This just seems like common sense to me but “since” we have lawyers running our gov’t this is never going to happen unless there is a public outcry against the lawsuit “lottery”. That’s right you can now get rich now by either working for it, inheriting it, winning it and now suing for it. But the only catch is is that you got to give a scum sucking attorney %40 of the “take”.
Why doesn’t the “loser” have to pay in a lawsuit. That is just plain BS kept alive because of all the lawyers in politics or politicians taking bribes from big time greedy plaintiff attorneys.
It is only fair that the loser pays. Think about if you are a defendent, some moron could sue you and you will have to pay to defend yourself. It is massively stressing and costly. What will you get if you win - nothing but a big legal bill oh joy. While the scumsucking plaintiff will get money if he wins, and if he loses, he doesn’t have to pay nothing not even to his scum sucking lawyer.
This is not fair and needs to be changed and the only way this is going to be done is for small business(targets of the plaintiff attorneys and their clients) to scream loudly enough for this legisislation (the loser pays)that is not only but fair.
Although not in the legal profession, I have heard more and more that judges are including legal costs in reparations and damages so that, in effect, the loser pays. It’s not law, but it seems to happen a lot, from what I’ve observed.
But I shall leave it to our knowledgable legal minds on the SDMB to clear this situation up.
Meantime, Bill, to take something. You’re giving me a headache.
First how do you know I am a youngster unless like you are real old or something and you call everyone “youngster”. And yes I am very passionet about lawsuit abuse I have been sued over 8 times in 10 years of running business. It is just ridiculous.
I am sorry btw I am giving you a headache try the generic brand of aspirin it works just as good.
If you’ve been sued 8 times in the last 10 years, what are you doing wrong? And if you lose these lawsuits, are you prepared to pay the winner’s legal fees?
The main problem with Loser Pays, is that it closes the courthouse doors to the poor.
Poor Sam Shlub is injured in a building owned by the powerful broadcasting giant CNNN. On the surface, it is probably CNNN’s fault. However, Sam knows that they are going to bring in better representation than he can afford; and higher priced too. Even though, CNNN is probably at fault, because they can afford better representaion than Sam could, there’s a good chance that they might get out of it. And then, besides his own bills, now Sam owes CNNN $50,000 as well. Sam’s probably not going to sue.
Now then, if the lawsuit is frivilous, I would agree with you.
What if the loser had to pay some percentage of their yearly income? Then the poor could still sue, but they would have to have some confidence that it was a real suit at least.
Dang…Zev beat me to it. What Zev said is right on.
It is possible, under certain circumstances, for the loser to pay in the US (I should say pay the plaintiff’s attorney…I can’t think of a way for a defendant to recover attorney fees short of counter-suing in which case he/she is now the plaintiff). For example, if I have a contract with you that says you agree to pay me $10,000 for my car (and you’ve taken the car) I believe I can recover my attorney costs from you since I shouldn’t have to pay $15,000 to get the $10,000 you clearly owed me in the first place. I may be way off on that example but I am certain that in some cases you may get reimbursed for your costs.
IIRC in Great Britain loser does pay as Wildest Bill suggests.
ya know, in the first place what’s frivolous to me, isn’t necessarily frivolous to you.
second place. In anything but a small claims court, there’s another attorney involved, right?
Those folks take cases on a percentage basis - as in, they don’t get paid if it doesn’t get paid off.
SOOOOOOOOOO show me where the pile of greedy lawyers are that would be willing to put in numerous hours of work w/o getting paid. Small pile? you bet. They only will take it on if they think there’s a chance of getting paid. As in, it has SOME merit. The relative merit of any case will be dependant on each person.
Wild Bill sorry you’ve been sued so much. However, if they won, perhaps you’re doing something wrong?
Sorry but you’re overlooking something. Many attorneys, even those working on a contingency fee basis (i.e. they take 33% of whatever you win) will and do bring lawsuits that have little to no merit.
It works like this:
Mr. Ambulance Chaser brings a mostly bogus lawsuit against CNNN for $500,000. CNNN looks at the suit and while they are reasonably certain they will win there is always a chance they won’t. In addition there is a potential for bad publicity. Finally, and this is the most important point, litigating the case will cost them approximately $100,000 not to mention disruption of work as the plaintiff’s attorney subpoena’s every document they ever wrote. So, they go back to Mr. Ambulance Chaser and say, “We’ll give your client $75,000 to settle the suit with no admission of fault on our part.” Mr. Ambulance Chaser tells his client to take the money and run or find another attorney.
This sort of thing happens often. I did summerwork (I’m sorry to say) for a law office that made its living this way so I’ve seen it firsthand. I only heard of one instance at that firm where one of the attorneys was slapped by the court for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, three days, 16 hours, 12 minutes and 34 seconds.
7107 cigarettes not smoked, saving $888.38.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 16 hours, 15 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
Judges and juries are including legal costs in the reparations and damages awarded to the plaintiff. If the defendant wins the trial, (s)he still gets nothing.
But the problem is, if you assign all court costs to the loser of the suit, CNNN says to themselves, “Hey, we can fight this suit to the death and not pay a nickel, just so long as we can out-weasel their lawyers.” After all, what often induces a company to settle is the costs that fighting it would incur. By putting all of those costs upon the loser, it makes it more likely that CNNN will bring out the heavy guns, knowing that they might not have to pay a nickel for all their work. True, in some cases it might be like bleeding a turnip (How is poor Shlub going to afford the three hundred work-hours that Johnny Cochran put on the case for CNNN? He’s just going to declare bankrupcy and no one gets paid), but the threat of being able to do so will mean a shape drop in justifiable lawsuits. And it may not even have an effect upon frivolous lawsuits, so long as the frivolous suitor is willing to declare bankrupcy should he end up having to pay for the case.
