The suing party should at least have to pay the legal bills of the defendant if they lose. There needs to be skin in the game to avoid some of the stupidity when people sue because they have nothing to lose.
Printable View
The suing party should at least have to pay the legal bills of the defendant if they lose. There needs to be skin in the game to avoid some of the stupidity when people sue because they have nothing to lose.
The problem with "loser pays" is that the game becomes even more rigged in favor of the rich.
Lets say your wife is poisoned by Dow Chemicals and you sue them for wrongful death, they'll say "I tell you what, you walk away now and we'll forget all this, but if you don't win you should know that we've tasked a team of a dozen attorneys to this case and each one gets payed a thousand dollars an hour and they'll each have thousands of hours in the case before all is said and done ... do you really want to risk it?"
I'd rather see cases judged by the judge to determine whether they're frivolous or not and if they are then the frivolous plaintiff and their attorney should be fined (and the attorney should face disbarment if the frivolity is too great or he's got too many of these judgements against them).
Sometimes there is. The kid who sued me for $17M wound up learning the hard way about how much a good law firm makes on a case and how easy it is for a good atty to tear you a new one when you lie about what happened and can't keep all your lies straight between written statements, depositions and trial. The first thing the judge did after dismissing the jury was call this kid and all the attys into his chambers to ask how the unemployed 20yoa POS was gonna pay the $480K in legal fees submitted by my lawyer's firm.
And I learned that it's very gratifying to see a young mind learn something valuable about how the legal system works. And I still smile about it and wonder how paying off that judgment is going for him.