4 ms·

Would that also prevent smaller entities from suing larger ones for fear of having to eat the gigantic legal fees if they lost? I see the benefits from both sy

• Weltan 13y ago
  The right system is the one which gives the judge a discretion as to who pays costs, guided by court rules as well as economic sense and equitable principles.
• levosmetalo 13y ago
  No system should refund all the cost, just the basic "necessary" costs, for example the costs of one lawyer for small cases or a small team of lawyers for large cases. I think it is how it works in many countries. Otherwise, what would prevent a party that is sure that it will win to hire 1000 lawyers in the last day of trial just to inflate the costs of the loosing party?
• PeterisP 13y ago
  Why would there be any asymetry of legal fees depending on company size? Suing a small entity would take exactly as much lawyers on both sides as suing a huge entity. If you're fighting Bigcorp and they're somehow justifying $10million of lawyers for the case, and you feel that you're right, then you'll be justified in bringing $10million of lawyers on your side, paid in full by them.
  • EvanKelly 13y ago
    Obviously, you'd be expecting to win the case, but litigation doesn't always go as planned. If I'm SmallCorp suing BigCorp, I may have one in house lawyer who is handling the litigation. SmallCorp Lawyer charges hourly rate X. BigCorp has a large legal team and put many times as many lawyer man-hours at rate X into the case, and somehow pulls out a litigation victory. There is always a non-zero risk of losing the suit. BigCorp doesn't have to worry as much existential risk if they lose, since the penalty of paying legal fees may not cripple them.