5 ms·
It's cliché, but totally on point: Only sue if you have nothing to lose, or your opponents are ridiculously rich. (preferably: both).
by imajes 15y ago
It's cliché, but totally on point:
Only sue if you have nothing to lose, or your opponents are ridiculously rich. (preferably: both).
- daychilde 15y agoIf you have nothing to lose, you probably can't afford lawyers in the first place. Not quite your point, I know, but it seems to apply here.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoIf you're going after a target with deep pockets you will have no problems with lawyers who will work for a share of the settlement. Edit: changed my wording to be more accurate.
- dhimes 15y agoI think you mean they'll work for a piece of the reward, not for free.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoYup, that's what I meant.
- vacri 15y agoIn Australia, there's a deterrent in civil suits that a losing plaintiff pays costs for a successful defendant. Does the US have that at all? I'm not in any way experienced in law, but it seems like that would help reduce the number of fishing expeditions and barratry.
- DeusExMachina 15y agoThis is spread all over Europe as well since it comes from Roman Law.
- fastfinner 15y agoWhile it would reduce "fishing expeditions", it would make me feel less secure in the legal system, because I might be afraid of the financial risk to sue someone.
- vacri 15y agoIt's not guaranteed, but it's common for the judge to order costs to be paid by the losing party. I'm really not familiar wtih the details of the system, sorry.