If you sue somebody

[johnjohn320]

I know there are kinks in this, but a random thought: What if, in a situation where you sue someone and you lose, you have to pay your opponent's legal fees? Lawyer/court costs, etc. Would probably make people think twice about some of the frivolous suits they file, clear up the clogged court system, etc.

Obviously, there are kinks in this. I mean, if I sue a big corporation and lose due to the fact that they have a team of 20 top notch lawyers, I wouldn't be able to pay all of them after the fact. Clearly, we don't want to make people scared to go after someone with greater legal backing than themsevles.

But is this a thought that could be perfected and made plausible in some way? Or am I just waaay off in my thinking?

 

[Colt45]

We could just have summary execution for frivolous suits.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
I know there are kinks in this, but a random thought: What if, in a situation where you sue someone and you lose, you have to pay your opponent's legal fees? Lawyer/court costs, etc. Would probably make people think twice about some of the frivolous suits they file, clear up the clogged court system, etc.

Obviously, there are kinks in this. I mean, if I sue a big corporation and lose due to the fact that they have a team of 20 top notch lawyers, I wouldn't be able to pay all of them after the fact. Clearly, we don't want to make people scared to go after someone with greater legal backing than themsevles.

But is this a thought that could be perfected and made plausible in some way? Or am I just waaay off in my thinking?

how about, if you lose, you pay them YOUR legal fees. (well, the same amount as your fees).

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
I know there are kinks in this, but a random thought: What if, in a situation where you sue someone and you lose, you have to pay your opponent's legal fees? Lawyer/court costs, etc. Would probably make people think twice about some of the frivolous suits they file, clear up the clogged court system, etc.

Obviously, there are kinks in this. I mean, if I sue a big corporation and lose due to the fact that they have a team of 20 top notch lawyers, I wouldn't be able to pay all of them after the fact. Clearly, we don't want to make people scared to go after someone with greater legal backing than themsevles.

But is this a thought that could be perfected and made plausible in some way? Or am I just waaay off in my thinking?

how about, if you lose, you pay them YOUR legal fees. (well, the same amount as your fees).

OOh, that's much better. I like that. :thumbsup:

 

[1sikbITCH]

Common misconception here. Lawyers won't normally take your case unless it's got a decent chance of success. At our firm we turn people down daily who want to sue for stupid shit or cases where they really aren't hurt.

Therefore if a frivolous case is brought to court, it's because a lawyer didn't use proper judgment when deciding to take the case.

So, blame the lawyer not the claimant. At the firm that employs me we turn people away on a daily basis because their "case" has no merit or slim chance of success in trial. If we take one of those cases and actually file suit on it that's our stupid fault not theirs. We are supposed to know better.

Also, as far as making people who lose pay attorney fees, that would only entice more attorneys to take cases that have no shot of winning because they are getting paid anyhow. That's why they can't collect a fee unless they win. It's supposed to keep frivolous cases from reaching trial. Also, forcing people to pay the costs of prosecuting the case if they lost would deny many people their constitutional right to equal access to the legal system. Med Mal and product liability cases can cost six figures to prosecute and are hard to win against the armies of lawyers and bottomless pockets that these companies defend themselves with.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
Common misconception here. Lawyers won't normally take your case unless it's got a decent chance of success. At our firm we turn people down daily who want to sue for stupid shit or cases where they really aren't hurt.

Therefore if a frivolous case is brought to court, it's because a lawyer didn't use proper judgment when deciding to take the case.

So, blame the lawyer not the claimant. At my law firm we turn people away on a daily basis because their "case" has no merit or slim chance of success in trial. If we take one of those cases and actually file suit on it that's our stupid fault not theirs. We are supposed to know better.

Also, as far as making people who lose pay attorney fees, that would only entice more attorneys to take cases that have no shot of winning because they are getting paid anyhow. That's why they can't collect a fee unless they win. It's supposed to keep frivolous cases from reaching trial.

Essentially everything you've posted assumes the plaintiff's counsel is being paid on a contingent basis. While this is the norm in certain types of cases (particularly personal injury), it is by no means universal, and plaintiffs frequently pay their attorneys on an hourly basis. Your last paragraph makes no sense at all - it's not as though there is a rule that attorneys can only take contingency cases - so respectfully I assume you are not an attorney.

An attorney has an ethical obligation not to submit frivolous pleadings to the court, but it is not unethical to take a case you believe will lose, as long as there is some good-faith basis for your claims. I have certainly been involved in representing clients on matters where I felt we would be unsuccessful (fortunately we have won a few such cases, winning two $1M+ judgments in the process).

