4 ms·
Look at who pays the bills at Reason. That's who would benefit from any policy recommendations they have. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. If you want to ma
by B_ 15y ago
Look at who pays the bills at Reason. That's who would benefit from any policy recommendations they have. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.
If you want to make it "fair" then reform the rules to where no party to a case can spend more than the other. If I bet my friend that I and a friend could beat him and a friend a two-on-two basketball, and he shows up with Kobe Bryant, would that be fair? What if that bet stated that the loser pays the bills for dinner at the winner's choice of restaurant? Is that fair? Yes, it would be a stupid bet to make. But the proposed policy change makes that bet no longer a choice but a matter of law.
- kalleboo 15y agoQuoth the article: «A common fear about loser-pays is that the side who loses a routine dispute will get handed a bill for 10,000 hours from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. But European courts are well aware of the danger that successful litigants will overinvest in their cases and gold-plate their fee requests. They carefully control the process to prevent that danger, giving the losing side a full chance to dispute a fee award, requiring that work be reasonable and necessary, providing that elite lawyer rates not be paid if a Main Street lawyer could have done the job, and so forth.»
- vannevar 15y agoThey carefully control the process... Meaning they heavily regulate what can be charged. Why is Reason so enthusiastic about regulating attorneys but screams bloody murder if the government tries to regulate doctors or the energy industry?