6 ms·

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 mone

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?
  - justinchan 6y ago
    I’ve had similar thoughts. SSC did a thought experiment on this. You’ll enjoy this read: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-different-from-ours-because-i-just-made-them-up/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif... The article title’s a play on David Friedman’s book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 (I haven’t read this but sounds interesting)
    - SquishyPanda23 6y ago
      Wow, prison sentences are inherently unfair to the rich because they're used to living in mansions?
- dnh44 6y ago
  In the UK lawyers have insurance to cover them in case they lose. This encourages them to take pro-bono cases when there is a decent chance of winning.
  - joecool1029 6y ago
    >This encourages them to take pro-bono cases It was my understanding that pro-bono is under rate or free services, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the terminology you're looking for is 'contingent', where the client only pays a % fee to attorney if they manage to generate a judgement. In this case, does the UK insurance kick in to pay a fee to lawyer if they lose the case? I'm talking about civil cases here, not criminal.
    - dnh44 6y ago
      You’re correct regarding the terminology. A friend of mine had a law firm take their (civil) case on a contingency basis and there was an insurance policy to cover the lawyer’s time in case they lost.
  - Fogest 6y ago
    That sounds like a pretty neat system. I assume lawyers can't take on a bunch of obvious shitty cases just to get the insurance money right? I assume the insurance companies would raise premiums or stop insuring them if the lawyer is losing a lot?
    - biot 6y ago
      The insurance payout doesn’t go to the lawyer who lost.
      - cyrrus 6y ago
        If it’s to cover them in case they lost who does it go to?
        6y ago
- labawi 6y ago
  I believe it's usually implemented as user pays standard rate legal fees - court, lawyer fees and maybe some extra. If you choose to hire a super expensive legal team, that's on you.
  - z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
    Because any freely provided or "reasonably" priced law firms that poor people could use tend to be shit.. the american economy and legal system is a racket rigged for those already rich and powerful, dynastic american royalty. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."
pyuser583 6y ago
In the UK, litigants usually take out an insurance policy. So at the end of the day, the insurer pays if the plaintiff loses. I don’t know if that’s good or bad. It gives an insurance company a very large say in matters of justice. But insurance is one of the wonders of the modern world.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  It is also common in Germany, however here the insurance can state it had enough from you and after a certain threshold refuse to cover up.
jrochkind1 6y ago
> Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through I think it would do the reverse. Even if you and your lawyers think you have a good case, there is no guarantee that you will win. If you sue and lose, you have to pay for the other guy's legal fees? Poor people would never be able to risk it.
CPLX 6y ago
Absolutely not. The current system gives both parties a powerful incentive to settle the case, or not go to court at all. Which on a broad scale is definitely what you want. It also creates specific problems, and a big one is that it can make it hard for normal people to hold large companies accountable for bad behavior when not a ton of money is at stake in each individual case. But that’s probably best addressed by other means.
apricot 6y ago
The USA is optimized by and for the rich, not the poor.

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?
- justinchan 6y ago
  I’ve had similar thoughts. SSC did a thought experiment on this. You’ll enjoy this read: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-different-from-ours-because-i-just-made-them-up/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif... The article title’s a play on David Friedman’s book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 (I haven’t read this but sounds interesting)
  - SquishyPanda23 6y ago
    Wow, prison sentences are inherently unfair to the rich because they're used to living in mansions?
dnh44 6y ago
In the UK lawyers have insurance to cover them in case they lose. This encourages them to take pro-bono cases when there is a decent chance of winning.
- joecool1029 6y ago
  >This encourages them to take pro-bono cases It was my understanding that pro-bono is under rate or free services, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the terminology you're looking for is 'contingent', where the client only pays a % fee to attorney if they manage to generate a judgement. In this case, does the UK insurance kick in to pay a fee to lawyer if they lose the case? I'm talking about civil cases here, not criminal.
  - dnh44 6y ago
    You’re correct regarding the terminology. A friend of mine had a law firm take their (civil) case on a contingency basis and there was an insurance policy to cover the lawyer’s time in case they lost.
- Fogest 6y ago
  That sounds like a pretty neat system. I assume lawyers can't take on a bunch of obvious shitty cases just to get the insurance money right? I assume the insurance companies would raise premiums or stop insuring them if the lawyer is losing a lot?
  - biot 6y ago
    The insurance payout doesn’t go to the lawyer who lost.
    - cyrrus 6y ago
      If it’s to cover them in case they lost who does it go to?
      - 6y ago
labawi 6y ago
I believe it's usually implemented as user pays standard rate legal fees - court, lawyer fees and maybe some extra. If you choose to hire a super expensive legal team, that's on you.
- z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
  Because any freely provided or "reasonably" priced law firms that poor people could use tend to be shit.. the american economy and legal system is a racket rigged for those already rich and powerful, dynastic american royalty. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

pyuser583 6y ago

In the UK, litigants usually take out an insurance policy. So at the end of the day, the insurer pays if the plaintiff loses. I don’t know if that’s good or bad. It gives an insurance company a very large say in matters of justice. But insurance is one of the wonders of the modern world.

pjmlp 6y ago
It is also common in Germany, however here the insurance can state it had enough from you and after a certain threshold refuse to cover up.

jrochkind1 6y ago

> Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through I think it would do the reverse. Even if you and your lawyers think you have a good case, there is no guarantee that you will win. If you sue and lose, you have to pay for the other guy's legal fees? Poor people would never be able to risk it.

CPLX 6y ago

Absolutely not. The current system gives both parties a powerful incentive to settle the case, or not go to court at all. Which on a broad scale is definitely what you want. It also creates specific problems, and a big one is that it can make it hard for normal people to hold large companies accountable for bad behavior when not a ton of money is at stake in each individual case. But that’s probably best addressed by other means.

apricot 6y ago

The USA is optimized by and for the rich, not the poor.