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: rrufff who wrote (7285)	2/12/2005 2:01:57 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

That'll happen when McDonalds quits selling French Fries. You're essentially asking the legal industry to kill its Golden-Egg Laying Goose. Words like "prudence", are better suited for a Beatles' album, not a courtroom. "If the loser were required to pay the winner's legal fees and costs, one would be more prudent before bringing frivolous cases and cases would settle more often and sooner."

To: rrufff who wrote (7285)	2/12/2005 8:19:45 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

If the loser were required to pay the winner's legal fees and costs, one would be more prudent before bringing frivolous cases and cases would settle more often and sooner. We've talked about this before on this thread, but to summarize: the reason why the US does not have a "loser pays" legal system is so that "little guys" are not afraid to sue big corporations for fear of losing and being wiped out by having to potentially pay their humongous legal fees. What we need is a federal anti-SLAPP procedure (or one in every state) whereby it is easy, inexpensive, and fast to get frivolous lawsuits tossed out with the guarantee of getting your legal fees reimbursed. - Jeff

To: rrufff who wrote (7285)	2/12/2005 12:19:49 PM
From: SI Dave	Respond to of 12465

>>If the loser were required to pay the winner's legal fees and costs, one would be more prudent before bringing frivolous cases and cases would settle more often and sooner. That's the English system. It will never happen as long as the ratio of lawmakers who are attorneys vs. non-attorneys is greater than 1:1. They aren't about to shoot their private sector careers in the foot, so they hide behind the cause for the "have nots" and their right to a day in court. The simple fix is to give everyone their day in court, but to empower and mandate that judges decide if a case brought before the court is frivolous, and to sanction the lawyer(s) in addition to the client(s). Lawyers already filter cases on their merits, but from the perspective of whether or not they can win compensation. If they can weigh the merits for their own benefit, then they should be able to do the same regarding the court's time. It wouldn't take much to add the prospect of a sanction into the filtering process. Of course, if the case has legitimate merit then a lawyer could certainly be found to take it since the presence of reasonable merit would preclude sanctions. The court's determination regarding the award of attorney fees should be separate from their determination of sanctions for bringing a frivolous case before the court.