5 ms·

Not so sure about this: "It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the co

Not so sure about this: "It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the costs of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents into settlement." There was a great interview on SGU with Simon Singh, the British writer who was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. He talks about how they kept on inflating their costs during the lawsuit to try to force his hand, knowing that he'd have to pay an exorbitant amount if he lost. Relevant links: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=271 http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh

vessenes 15y ago
Libel laws are extremely strong in the UK; the closes thing we have here would be anti-trust laws. As a fun historical example, Richard Branson felt BA was acting monopolistically in England; they both kept Virgin out of Heathrow for some time, and one of their senior execs badmouthed the airline in England. Virgin took the court to New York State (since, you know, JFK Airport), won the anti-trust case there, then returned and won the libel case in the UK based on evidence in the US case. At least, that's how Branson tells it.
cynicalkane 15y ago
For frivolous litigation, the loser pays, but the standard for litigation being frivolous is pretty high. Maybe there could be a position in between loser always pays and loser almost never pays. Say, loser pays if there's no "reasonable" argument for his side of his case, analogous to how you only go to jail (in theory, anyway) if there's no reasonable doubt that you are innocent.
ldar15 15y ago
IANAL, but TFA states that this would also happen here in the USA because many states have a one-way loser-pays.

vessenes 15y ago

Libel laws are extremely strong in the UK; the closes thing we have here would be anti-trust laws. As a fun historical example, Richard Branson felt BA was acting monopolistically in England; they both kept Virgin out of Heathrow for some time, and one of their senior execs badmouthed the airline in England. Virgin took the court to New York State (since, you know, JFK Airport), won the anti-trust case there, then returned and won the libel case in the UK based on evidence in the US case. At least, that's how Branson tells it.

cynicalkane 15y ago

For frivolous litigation, the loser pays, but the standard for litigation being frivolous is pretty high. Maybe there could be a position in between loser always pays and loser almost never pays. Say, loser pays if there's no "reasonable" argument for his side of his case, analogous to how you only go to jail (in theory, anyway) if there's no reasonable doubt that you are innocent.

ldar15 15y ago

IANAL, but TFA states that this would also happen here in the USA because many states have a one-way loser-pays.