7 ms·

That is because in USA you pay your lawyers. In other countries, if you loose, you have to pay the lawyers of the other part.

ghaff 6y ago
I doubt that is universally true. In the US, a court can award court costs and legal fees to the winning party but they're unlikely to do so unless the case is clearly frivolous and harassing. Which isn't unreasonable because otherwise individuals could basically never afford to take on the risk of suing a company because, were they to lose, they'd be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
- SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
  - ghaff 6y ago
    However, you do have things like anti-SLAPP laws so it's not universal. ADDED: And as someone else noted, litigants can recover legal fees in other cases where one party has behaved unreasonably or in bad faith.
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  My wife is a lawyer and has filed many cases and recovered attorney's fees for her client. The court system is busy and not very sympathetic to parties that waste the courts time. You need to have an actual dispute that needs the court system to resolve. If a business is stonewalling you and rebuffing you at every reasonable attempt to resolve an issue, you are highly likely to get your costs paid for, especially if that business has no leg to stand on. If your initial complaint documents page after page of your attempts to solve the problem outside of the court system, the judge is probably going to be extremely unforgiving to the other side.
yndoendo 6y ago
This simple change in the USA legal system would benefit a lot of people. Prevent frivolous lawsuits. Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through. and help end SLAPP. Just another example where the USA needs improvement and is not the best in the world.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through. The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
  - preommr 6y ago
    > bankruptcy-level legal fees Which is a risk worth taking if someone is suing for the right reasons and it's a once in a decade matter of major importance. That or they're fairly sure they'll win the case.
  - lazulicurio 6y ago
    > Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose. The simple[1] solution to that would be “loser pays if they spent more”. Which might seem odd at first glance (why punish the loser even more?), but would align the incentives in the right direction. [1] Read: I haven't put much thought into ways this could be abused
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      How about the loser pays at most as much as they have spent? (Not sure how all this would be accounted for, but...) If you spend a ginormous amount of money you already have the advantage of having better representation, no need to add a fear factor into it. I assume there is some cap on the sum people pay even now though?
KJLJon 6y ago
I would assume if your a small firm, you will still worry about the risk of losing and needing to pay your lawyers. In USA I thought you could counter sue for your lawyer fees if you win? Is that not true?
- KJLJon 6y ago
  @ghaff response answered my question.
- ghaff 6y ago
  My understanding is that you can. (Again, you can sue for anything.) But if the original suit was more or less a reasonable dispute, you generally won't win--and now you'll be out even more money.
shultays 6y ago
Even if big company is going to lose, that is nothing for them and they can play the game forever and drag the courts while you are trying everything to pay for court costs, even if you are almost sure you will get them back
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
It would be even better if the costs were a percentage of your income. You have 1B income, well it is going to cost you 5%. You earn 20k? You will pay 1% of this. Why the difference? Because out of these 20k, you maybe need 15 to live. For a 1B company, the "need to live" is probably much lower. This is similar to how income tax brackets work in Europe.
WCityMike 6y ago
That's not entirely accurate. It's not uncommon to see "prevailing party pays legal fees" in American contracts.

ghaff 6y ago

I doubt that is universally true. In the US, a court can award court costs and legal fees to the winning party but they're unlikely to do so unless the case is clearly frivolous and harassing. Which isn't unreasonable because otherwise individuals could basically never afford to take on the risk of suing a company because, were they to lose, they'd be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
- ghaff 6y ago
  However, you do have things like anti-SLAPP laws so it's not universal. ADDED: And as someone else noted, litigants can recover legal fees in other cases where one party has behaved unreasonably or in bad faith.
OldHand2018 6y ago
My wife is a lawyer and has filed many cases and recovered attorney's fees for her client. The court system is busy and not very sympathetic to parties that waste the courts time. You need to have an actual dispute that needs the court system to resolve. If a business is stonewalling you and rebuffing you at every reasonable attempt to resolve an issue, you are highly likely to get your costs paid for, especially if that business has no leg to stand on. If your initial complaint documents page after page of your attempts to solve the problem outside of the court system, the judge is probably going to be extremely unforgiving to the other side.

yndoendo 6y ago

This simple change in the USA legal system would benefit a lot of people. Prevent frivolous lawsuits. Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through. and help end SLAPP. Just another example where the USA needs improvement and is not the best in the world.

ghaff 6y ago
>Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through. The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
- preommr 6y ago
  > bankruptcy-level legal fees Which is a risk worth taking if someone is suing for the right reasons and it's a once in a decade matter of major importance. That or they're fairly sure they'll win the case.
- lazulicurio 6y ago
  > Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose. The simple[1] solution to that would be “loser pays if they spent more”. Which might seem odd at first glance (why punish the loser even more?), but would align the incentives in the right direction. [1] Read: I haven't put much thought into ways this could be abused
  - yoz-y 6y ago
    How about the loser pays at most as much as they have spent? (Not sure how all this would be accounted for, but...) If you spend a ginormous amount of money you already have the advantage of having better representation, no need to add a fear factor into it. I assume there is some cap on the sum people pay even now though?

KJLJon 6y ago

I would assume if your a small firm, you will still worry about the risk of losing and needing to pay your lawyers. In USA I thought you could counter sue for your lawyer fees if you win? Is that not true?

KJLJon 6y ago
@ghaff response answered my question.
ghaff 6y ago
My understanding is that you can. (Again, you can sue for anything.) But if the original suit was more or less a reasonable dispute, you generally won't win--and now you'll be out even more money.

shultays 6y ago

Even if big company is going to lose, that is nothing for them and they can play the game forever and drag the courts while you are trying everything to pay for court costs, even if you are almost sure you will get them back

BrandoElFollito 6y ago

It would be even better if the costs were a percentage of your income. You have 1B income, well it is going to cost you 5%. You earn 20k? You will pay 1% of this. Why the difference? Because out of these 20k, you maybe need 15 to live. For a 1B company, the "need to live" is probably much lower. This is similar to how income tax brackets work in Europe.

WCityMike 6y ago

That's not entirely accurate. It's not uncommon to see "prevailing party pays legal fees" in American contracts.