I guess the real question is, would you prefer to have twenty innocent men tried in order for one guilty man to be found, or would you prefer twenty guilty men to go free so that four hundred innocent men remain unharrassed? Our current situation is the former; assigning court costs to the loser would bring us the latter.
**Jeff 42 **, I admit that something like CNN would settle vs. payout (just the cost of their own in house lawyer’s time makes that a possibility) but for the basic Wild Bill’s warehouse, I doubt they’d do that. and, as far as CNN, “what John C” said.
And ** Satan ** no, I haven’t. But, what exactly are you saying? that a lawyer who agrees to take on a case on an contingency basis will charge you anyhow if they loose?
There are now cases where the judge has ordered the plantiff’s attorney to pay the court costs if they lose. That should reduce the frivolous lawsuit situation some.
Your’re right I did do something wrong I settled one then they all started sueing. See it was like this some employee sued me. My lawyer said it would be cheaper and less risky to settle than go to court with a jury of flakes. That’s right flakes. That is usually what you get on a jury is flakes. How does the old joke go you are being “judged” by 12 people that were not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
So anyway I settled one and then that attracts the greedy money smelling lawyers and their deadbeat clients out of the woodwork.
Zev,
That is the argument I was expecting and this is how I answer it. There is so many blood lawyers now in the US one of them would have to “fund” the lawsuit for the poor Sam Sclub. If the case merrited it, the plaintiff attorney would take the financial risk of losing the trial.
And before you start feeling sorry for these scum sucking lawyers think about this. They are the ones that went to law school so they could sue people to make money. The “defendent” on the otherhand risked his hard work and money on a business to employ people and make a product or service. Why should the “defendent” have to absorb the loss of defending himself against some bogus claim that was shot down by the flakes(which usually doesn’t happen) in the court house. The flakes usually always vote for the “little” guy not the corporation or the small business. Because they think the business can afford it so they(the businesses)should give pay the little guy(Sam) afterall most of the jury is made up of the little guy.
So anyway with the way the jury system made up it already favors the plaintiffs for the most(see above example)so at least the loser should pay.
Yes, but I think that most attorneys are NOT going to risk being personally liable for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars because of a finicky jury. I think this will just make it much harder for Sam Shlub to find adequate representation.
**
I agree with a lot of what you say in this paragraph. However, I don’t think “loser pays” is the answer. Loser pays will do more to harm than good, IMHO.
I’ll be the first to admit, however, that I have a good solution.
Zev Steinhardt
So anyway with the way the jury system made up it already favors the plaintiffs for the most(see above example)so at least the loser should pay. **
[/QUOTE]
Let me just put in my two cents as an (allegedly scum-sucking) lawyer practicing commercial litigation. First, Bill, I hope you have hired a lawyer to advise you in your business dealings on the front end, to avoid suits later on. If not, that is probably why you get sued so much. My experience is that small business owners try to avoid the “outrageous” cost of getting an attorney to draft contracts, etc., so they draft it themselves, put in language terribly damaging to their position, then get sued and spend up to hundreds of times the money in litigation.
Most suits are not frivolous, though I will bet you that every defendant believes the suit against him is. It is the problem that two people can honestly perceive the same event in different ways. There are laws against filing a truly frivolous lawsuit.
In practicality, most contracts and some legislation call for attorney’s fees for the plaintiff, and in any defense, the attorney will countersue if possible, opening the same opportunity for the defendant. And contrary to Bill’s statement, a losing plaintiff in anything but personal injury/medmal has to pay their lawyer, too.
Finally, I think the biggest effect of “loser pays” will be to prevent poor people who have been injured from filing suit. The current system is by no means perfect, but it does work better than most justice systems on the planet. Barring personal injury suits by the poor isn’t going to improve it much, IMHO.
See, and for my part, I hope he can’t find a lawyer to advise him or represent him, front end or back end. Any person who heaps such scorn on a profession he himself appears in dire need of deserves the enriching experience of trying to defend himself and – under his own theory – paying all the costs when he loses.
Every lawyer is a scum-sucker until you need one; every lawyer is a thief except when he’s yours and he wins.
My first lawyer to respond to this post. First, my allegations are probably not geared to you. You sound like a corporate attorney which are needed and serve “some” purpose. I am talking about a “plaintiff attorney” you know the bottom dwellers on society. The ambulance chasers and the like.
The reason I was sued wasn’t because of a faulty contract I wrote up wrong. It was of those nice EOE suits that the gov’t has handicapped businesses with. Someone sued because I let them go because of their age. Boy and he was an old dude too a old old 43 years old(sarcasm). (The cut off btw in case any of you don’t know is 40) Who ever came up with this jewel of a law should be horsewhipped. 40 is considered old? Come on I am almost there my self. And I don’t consider myself old. And age was the last thing on my mind when I let him go. It was because he wasn’t doing the job I needed done plain and simple. But he felt ousted so he got a lawyer and they came up with that bogus claim.
And the cases you are talking(getting you fees back) about are contract legislation in the case I described no I would not get my attorneys fees back. I am sorry for the poor person but I did not put them there. And I did not put the plaintiff attorney in business either. So if the plaintiff attorney doesn’t see merit in the case of the Sam character from above, then maybe it isn’t a good case at all(poor Sam) so yes loser should pay. If it was a good case, you better believe the scum sucking plaintiff attorney would jump all over it if he smelled money. So justice would be served.
I am talking about a “plaintiff attorney” you know the bottom dwellers on society. The ambulance chasers and the like.