As for the topic at hand, there are systems (including England's) where a losing plaintiff has to pay his opponent's attorney's fees. In these systems, the prevailing defendant is only entitled to collect his reasonable fees, and the courts can and will reduce the claimed fees where appropriate. American judges do the same thing when they grant attorney's fees based on contract or statute.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
Common misconception here. Lawyers won't normally take your case unless it's got a decent chance of success. At our firm we turn people down daily who want to sue for stupid shit or cases where they really aren't hurt.

Therefore if a frivolous case is brought to court, it's because a lawyer didn't use proper judgment when deciding to take the case.

So, blame the lawyer not the claimant. At my law firm we turn people away on a daily basis because their "case" has no merit or slim chance of success in trial. If we take one of those cases and actually file suit on it that's our stupid fault not theirs. We are supposed to know better.

Also, as far as making people who lose pay attorney fees, that would only entice more attorneys to take cases that have no shot of winning because they are getting paid anyhow. That's why they can't collect a fee unless they win. It's supposed to keep frivolous cases from reaching trial.

Essentially everything you've posted assumes the plaintiff's counsel is being paid on a contingent basis. While this is the norm in certain types of cases (particularly personal injury), it is by no means universal, and plaintiffs frequently pay their attorneys on an hourly basis. Your last paragraph makes no sense at all - it's not as though there is a rule that attorneys can only take contingency cases - so respectfully I assume you are not an attorney.

An attorney has an ethical obligation not to submit frivolous pleadings to the court, but it is not unethical to take a case you believe will lose, as long as there is some good-faith basis for your claims. I have certainly been involved in representing clients on matters where I felt we would be unsuccessful (fortunately we have won a few such cases, winning two $1M+ judgments in the process).

As for the topic at hand, there are systems (including England's) where a losing plaintiff has to pay his opponent's attorney's fees. In these systems, the prevailing defendant is only entitled to collect his reasonable fees, and the courts can and will reduce the claimed fees where appropriate. American judges do the same thing when they grant attorney's fees based on contract or statute.

Yes of course you are absolute right. I'm speaking strictly from a P/I and Med Mal standpoint, and I still feel that if we were allowed to charge every client win or lose we'd be handling a lot more stupid cases than we do already. I was pretty sure there was a law against collecting a fee if you lose but I could be wrong about that as well.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
Common misconception here. Lawyers won't normally take your case unless it's got a decent chance of success. At our firm we turn people down daily who want to sue for stupid shit or cases where they really aren't hurt.

Therefore if a frivolous case is brought to court, it's because a lawyer didn't use proper judgment when deciding to take the case.

So, blame the lawyer not the claimant. At my law firm we turn people away on a daily basis because their "case" has no merit or slim chance of success in trial. If we take one of those cases and actually file suit on it that's our stupid fault not theirs. We are supposed to know better.

Also, as far as making people who lose pay attorney fees, that would only entice more attorneys to take cases that have no shot of winning because they are getting paid anyhow. That's why they can't collect a fee unless they win. It's supposed to keep frivolous cases from reaching trial.

This does make sense, (in a perfect world), however, across the USA there seems to be many attorneys with time on their hands, that just throw something up against the wall to see if it sticks. Combine this with the fact that so many judges allow these cases to go forward, and the willingness of some defendants to just settle out of court, well-------- *someones gonna pay*.
IIRC, England has a system similar to what the OP suggests.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
I know there are kinks in this, but a random thought: What if, in a situation where you sue someone and you lose, you have to pay your opponent's legal fees? Lawyer/court costs, etc. Would probably make people think twice about some of the frivolous suits they file, clear up the clogged court system, etc.

Obviously, there are kinks in this. I mean, if I sue a big corporation and lose due to the fact that they have a team of 20 top notch lawyers, I wouldn't be able to pay all of them after the fact. Clearly, we don't want to make people scared to go after someone with greater legal backing than themsevles.

But is this a thought that could be perfected and made plausible in some way? Or am I just waaay off in my thinking?

But if you knew you were either going to get your legal bills paid or be paying someone else's bills, wouldn't you get the best lawyer you can find?

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
I know there are kinks in this, but a random thought: What if, in a situation where you sue someone and you lose, you have to pay your opponent's legal fees? Lawyer/court costs, etc. Would probably make people think twice about some of the frivolous suits they file, clear up the clogged court system, etc.

Obviously, there are kinks in this. I mean, if I sue a big corporation and lose due to the fact that they have a team of 20 top notch lawyers, I wouldn't be able to pay all of them after the fact. Clearly, we don't want to make people scared to go after someone with greater legal backing than themsevles.

But is this a thought that could be perfected and made plausible in some way? Or am I just waaay off in my thinking?

But if you knew you were either going to get your legal bills paid or be paying someone else's bills, wouldn't you get the best lawyer you can find?

Yes, but I still wouldn't be able to afford the legal represenation that Microsoft can afford....