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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23218)	1/6/2004 11:13:26 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793670

I don't completely understand the way the British legal system is set up, because "loser pays" doesn't seem to apply when the government funds the litigation for legal aid recipients. In general, however, the side that loses in litigation has to pay the other side's legal fees and costs. America goes about it differently. For the most part, litigants bear their own costs, although there are some statutes that provide for reimbursement of the winner's attorney's fees and costs, e.g., civil rights cases. Actually very few lawyers work on contingency fees. Corporate defense attorneys, insurance defense attorneys, and government attorneys get paid no matter what, and nobody uses contingency fees in divorces or, for that matter, most civil litigation. It's not used in criminal litigation, either. In Virginia, which is very old fashioned, you are not supposed to charge a contingency fee if the client can pay the hourly fee. Frankly, I don't like doing contingency fees anymore, myself. It's too stressful anymore. I'm not a gambler. But if you have a good case and a poor client, there's really not much alternative. Either do it on a contingency fee, or don't do it at all. Most places in the world the answer is "don't do it at all". Suck it up.