[Khornet]

Tell us about "Loser Pays" in English lawsuits. Is it really that way? Does it make a difference? Why do you have it while we don't?

[Zundfolge]

I don't know if they have it in England or not, but I'll tell you why I don't want it here and how it would do more dammage then good.

No law suit is a 100% sure thing ... even if you're in the right and the other party is in the wrong, it still may not go your way (thats why you go to court in the first place).

So lets say you feel wronged by someone with significantly more money then you (could be a big company, could even be the government). So you decide to sue ... well the first thing you get is a letter from the defendant stating that they have a team of 12 lawyers who charge $1000/hr so if you loose you will have to pay for $12,000/hr in legal bills (if you don't think there aren't lawyers who charge that much ... put in a looser pays system and see how soon they are). What will happen is that many people with legitimate law suits won't be willing to take the gamble of complete financial devistation if they lose, so they won't sue.

Since looser pays would have a chilling effect on legitimate law suits (not just the goofy ones) you'd see the government step in and set price controls on legal fees ... yet another step toward the socialist nannystate. In addition, if the courts are no longer available to the people to seek redress, the WILL find other ways ... okay, now you have a rise in violence and they use it as an excuse for more gun control ... now you've just added to the socialist police state :p )

[agricola]

Khornet,

Ones expertise is in the criminal side of things, and I dont really know much about the Civil side of things. From a criminal trial point of view, sometimes a magistrate (its the only place I've ever seen this done) awards the cost of the hearing as well as a fine against the miscreant, usually after being found guilty of some offence especially verminous.

The principle in Civil Law is called "costs" and includes the costs of the hearing as well as the "winning" sides costs (and, of course, ones own legal staff), on top of any damages award. This is why UK civil cases are so often settled out of court, and why the sue-for-everything state of affairs has been less successful in the UK than the US, despite the best efforts of the ambulance chasers.

Here is a link explaining it all in legalese:

http://www.jsboard.co.uk/civil_law/civilbenchbook/mf_08.htm

and a recent news story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3102099.stm

Chris Evans was at one time sort of like a ginger Jay Leno, but is sort of in artistic retirement atm.

[edit: having read the other post I realise I havent fully answered your question. Costs has its plus and negative points - it cuts down on frivolous lawsuits and encourages arbitration, but it does restrict access to the Courts, and it is abused because big companies can demand that the plantiff has the resources to pay for an unsuccessful action before the trial begins in an effort to kill off any suit. Of course, the answer to this is legal insurance, but thats something that isnt publicized at all over here and few people have it.]

[KC]

Oh, joy. Lawsuit insurance. More ways the leaches of civil society can tap into what little I make.

I propose a change in bar exams across the country. In order to sucessfully stand before the bar (ie: become a lawyer, not simply someone with a legal education), applicants must pair off, and fight a duel to the death. I'm not picky about weapons; just that one of them lives, and one dies. That should cut down on the surplus in fairly short order.

[Standing Wolf]

KC, if that's a motion, I'll second it!

[KC]

:D

[4570Rick]

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/lach.gif

[Cosmoline]

I live in the only "Looser pays" jurisdiction in the US. Here we have a complex system of rules which impose a sliding scale of percentages and fees on the loser. In reality, plaintiffs almost never have enough money to pay. They are judgment proof. On the flip side, the insured defendants and big companies do have enough to pay, and the rules magnify the awards against them.

If we could force them to serve jail time in lieu of paying the fees, that might work :D

[Cosmoline]

But I want to bring my new BATTLE AXE! Two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves, two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves. I like it!

[Sean Cloherty]

Do sharks kill their own???

All kidding aside, I was not impressed with the majority of people I came in contact in law school or in the legal profession with the exception of the professors - and then only the older ones who were just gems as people as well as teachers.

I think that the legal profession is suffering the same moral decline as the foks they represent since it is populated by the same poorly educated, morally untethered, and self-absorbed folks that a lot of conservatives complain of in all walks of American life. They are just in a position to cause people and organizations a lot of grief.

Beleive it or not there aren't enough lawyers to go around.

I found that many attorneys take on way more cases than they can really handle (for the $, obviously) and that causes delays, poor representation, waste of public resources, etc.

I am still a member of the Massachusetts bar, but I now earn a living as a manager of network and desktop services. I find rebuilding a Compaq server a hell of a lot more satisfying than dealing with a cheap crook of a boss who hands me a 8" thick case file that I have never seen before and tells me to read it on the 10 minute subway ride to the courthouse where the case will be heard in 25 minutes. :banghead:

[another okie]

Most states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs commercial transactions and provides for attorney's fees and costs to the winner in certain types of lawsuits. Many states also have provisions allowing costs and fees in other types of suits, such as property damage lawsuits and mortgage foreclosures. So it's not that we don't have "loser pays" in America - we just don't have it uniformly in all lawsuits, or generally in personal injury or malpractice lawsuits.

The bigger difference between the UK and here is not "loser pays" but the fact that the UK (and most countries in the world) do not allow contingency fees, which means that the lawyer for the plaintiff earns a percentage of the settlement or judgment, which in Oklahoma is 10% in workers' compensation cases, and usually 25% to 33% in personal injury cases settled before trial and 50% in cases which go to trial. (The attorney also gets costs back, so the plaintiff can wind up with considerably less than 50% of the judgment.) The lawyer is usually nowadays also allowed to pay the costs up front for clients who can't pay (meaning costs such as filing fees and the costs of depositions.) In countries without contingency fees the person who wants to file a lawsuit must pay the lawyer themselves, which means you have to some cash in hand.

Contingent fees encourage settlement, and encourage frivolous lawsuits, but they also open the door to the courthouse for poor folks suing powerful individuals or entities. The good comes with the bad.

I know business and physicians are suffering under the insurance and lawsuit burden, but sometimes I also feel that the jury box is the last place the people can really speak to powerful people. The legislature is so heavily lobbied and controlled by powerful people that it is very difficult for the people to speak there. (I guess the jury box is not the last place - recall, referendum, and initiative also work.)

[CZ-75]

Neal Boortz had a good idea, which probably wasn't his own, which was to have brokerages, on the principle of Lloyd's of London, agree to underwrite the legal liability of lawsuits in exchange for a share of the judgment. He claimed this would allow those with meritorious suits (as judged by the underwriter) to file them w/o risk to their financial well-being.

[Mk VII]

we do have contingency fee work now permitted here and this accounts for the explosion in personal injury lawsuits in the past few years, most of them ill-founded, most of them directed at public authorities (because they have money). Two ambulance-chasing 'claim farmer' firms, Claims Direct and The Accident Group ('where there's blame there's a claim') recently went broke doing this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fmoney%2F2003%2F07%2F30%2Fcmlaw30.xml
but the staff all work for similar firms now. It's a wholly undesirable development

[another okie]

I didn't know the UK had adopted contingency fees. Live and learn.