5 ms·

"Loser pays" is a better and simpler legal system.

by pdq 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago
Which means that people without much money can't risk suing a company with deep pockets.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  As opposed to the current system, where people without much money can't risk suing a company with deep pockets because they don't have the money for a lawyer.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Money obviously is a factor in any case. But, if you hire a lawyer, you at least have control of the costs. "Loser pays" means you pay for the company's Big Law outside counsel if you lose.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    If you have a solid case any good lawyer will take the case for a share of what you win - they won't win all such cases, but they have enough confidence in winning most that they can afford to accept a cases will be done without getting paid. However if there is loser pays lawyers cannot do this unless they either take a much larger share for the winnings (thus making it not worth anyone's time) so they can cover the lawyer fees when they lose a case they thought was obvious, or they need to warn potential clients there is risk they have to pay a lot of money on a loss. Either way loser pays makes it more risky for a poor person to sue.
- teeray 3y ago
  It would be interesting if “pays” was proportional to a party’s assets to ensure equal (yet not ruinous) pain.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
    It could just be capped at the lower of what the two legal teams charge. Both should have to submit their bills to the court, whichever charged less is the cap on what the loser has to pay for the other party's legal fees. That way each party is at most on the hook for twice what they paid their own legal team, assuming no other damages or penalties.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      This is gameable (for instance by disclosing millions of unrelated pages of content during discovery). All you really need is for the judge to look at how much each legal team charged for what and make a ruling on what's reasonable for the loser to pay and what isn't.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

"Loser pays" is a better and simpler legal system.

by pdq 3y ago

"Loser pays" is a better and simpler legal system.

ghaff 3y ago

Which means that people without much money can't risk suing a company with deep pockets.

kmeisthax 3y ago
As opposed to the current system, where people without much money can't risk suing a company with deep pockets because they don't have the money for a lawyer.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Money obviously is a factor in any case. But, if you hire a lawyer, you at least have control of the costs. "Loser pays" means you pay for the company's Big Law outside counsel if you lose.
- bluGill 3y ago
  If you have a solid case any good lawyer will take the case for a share of what you win - they won't win all such cases, but they have enough confidence in winning most that they can afford to accept a cases will be done without getting paid. However if there is loser pays lawyers cannot do this unless they either take a much larger share for the winnings (thus making it not worth anyone's time) so they can cover the lawyer fees when they lose a case they thought was obvious, or they need to warn potential clients there is risk they have to pay a lot of money on a loss. Either way loser pays makes it more risky for a poor person to sue.
teeray 3y ago
It would be interesting if “pays” was proportional to a party’s assets to ensure equal (yet not ruinous) pain.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  It could just be capped at the lower of what the two legal teams charge. Both should have to submit their bills to the court, whichever charged less is the cap on what the loser has to pay for the other party's legal fees. That way each party is at most on the hook for twice what they paid their own legal team, assuming no other damages or penalties.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    This is gameable (for instance by disclosing millions of unrelated pages of content during discovery). All you really need is for the judge to look at how much each legal team charged for what and make a ruling on what's reasonable for the loser to pay and what isn't.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]