# Defendant wins: why not countersue? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 6, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425 "2012-07-06T16:14:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/21 "2012-12-04T16:47:27Z")
You can read about the Rule 11 of Federal Rule of Civil procedure for sanctions based on frivolous pleadings here: > [@](#): > > Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 11”)’ is > designed to ensure that claims brought in the federal courts have merit > and are not brought for an improper purpose.2 To accomplish these > goals, the Rule imposes upon an attorney or litigant’ a duty to make a > reasonable examination of the merits of and motives behind a claim > before signing a paper and filing it with the court.4 Rule 11 imposes > mandatory sanctions for failure to comply with this duty,5 and the Rule > encourages both courts and litigants to play an active role in deterring > litigation abuses. [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2779&context=flr](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2779&context=flr) (warning .pdf) Many state rules are similar in nature. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/22 "2012-12-04T17:17:23Z")
> [@gotpasswords](#): > > A few years ago, the cost to file an answer was more than made up for when I caused the prosecutor to change color after I caused his star witness to perjure themselves. > > Red from embarrassment followed by a sickly green when His Honor said “The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with prejudice.” 🆒 > > $75 filing fee to see this? Priceless. You had a prosecutor and a plaintiff, huh? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/23 "2012-12-04T17:20:02Z")
In Canada generally the losing party pays the costs of the winner. As a result, there is significantly less litigation compared to the USA. (The law societies also discourage contingency fees; plus, damages have to be more specific, and with our health care system, there are a lot less medical bills to deal with.) I recall one potential class action suit was shut down right at the beginning because the lawyers for the “class” could not post a bond to guarantee they could cover the victim’s costs if they lost. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/24 "2012-12-04T17:30:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You had a prosecutor and a plaintiff, huh? I’m assuming that “prosecutor” is meant to indicate the plaintiff’s counsel. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/25 "2012-12-04T17:44:11Z")
Costs can be a handy tool when dealing with litigants who just won’t go away. Where I am (YMMV – different jurisdictions have different rules), an unpaid costs order from a previous lawsuit can be used to force the plaintiff to post security for costs before moving forward with a new lawsuit. Since this can be dodged if the plaintiff goes bankrupt, it’s also wise to have the original costs order include a term stating that that security for costs must be paid before a new matter can be brought. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/26 "2012-12-04T18:04:08Z")
Legal advice is best suited to IMHO. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/27 "2012-12-06T04:28:20Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > \The law societies also discourage contingency fees To repeat an [earlier post in response to **md2000**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15071422&postcount=17): [QUOTE=Northern Piper] [Quote=md2000] Plus, most law societies are hostile to the idea of contingency fees [/quote] Another WRONG statement by md2000. To quote [wikipedia on contingency fees](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee#Canada): > [@](#): > > **Canada** > > Contingent fee agreements are legal in some provinces of Canada (Alberta, British Columbia (except in family law cases involving child custody or access),[3] Ontario[4] and Quebec among others). In other Canadian provinces, an attorney may collect a percentage of recovery in case of a victory but must charge an hourly fee otherwise. To those four provinces specifically mentioned, I would add Saskatchewan, which also allows contingency fees. When you add those five provinces together, they have 89.1% of the Canadian population (Source: Wikipedia: List of Canadian Provinces and Territories by Population), so contingency fees are very common in Canada. [/QUOTE] > [@md2000](#): > > I recall one potential class action suit was shut down right at the beginning because the lawyers for the “class” could not post a bond to guarantee they could cover the victim’s costs if they lost. That’s quite a feat, since costs are not available in class action litigation in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/28 "2012-12-06T04:34:07Z")
Slight correction to the cite. In Ontario contingency fees are permitted except for criminal or family law matters. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425/29 "2012-12-06T06:43:15Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Slight correction to the cite. In Ontario contingency fees are permitted except for criminal or family law matters. They’re allowed in all matters except for criminal or family matters here also, and I would be surprised if they were allowed in those matters in any jurisdiction. Regardless, I also noticed **md2000** ’s assertion, and remembered **Northern Piper** ’s answer from the previous thread where the assertion was made. I’m glad that **NP** brought it forward. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defendant-wins-why-not-countersue/627425.md?page=1)