizing improvement would be if legal fees were pooled and split evenly between sides, so long as the initial case had reasonable standing.

by jdashg 6y ago

GuardianCaveman 6y ago
This seems like it would be the same outcome. One rich and one poor and split it evenly and it will always end badly for the poor person even if they win.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  I think the idea is that the required contribution is means tested with assistance where appropriate, and that both mandatory and optional excess contributions must be shared.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  There are variants of this that could work much better than the current system used in most western nations. Today, if I can spend $1K on legal fees and want to sue someone with a $1M budget, I'll just lose. To compete with that, I'd have to pony up $1M up front and hope I win to recoup my costs afterwards. The alternative model is this: Step 1) A lawsuit is filed Step 2) Each party puts double the money they are willing to spend into the "pot". So if you have a $1M budget, you have to put $2M in. The counter-party willing to spend only $1K puts $2K in. Step 3) The court takes the available funds from the pot evenly to the two participants, giving each one the same amount as the larger "willing to pay" amount specified. So in this example: The poor guy seeking justice spends gets a refund of $1K (spending a net of $1K) and his lawyers receive $1M from the pot. The rich arsehole also gets $1K back and his lawyers get $1M from the pot. I'm not saying this is a perfect system, but it would allow poor people to sue rich people and not be at a massive disadvantage. Which is why nothing like this has any chance of happening.
  - ABCLAW 6y ago
    No, it would let rich people just create confusing business documentation then bid 0 dollars and choke out every case at the discovery stage. No thanks.
  - ars 6y ago
    Why would you bid any amount at all? I don't understand why the rich person would be incentivized to bid. Let both bid zero and skip the lawyers. And wouldn't this be a great way for lawyers to earn lots of fees by encouraging poor people to sue rich people. Much simpler is simply get rid of personal lawyers. The adversarial model is not the only option. You can do like small claims court and have the judge act as a truth finder. The court could hire a lawyer if the judge feels that assistance is needed (for complex cases).
    - jdashg 6y ago
      Today, the poor side must bear (or float) the cost of their lawyer, but the rich side has unbounded ability to fight it. Under a pooled system, you could ante in 10k and if the opposition needs more money to defend themselves than 5k, they have to give you monetary ammunition as well! This prevents being nuked into settlement by being outspent, despite an otherwise sound claim. (Which definitely happens right now)
  - viking1066 6y ago
    This is how the divorce lawsuit in America works. Typically a husband must pay a high powered lawyer for his wife, if his salary is higher.
forgotmysn 6y ago
wouldnt corps just hire armies of lawyers and then demand that the other party cover half the cost?
- lend000 6y ago
  My interpretation is that for every dollar each side spends on legal fees related to a case, they provide some amount (let's say $0.50) to an escrow account that will be given to the opposition (separate from any awards in the ruling) if they win the case to refund their expenses, or returned to the spender if not. Some potential difficulties could arise in separating legal fees related to a case from general legal work being done by lawyers on retainer. Furthermore, this would still require both sides to front the money for the case, although if a lawyer thought they had a strong case, they could take the case on incentive for a poor client.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  I believe what hes saying is this: Bigcorp wants to spend 200k on lawyers, i want to spend 5000. so we combine them to be 205k, and we each get 102500$ to spend on lawyers. It would be an interesting situation though since the person spending less isn't really incentivized to spend anything at all and instead leach of the other.
  - sosborn 6y ago
    At that point though, bigcorp might look at the case say “F-it, let’s move on with our lives.”

One tantalizing improvement would be if legal fees were pooled and split evenly between sides, so long as the initial case had reasonable standing.

by jdashg 6y ago

One tantalizing improvement would be if legal fees were pooled and split evenly between sides, so long as the initial case had reasonable standing.

GuardianCaveman 6y ago

This seems like it would be the same outcome. One rich and one poor and split it evenly and it will always end badly for the poor person even if they win.

nitrogen 6y ago
I think the idea is that the required contribution is means tested with assistance where appropriate, and that both mandatory and optional excess contributions must be shared.
jiggawatts 6y ago
There are variants of this that could work much better than the current system used in most western nations. Today, if I can spend $1K on legal fees and want to sue someone with a $1M budget, I'll just lose. To compete with that, I'd have to pony up $1M up front and hope I win to recoup my costs afterwards. The alternative model is this: Step 1) A lawsuit is filed Step 2) Each party puts double the money they are willing to spend into the "pot". So if you have a $1M budget, you have to put $2M in. The counter-party willing to spend only $1K puts $2K in. Step 3) The court takes the available funds from the pot evenly to the two participants, giving each one the same amount as the larger "willing to pay" amount specified. So in this example: The poor guy seeking justice spends gets a refund of $1K (spending a net of $1K) and his lawyers receive $1M from the pot. The rich arsehole also gets $1K back and his lawyers get $1M from the pot. I'm not saying this is a perfect system, but it would allow poor people to sue rich people and not be at a massive disadvantage. Which is why nothing like this has any chance of happening.
- ABCLAW 6y ago
  No, it would let rich people just create confusing business documentation then bid 0 dollars and choke out every case at the discovery stage. No thanks.
- ars 6y ago
  Why would you bid any amount at all? I don't understand why the rich person would be incentivized to bid. Let both bid zero and skip the lawyers. And wouldn't this be a great way for lawyers to earn lots of fees by encouraging poor people to sue rich people. Much simpler is simply get rid of personal lawyers. The adversarial model is not the only option. You can do like small claims court and have the judge act as a truth finder. The court could hire a lawyer if the judge feels that assistance is needed (for complex cases).
  - jdashg 6y ago
    Today, the poor side must bear (or float) the cost of their lawyer, but the rich side has unbounded ability to fight it. Under a pooled system, you could ante in 10k and if the opposition needs more money to defend themselves than 5k, they have to give you monetary ammunition as well! This prevents being nuked into settlement by being outspent, despite an otherwise sound claim. (Which definitely happens right now)
- viking1066 6y ago
  This is how the divorce lawsuit in America works. Typically a husband must pay a high powered lawyer for his wife, if his salary is higher.

forgotmysn 6y ago

wouldnt corps just hire armies of lawyers and then demand that the other party cover half the cost?

lend000 6y ago
My interpretation is that for every dollar each side spends on legal fees related to a case, they provide some amount (let's say $0.50) to an escrow account that will be given to the opposition (separate from any awards in the ruling) if they win the case to refund their expenses, or returned to the spender if not. Some potential difficulties could arise in separating legal fees related to a case from general legal work being done by lawyers on retainer. Furthermore, this would still require both sides to front the money for the case, although if a lawyer thought they had a strong case, they could take the case on incentive for a poor client.
thatguy0900 6y ago
I believe what hes saying is this: Bigcorp wants to spend 200k on lawyers, i want to spend 5000. so we combine them to be 205k, and we each get 102500$ to spend on lawyers. It would be an interesting situation though since the person spending less isn't really incentivized to spend anything at all and instead leach of the other.
- sosborn 6y ago
  At that point though, bigcorp might look at the case say “F-it, let’s move on with our lives.”