4 ms·

That's why there are lawyers who take cases on contingency. And while some of them are quick-buck artists just looking for a quick settlement, most are looking

That's why there are lawyers who take cases on contingency. And while some of them are quick-buck artists just looking for a quick settlement, most are looking for real cases with a high likelihood of success, with plaintiffs who simply couldn't afford to bring their solid case otherwise.

mhb 15y ago
So what's your example of a scenario in which it's worth it for a corporate defendant to spend a lot on legal fees but in which a plaintiff can't find a lawyer who judges the chances of recovering his own fees acceptably likely to take the case?
- vannevar 15y ago
  "Loser pays" isn't aimed at changing lawyer behavior, it's aimed at changing plaintiffs' behavior. If the case is good the plaintiff will always find a lawyer, the question is whether the plaintiff can stomach the risk of loss even if he has a case that he's 90% sure of winning. Would you take a gamble where if you win you get $2M but if you lose you pay $100K, even if the chance of winning is 90%? It's not an easy decision if your net worth is less than that $100K.
  - mhb 15y ago
    If there's a 90% chance of winning, maybe the lawyer would be willing to pay the defendant's legal fees if he lost.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      He almost certainly would. Many lawyers already work for contingency fees - this isn't much different, except the potential downside is slightly larger.
      - vannevar 15y ago
        ...except the potential downside is slightly larger. That's quite an understatement. If the plaintiff's attorney spends half of what the defense spends, he's looking at tripling his exposure if he loses. That's an enormous difference.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    If there's a 90% chance of winning, maybe the lawyer would be willing to pay the defendant's legal fees if he lost. Maybe. How about a 65% chance? Should we discourage that plaintiff if his lawyer declines to back him financially? After all, lawyers are lawyers, not bankers.

mhb 15y ago

So what's your example of a scenario in which it's worth it for a corporate defendant to spend a lot on legal fees but in which a plaintiff can't find a lawyer who judges the chances of recovering his own fees acceptably likely to take the case?

vannevar 15y ago
"Loser pays" isn't aimed at changing lawyer behavior, it's aimed at changing plaintiffs' behavior. If the case is good the plaintiff will always find a lawyer, the question is whether the plaintiff can stomach the risk of loss even if he has a case that he's 90% sure of winning. Would you take a gamble where if you win you get $2M but if you lose you pay $100K, even if the chance of winning is 90%? It's not an easy decision if your net worth is less than that $100K.
- mhb 15y ago
  If there's a 90% chance of winning, maybe the lawyer would be willing to pay the defendant's legal fees if he lost.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    He almost certainly would. Many lawyers already work for contingency fees - this isn't much different, except the potential downside is slightly larger.
    - vannevar 15y ago
      ...except the potential downside is slightly larger. That's quite an understatement. If the plaintiff's attorney spends half of what the defense spends, he's looking at tripling his exposure if he loses. That's an enormous difference.
- vannevar 15y ago
  If there's a 90% chance of winning, maybe the lawyer would be willing to pay the defendant's legal fees if he lost. Maybe. How about a 65% chance? Should we discourage that plaintiff if his lawyer declines to back him financially? After all, lawyers are lawyers, not bankers.