6 ms·

Instead of creating yet another special case for government officials, the solution for the US problem is to go and take some ideas from Europe. In Germany, all

Instead of creating yet another special case for government officials, the solution for the US problem is to go and take some ideas from Europe. In Germany, all costs associated with a lawsuit have to be paid/reimbursed by the losing party. This quickly solves the "I know I won't win, but lets ruin the other guy" problem.

nindalf 6y ago
This rule change makes it potentially very expensive to sue large corporations. They are already more likely to win because they can afford larger, better resourced legal teams. Now the little guy also needs to pay for that legal team when they lose? You might see most people opting not to sue Comcast, McDonalds, Amazon to avoid being financially ruined. It’s probably just best to leave it to the discretion of the courts to decide whether one side pays the costs of the other. Better than legislating that the loser always pays.
- matsemann 6y ago
  It's not black and white. If the court takes the case in Europe, it probably has some merit. If the little guy then loses, the court will then often decide it needed to be tried and both parties will cover their own expenses.
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  Your right.. People generally don't sue as much here in northern europe(only know the rules are like op described in Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweeden, might be the same for all of europe) in fear of loosing, but i for one prefer it this way, much less lawsuits flying around. And also it goes both ways, as the little guy you are also less likely to be sued. And let's be real, how often do a normal person sue big corps like the ones you mention and actually win ?
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  It is already difficult to sue large corporations in general: In other words, there is no change. People already decide not to sue many companies so they aren't financially ruined. Obviously, the discretion of the courts hasn't been consistent nor has it always been fair. Hence, rules.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  There are additional rules that lock how much lawyers can cost per case, based on "case value", to limit megacorp lawyers to set up fantasy fees.
austincheney 6y ago
That is already how it works in US civil litigation.
- petertodd 6y ago
  No it's not. Both because courts don't always give you costs, and because even when they do award costs, actually collecting is tough, and finally, because courts don't always award the full amount of your costs. Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-l... "To further this goal, the losing side doesn’t usually pay the winning side's attorney's fees. In the United States, the rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorneys' fees, regardless of whether they win or lose." US courts can award costs, and they do in many circumstances. But it is not automatic by any means. Even in countries where costs are awarded automatically, actually collecting on those costs is difficult - I personally know people who have successfully defended themselves and are in exactly this situation in the EU.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    You are over complicating the issue and misunderstanding it. Quite simply the loser of a law suit typically bears the costs of court fees and legal expenses for both parties unless a different arrangement is negotiated. How high those expenses are are irrelevant to this issue and are generally not known before or during trial.
    - petertodd 6y ago
      I have sued someone in the US and had this discussion with my lawyers. What you are saying simply is not true in the US. It's such a well known feature of the US legal system that it's even called "American Rule": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
      - austincheney 6y ago
michaelt 6y ago
Well, the German legal system is actually different in a bunch of ways: 1. They don't use precedent, judges rule based on legislation alone. 2. Germany criminal and administrative law uses an "inquisitorial" system where the judges perform fact-finding and question witnesses (in contrast to the "adversarial" system used in common law countries) 3. German lawyers have their fees set by the "RVG" (Act on the Remuneration of Lawyers) and even if the winner chose fancy lawyers that charge more than set by the RVG, the loser only pays the amount set by the RVG. 4. Contingency fees were completely banned until recently, and are very rarely used today. 5. There are no punitive damages awarded under the German legal system - only compensatory damages. Between these factors, German trials cost a lot less - so legal fees don't ruin you financially even if you lose.
- spicybright 6y ago
  It's too bad the US is too hard headed to adopt some of these practices.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    You're absolutely right! The US is pretty hard-headed on any number of subjects, reasonable or otherwise. A lot of these are great ideas. Formalizing into law the system where a judge decides what is a reasonable amount of attorney's fees definitely sounds like an improvement! Though I can see where revamping the fundamental structure of a legal system could be challenging, time-consuming, and probably messy.
  - vimax 6y ago
    I don't think it is just being hard headed. I don't know of a practical non-disruptive way to change the basis of the US legal system away from common law. Edit: not that I support the legal status quo, I just don't see the public bipartisan will to make that level of systemic reform
    - spicybright 6y ago
      That's pretty much what I mean by hard headed, no one is willing to consider change. Not an individual, just the people that create laws and policies.
CPLX 6y ago
Sure but then you create a new problem, which is that there much less of an incentive to settle. The current system is not perfect but if does very clearly incentivize people not to incur legal fees in excess of the actual amount of money being argued about. The vast vast majority of legal cases are settled through negotiation.

