4 ms·
I just found this comment from Walter Bright on a previous thread on this topic. I think it's brilliant: Loser pays can work when the amount the loser is liab
by ScottBurson 15y ago
I just found this comment from Walter Bright on a previous thread on this topic. I think it's brilliant:
Loser pays can work when the amount the loser is liable for is the minimum of his legal fees or his opponent's legal fees. That puts the maximum he is liable for under his own control.
I love this idea, as it completely prevents the scenario where a well-financed plaintiff uses the most expensive lawyers and runs up a huge bill, just to add to the defendant's risk and encourage a premature settlement. Under this rule, if you want to spend a bunch of money on good lawyers to improve your chances of winning the case at all, go ahead, but you won't collect more in fees by doing it, unless your opponent does the same (as they presumably will if they can afford to).
- B_ 15y agoExactly.
- vannevar 15y agoThis is an appealing idea at first glance, but it really doesn't accomplish anything for plaintiffs represented on contigency. They get charged nothing if you take the rule literally, and if you use the plaintiff's attorney's costs they could often be as high as the defense costs. The rule still punishes indigent plaintiffs who bring lawsuits in good faith to litigate genuine disputes.
- leot 15y agoI think powerful plaintiffs frivolously suing indigent ones is far more common than the other way around, and a much bigger problem. Without some kind of loser-pays it's always possible for wealthier individuals to sue poorer ones and win a war of attrition.
- vannevar 15y agoArtful trolling. Well played...