2 ms·

I've always been a fan of the concept of simply billing the losing litigants the legal expenses of both sides when the case was obviously frivolous. Seems like

• michaelt 3y ago
  Sounds like a good way to send legal bills into the stratosphere. I get to choose the best and most expensive lawyers and tell them to bill however many hours they like, because that asshole I'm suing is going to have to pay for it? Or I want to keep costs down, but the other guy has hired a team of three $500-an-hour lawyers to bury me in paperwork? And the only way I can avoid losing and having to pay is to respond in kind? Sounds like a recipe for deep-pocked corporations like Disney to win every legal action.
  • mapt 3y ago
    If Disney were designing the system, sure. If people who were interested in improving the system has their hands on it, there are a bunch of avenues available. You could choose to regulate eg a stipulated legal fee, you could choose to set a high bar for 'frivolous', you could choose to moderate the fees by taking into consideration relative or absolute income, or by compensating 'Lesser of two parties legal fee amounts'. It certainly seems appropriate that something like copyright litigation, which has statutory "civil" penalties in excess of the GDP of a medium-sized country, demands the judiciary branch extend some due process (including Gideon) to the unincorporated defendant.
• johndhi 3y ago
  That's how the UK works. But making it that expensive to sue someone means it's harder to file meritorious or important cases too.