nindalf 6y ago

This rule change makes it potentially very expensive to sue large corporations. They are already more likely to win because they can afford larger, better resourced legal teams. Now the little guy also needs to pay for that legal team when they lose? You might see most people opting not to sue Comcast, McDonalds, Amazon to avoid being financially ruined. It’s probably just best to leave it to the discretion of the courts to decide whether one side pays the costs of the other. Better than legislating that the loser always pays.

matsemann 6y ago
It's not black and white. If the court takes the case in Europe, it probably has some merit. If the little guy then loses, the court will then often decide it needed to be tried and both parties will cover their own expenses.
Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
Your right.. People generally don't sue as much here in northern europe(only know the rules are like op described in Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweeden, might be the same for all of europe) in fear of loosing, but i for one prefer it this way, much less lawsuits flying around. And also it goes both ways, as the little guy you are also less likely to be sued. And let's be real, how often do a normal person sue big corps like the ones you mention and actually win ?
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
It is already difficult to sue large corporations in general: In other words, there is no change. People already decide not to sue many companies so they aren't financially ruined. Obviously, the discretion of the courts hasn't been consistent nor has it always been fair. Hence, rules.
DocTomoe 6y ago
There are additional rules that lock how much lawyers can cost per case, based on "case value", to limit megacorp lawyers to set up fantasy fees.

austincheney 6y ago

That is already how it works in US civil litigation.

petertodd 6y ago
No it's not. Both because courts don't always give you costs, and because even when they do award costs, actually collecting is tough, and finally, because courts don't always award the full amount of your costs. Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-l... "To further this goal, the losing side doesn’t usually pay the winning side's attorney's fees. In the United States, the rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorneys' fees, regardless of whether they win or lose." US courts can award costs, and they do in many circumstances. But it is not automatic by any means. Even in countries where costs are awarded automatically, actually collecting on those costs is difficult - I personally know people who have successfully defended themselves and are in exactly this situation in the EU.
- austincheney 6y ago
  You are over complicating the issue and misunderstanding it. Quite simply the loser of a law suit typically bears the costs of court fees and legal expenses for both parties unless a different arrangement is negotiated. How high those expenses are are irrelevant to this issue and are generally not known before or during trial.
  - petertodd 6y ago
    I have sued someone in the US and had this discussion with my lawyers. What you are saying simply is not true in the US. It's such a well known feature of the US legal system that it's even called "American Rule": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
    - austincheney 6y ago

michaelt 6y ago

Well, the German legal system is actually different in a bunch of ways: 1. They don't use precedent, judges rule based on legislation alone. 2. Germany criminal and administrative law uses an "inquisitorial" system where the judges perform fact-finding and question witnesses (in contrast to the "adversarial" system used in common law countries) 3. German lawyers have their fees set by the "RVG" (Act on the Remuneration of Lawyers) and even if the winner chose fancy lawyers that charge more than set by the RVG, the loser only pays the amount set by the RVG. 4. Contingency fees were completely banned until recently, and are very rarely used today. 5. There are no punitive damages awarded under the German legal system - only compensatory damages. Between these factors, German trials cost a lot less - so legal fees don't ruin you financially even if you lose.

spicybright 6y ago
It's too bad the US is too hard headed to adopt some of these practices.
- Kalium 6y ago
  You're absolutely right! The US is pretty hard-headed on any number of subjects, reasonable or otherwise. A lot of these are great ideas. Formalizing into law the system where a judge decides what is a reasonable amount of attorney's fees definitely sounds like an improvement! Though I can see where revamping the fundamental structure of a legal system could be challenging, time-consuming, and probably messy.
- vimax 6y ago
  I don't think it is just being hard headed. I don't know of a practical non-disruptive way to change the basis of the US legal system away from common law. Edit: not that I support the legal status quo, I just don't see the public bipartisan will to make that level of systemic reform
  - spicybright 6y ago
    That's pretty much what I mean by hard headed, no one is willing to consider change. Not an individual, just the people that create laws and policies.

CPLX 6y ago

Sure but then you create a new problem, which is that there much less of an incentive to settle. The current system is not perfect but if does very clearly incentivize people not to incur legal fees in excess of the actual amount of money being argued about. The vast vast majority of legal cases are settled through negotiation.