Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Not everyone with a valid suit can pay a lawyer up front.
What kind of lawyer would take a case such as this on contingency, anyway? Unless he's just trying to get practice time in, it would be a waste of time. Time is money.
ALL lawsuits should be paid for by the loser. Court costs, attorney fees, subpoenas, everything.
But definitely don't take away contingency.
Actually, as a practicing attorney, probably the very worst "tort reform" (or deform) that could be enacted is a loser pays rule. If such a law were enacted, attorneys would stop taking personal injury and tort cases completely. Of course, if that's what someone really wants, I guess that's a good way to achieve it.
Essentially, such a rule would require me to take a gamble in every case I had. If I failed to win or prevail because of an incompetent jury (and many exist) or a bad judge (and plenty of those exist too), my client and I would be on the hook in virtually every case for thousands of dollars in defense costs. I can see a dynamic emerging quickly that would be like this:
1. The very poor would be unable to pay and the law would not stop them from bringing a suit.
2. The middle class, or those with modest assets, wouldn't dare take the chance that they could file a suit and lose. Therefore, it would effectively lock the middle class out of the judicial system.
3. The wealthiest people in society wouldn't care at all and would continue to use the legal system as they currently do.
Most of my clients are in the middle class category. I represent school teachers, air force employees, brick layers, and housewives. No question about it. If this became law, I'd probably be looking for another job.
On the other hand, I think the outcome of a law prohibiting the contingent fee might work out in odd and peculiar ways. I think many lawyers would deal with this by charging a high hourly rate. Than they would wait until the end of the case--after settlement--and collect their fee than. If things didn't work out, they'd simply tear up their bill and move on. In any event, things would work out about the same. I suppose some would argue for "tight policing" of this arrangement. However, state bar associations don't really have the resources to take a hard look at this. Its all they can do to manage issues like licensing and discipline for serious matters.
The civil justice system actually works reasonably well in its current fashion. I notice that people who want to change the system generally focus on one or two high profile cases to claim that everything is wrong across the board. No system should be judged on the basis of a handful of cases.'
What our current system does a reasonably good job of is assuring that the poor and middle class have access to the courts for the most serious and important cases. Do some abuses occur in that process? Yes, but its part of the cost of allowing people to access courts to redress their grievances. I'm always open to suggestions for true reform, but "loser pay" is an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
...would not be the case but for the fact that automobile manufacturers have been motivated to make safer vehicles by potential lawsuits.
Heaven forbid that the consumer is ever protected at the expense of the quarterly dividend for MegaAmalgamatedSuperCorporation being a few cents less than it otherwise might have been...
...would not be the case but for the fact that automobile manufacturers have been motivated to make safer vehicles by potential lawsuits.
Heaven forbid that the consumer is ever protected at the expense of the quarterly dividend for MegaAmalgamatedSuperCorporation being a few cents less than it otherwise might have been...
I don't go to McDonalds except for coffee. Why? The food is just short of inedible, but also, the pricing. If you order a la carte it is just about the stupidest pricing I've ever seen. Other places do it too. All (I suppose) to make that final "total" number at the register as high as possible, regardless of what the customer came there for. Its rule number one in business these days.
When was the first rule of business NOT increasing sales? It's kind of the whole reason for being in business.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,350 posts, read 8,567,170 times
Reputation: 16693
I hate frivolous law suits. Often done by opportunistic lazy people. I hate the lawyers who take the cases.
I think that the loser should pay court and legal fees. I think that would make people think twice about filing a lawsuit.
The way it is now it's a no lose proposition. File and win big bucks or lose and pay nothing.
That being said I always look at menu boards. I can easily do math in my head. I went to McDonalds just an hour ago ad saw the $4 value meal. Look at the dollar menu, and saved about 60 cents. Just took a few seconds to figure that out. But I get many people are not very bright.
Many cashiers cannot figure out change once they ring up the register. I was in walmart and watched someone pay with cash, but then altered the transaction with a different combination of bills. The cashier looked confused and wound up giving the person $60 too much in change. I was next in line and pointed it out to the cashier and she just shrugged. This was in Ca where the workers all want $15 per hour for menial minimum wage jobs.
...would not be the case but for the fact that automobile manufacturers have been motivated to make safer vehicles by potential lawsuits.
Heaven forbid that the consumer is ever protected at the expense of the quarterly dividend for MegaAmalgamatedSuperCorporation being a few cents less than it otherwise might have been...
Heaven forbid that without that fear hanging over the companies heads that the cheapest cars would sell the best because the US consumer is typically interested in cost first and foremost. The company with the "safer" vehicles would probably end up bankrupt.
That street goes both ways.
The US consumer continues to buy sub-standard if not complete crap knock-offs from China to save $$$ and have wound up with things like oh....dead pets as a result...and lead paint on childrens toys etc etc etc.
Just saying companies aren't the only ones motivated by greed...it just doesn't sell as well to the masses to be told they're a big part of the problem themselves. Much easier to just blame evil corporations.
I hate frivolous law suits. Often done by opportunistic lazy people. I hate the lawyers who take the cases.
I think that the loser should pay court and legal fees. I think that would make people think twice about filing a lawsuit.
The way it is now it's a no lose proposition. File and win big bucks or lose and pay nothing.
That being said I always look at menu boards. I can easily do math in my head. I went to McDonalds just an hour ago ad saw the $4 value meal. Look at the dollar menu, and saved about 60 cents. Just took a few seconds to figure that out. But I get many people are not very bright.
Many cashiers cannot figure out change once they ring up the register. I was in walmart and watched someone pay with cash, but then altered the transaction with a different combination of bills. The cashier looked confused and wound up giving the person $60 too much in change. I was next in line and pointed it out to the cashier and she just shrugged. This was in Ca where the workers all want $15 per hour for menial minimum wage jobs.
It probably would get rid of the frivolous cases. The problem though as I stated in my earlier post is that it would bet rid of most of the meritorious cases as well. Most people could not afford to take the risk that a case wouldn't come out the way they hope it will. Not if there house, car, and bank account were on the hook if they just happened to get a bad judge or a lazy jury. Therefore, because of a few frivolous claims, everyone would be denied their day in court.
Moderator cut: .
The right to access the courts to resolve disputes is a critical right in this country. It is recognized by most state constitutions. A loser-pay system would deprive many if not most people of that right. Therefore, it is wrong.
Last edited by toosie; 12-26-2016 at 01:16 PM..
Reason: Deleted gun analogy - already off topic - that'd be a thread hijack
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
