3 ms·
A "loser pays" system sounds great on the surface, but is fraught with unintended consequences: - A complainant who loses on a technicality or procedural failu
by kstenerud 12y ago
A "loser pays" system sounds great on the surface, but is fraught with unintended consequences:
- A complainant who loses on a technicality or procedural failure, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
- A big company that bullies the complainant with legal shenanegans until the complainant is worn out, drops the case, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
Just the fact that, after your own expensive legal fees, you'll be saddled with the big company's (much bigger) fees as well, would be enough to deter most people from suing, even if they're in the right. It would become a new tool for bullying the poor.
- WalterBright 12y agoThe loser's max liability will be what he paid his own lawyers, not what the other party paid theirs. Thus, you cannot spend your opponent into oblivion. A better formula for what loser pays would be: min(what you paid your lawyers, what the other side paid their lawyers)
- joedavison 12y agoAnd what about pro se litigants? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States#In_civil_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in... For individuals, representing oneself pro se is extremely common. Corporations must have an attorney, of course.
- WalterBright 12y agoTheir legal liability would then be $0. It wouldn't be worse than it is now.