4 ms·

In most of Europe it is the general rule applying to all lawsuits that the looser pays part or all of the cost of the winning party's attorney fees. This is ver

by flexie 14y ago

In most of Europe it is the general rule applying to all lawsuits that the looser pays part or all of the cost of the winning party's attorney fees. This is very effective in keeping frivolous lawsuits at a minimum. It is sometimes referred to as the English Rule. Another meassure that keeps the number of law suits down is the obligation for the plaintiff to pay a court fee calculated as a percentage of his claim.

dman 14y ago
But wont this dissuade plaintiffs with few financial means from seeking out justice?
- tobiasu 14y ago
  You can usually get legal aid, but how far it goes varies on a per-country basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid#Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid#Europe So yes, suing random people depends on having the financial means to stomach the losses. But in general, in this system you don't go to court without a good chance to win the case. Which is IMO the way it should be.
- flexie 14y ago
  Justice is rarely found in courts. That said, individuals with little financial means may qualify for financial aid for court proceedings (sometimes combined with a reduced court fee). Also, many standard family insurances and standard business insurances have coverage for legal costs. Finally, many European countries have a wide range of complaint boards, which have speedy and informal proceedings (sometimes their decisions have binding effect).
  - rayiner 14y ago
    At least in the US, the courts are one of the few avenue of justice. Everything from desegregation to marriage equality to environmental protection was hashed out in the court system. It is the single means for the little guy to tear down big institutions. The court system is the last place in the country where people use the word "fairness" outside of a punchline.
    - flexie 14y ago
      Yes, you have a very interesting history of advancements in interstate trade, civil rights etc. through courts. In Europe we have had a bit of the same in the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in areas like free movement of goods, services and people,) and in the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (in civil rights issues). In continental Europe such advancements have primarily come from legislative bodies, though.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  ... Only the ones that are less obviously right. For people and companies that can afford to pursue frivolous lawsuits as a business model, those frivolous litigants will bear the real costs of their frivolity: their own expenses, and the expenses of the one in the right. Of course, it makes "getting it wrong" even more reprehensible than ever... The law still needs to be just. Edit: I think it can help reduce the power divide that allows one litigant to abuse their wealth simply to intimidate. If they are not litigating justly, they will only harm themselves. I feel like it should be more broadly applicable for preventing abuse than the one parasitic example of patent trolls.

by flexie 14y ago

dman 14y ago

But wont this dissuade plaintiffs with few financial means from seeking out justice?

tobiasu 14y ago
You can usually get legal aid, but how far it goes varies on a per-country basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid#Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid#Europe So yes, suing random people depends on having the financial means to stomach the losses. But in general, in this system you don't go to court without a good chance to win the case. Which is IMO the way it should be.
flexie 14y ago
Justice is rarely found in courts. That said, individuals with little financial means may qualify for financial aid for court proceedings (sometimes combined with a reduced court fee). Also, many standard family insurances and standard business insurances have coverage for legal costs. Finally, many European countries have a wide range of complaint boards, which have speedy and informal proceedings (sometimes their decisions have binding effect).
- rayiner 14y ago
  At least in the US, the courts are one of the few avenue of justice. Everything from desegregation to marriage equality to environmental protection was hashed out in the court system. It is the single means for the little guy to tear down big institutions. The court system is the last place in the country where people use the word "fairness" outside of a punchline.
  - flexie 14y ago
    Yes, you have a very interesting history of advancements in interstate trade, civil rights etc. through courts. In Europe we have had a bit of the same in the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in areas like free movement of goods, services and people,) and in the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (in civil rights issues). In continental Europe such advancements have primarily come from legislative bodies, though.
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
... Only the ones that are less obviously right. For people and companies that can afford to pursue frivolous lawsuits as a business model, those frivolous litigants will bear the real costs of their frivolity: their own expenses, and the expenses of the one in the right. Of course, it makes "getting it wrong" even more reprehensible than ever... The law still needs to be just. Edit: I think it can help reduce the power divide that allows one litigant to abuse their wealth simply to intimidate. If they are not litigating justly, they will only harm themselves. I feel like it should be more broadly applicable for preventing abuse than the one parasitic example of patent trolls.