Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (4830)	6/26/2003 12:09:47 PM
From: SalemsHex	Respond to of 12465

Hmm, not quite right. The loser-pays rule is found in English law. But it goes back to Roman law. It's found in the civil law systems all over Europe which evolved from Roman law and were codified in France, Germany and elsewhere at the time of Napoleon. And if, as the Trial Lawyers say, it's a Bad Thing, then why have so many other countries kept it? They've kept it because it deters frivolous lawsuits. Lawsuits that have made some American Trial Lawyers filthy rich. And in the process, clogged court calendars. Here is the Association of Trial Lawyers or America's official stance on the English "loser pays" system: ===== ENGLISH RULE Self-serving statement at best. The English rule would force injured Americans to shy away from holding wrongdoers accountable because a claim filed against a powerful corporation or government could wipe out these citizens financially if they have to pay the other side's legal fees and costs. Winning a trial is never guaranteed, and the injured party would be faced with this stark reality: The idea of loser-pays, of course, is to improve the standing of the side with the better case, whichever side that may be. So now these Trial Lawyers are telling us that there's a random factor in our court system that puts even the most innocent litigant in the world under a genuine fear of losing? Hell, I'd never think of challenging that admission. In fact, I'm delighted to say I agree, because it's the argument they're so reluctant to make on other occasions. When people like me and many others charge that bad lawyers can make a living off shoddy cases, the ABA responds that we must be imagining things. If a lawyer gets paid only when he wins, why would he ever file a case that's destined to lose, and why wouldn't an opponent just hold out for the inevitable vindication?