4 ms·

"can sue you" is a very very important detail here. As I understand it, in the UK, the losing party in a suit pays legal expenses on both sides, which discourag

"can sue you" is a very very important detail here. As I understand it, in the UK, the losing party in a suit pays legal expenses on both sides, which discourages "let's just shake them down" lawsuits. in the U.S. it's way too easy to get a contingency lawyer who knows anyone can sue someone else for anything and they'll have to settle for $$ just because it's cheaper than going to court to "win" against a weak complaint. I did some financial modeling on this years ago that gave a good prediction of when cases will settle in the U.S. tl;dr when the money given to the defense lawyer approaches the probable expectation of the loss you're trying to avoid.

bluGill 2y ago
The downside of loser pays is coorts will sometimes find against you in an obvious case and so only the rich can dare risk court.
- arethuza 2y ago
  The other major downside of loser pays is that it makes litigation very difficult to stop once it starts - and lawyers, funnily enough, will always say that you have an excellent case encouraging people to start litigation....
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    A good lawyer will not take a case that you are very likely to lose, and he will advise you that you have no case. I believe a judge can also admonish or censure a lawyer who brings a frivilous claim into court? Not sure how often that happens.
  - anticensor 2y ago
    In most implementations of loser pays, both parties pay upfront and then the winner gets refunded the fees.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      last case I heard numbers on the lawers fees were $500000. This for a case where it was clear they would lose (3 different parties were sued and the nobody could figure out how to split the $100000 loss- that is one party spent 5x the total judgement)
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  In the "you pay your own cost" system of the US, only the rich can afford to bring a case as well. And we have the added downside that only the rich can afford to defend themselves. I would much rather have the loser pays system, even though it isn't perfect.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    In the us a lawyer will go to court on a you pay only if you win.

bluGill 2y ago

The downside of loser pays is coorts will sometimes find against you in an obvious case and so only the rich can dare risk court.

arethuza 2y ago
The other major downside of loser pays is that it makes litigation very difficult to stop once it starts - and lawyers, funnily enough, will always say that you have an excellent case encouraging people to start litigation....
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  A good lawyer will not take a case that you are very likely to lose, and he will advise you that you have no case. I believe a judge can also admonish or censure a lawyer who brings a frivilous claim into court? Not sure how often that happens.
- anticensor 2y ago
  In most implementations of loser pays, both parties pay upfront and then the winner gets refunded the fees.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    last case I heard numbers on the lawers fees were $500000. This for a case where it was clear they would lose (3 different parties were sued and the nobody could figure out how to split the $100000 loss- that is one party spent 5x the total judgement)
bigstrat2003 2y ago
In the "you pay your own cost" system of the US, only the rich can afford to bring a case as well. And we have the added downside that only the rich can afford to defend themselves. I would much rather have the loser pays system, even though it isn't perfect.
- bluGill 2y ago
  In the us a lawyer will go to court on a you pay only if you win.