Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

wrote in message
oups.com...

Not a very good argument. I didn't expect you to admit defeat this
quickly.


What did I write that you misconstrued as an admission of defeat?



What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
have been appropriate?


I stated quite early in this thread that loser pays has no downside.

What did I write that you misconstrued as an admission of defeat?

Merely that you switched from a response based on reason to onethat
was only an ad hominum attack. Not typical for you, from what I've
seen on these bbs. In my occupation ("trial lawyer") that type of
response is characteristic of the other guy/gal's deficit of logic,
hence he/she has yielded (perhaps unintentionally) the logical point.
It is a sign of a defeated wit.

Let me ask you this; perhaps it is more enlightening: How do you
define the word "legitimate" in your original response?

What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
have been appropriate?

I stated quite early in this thread that loser pays has no downside.

OK. I had not noticed that comment was from you earlier, and asked
only as an afterthought. I have no strong philosophical dispute with
"loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.
Making them responsible for their own litigation expenses, win or
lose, helps keep the cost and efficiency more managable than it
otherwise would be. How would you like to litigate what you believe
to be legitimate tax case against Uncle Sam, knowing that they can
bury you financially if the particular judge you get thinks you're
wrong? Which brings us to the other problem with loser pays:
Not all cases are black and white, In fact, extremely few are. Both
sides frequently have good positions, based in good faith, on an
honest difference of opinion or knowledge of the facts. The "loser"
may have been 49.999% right. Is it correct to make them pay the other
side's legal costs for pursuing a claim or defense that is based on a
good faith belief, where the winner will only be decided by how a
majority of some particular 12 people may decide? Again, should
Parker-Hannifin or McDonalds have paid the plaintiffs' attorney fees
and expenses because they put up a good faith defense to claims that
they (and I gather, a majority of the writers on these bbs) believe
were not meritorious claims? Now there would be a motivation for the
defendants to rollover and pay the so-called "legal extortion"!

"skym" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no strong philosophical dispute with
"loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.

It all depends on the way this is managed. Litigators have very little
reason to manage costs if each side pays their own way. This is just
another way of trying to shake someone down.
Why should a winning defendant is a case have to pay his legal fees when
they have had a case against them tossed out.

One of the jobs of the lawyer is to ensure their client does not get to
court, with court being a last resort. Here in the UK the judge will assess
all aspects of each parties conduct in his determination of costs. If he
thinks a party has unreasonably held out settling he may not award all their
costs in their favour, but only make a partial award.
Likewise if a corporation with loads of resources acts in such a way as to
try and exhaust a claimants resources to pressurise then into dropping their
case, the judge will intervene too.

Libel is a good example. A few years ago a popular soap TV star claimed he
was libelled by a newspaper. Right up to the hearing the newspaper offered a
settlement of £200,000 plus his costs to avoid the case going before a judge
and jury.

As it was the TV star refused the offer, the jury said he had been libelled
and awarded him £50,000 damages. They did not know what had been offered
previously by the paper.

As a result of that, the TV star had to pay his own costs and the trial
costs of the newspaper which came to about £200,000. So he was well out of
pocket for chancing his arm.

so whilst we have a general principle that loser pays all the costs, if a
settlement was offered before the trial which was better than the trial
outcome then the winner who turned down the offer cops the costs for the
waste of time.

Hence the lawyers job is best done when he prevents his clients as far as
possible going to court.

The public here anyway are fed up with the compensation culture with people
looking to blame everybody but themselves and are not particularly tolerant
of this type of behaviour. Hence it is normally better to settle than go
before a jury.

On 2007-03-08, Chris wrote:
The public here anyway are fed up with the compensation culture with people
looking to blame everybody but themselves and are not particularly tolerant
of this type of behaviour.

If that was so, why is this sort of litigation increasing? I think
people are fed up with the compensation culture -- up until the very
moment they too can play the contingency lawyer risk-free lotto.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"skym" wrote in message
oups.com...

Merely that you switched from a response based on reason to onethat
was only an ad hominum attack. Not typical for you, from what I've
seen on these bbs. In my occupation ("trial lawyer") that type of
response is characteristic of the other guy/gal's deficit of logic,
hence he/she has yielded (perhaps unintentionally) the logical point.
It is a sign of a defeated wit.


An ad hominum attack? Did you mean ad hominem? Care to explain your
reasoning? If you are truly a trial lawyer you know very well illegitimate
cases sometimes win in court.



Let me ask you this; perhaps it is more enlightening: How do you
define the word "legitimate" in your original response?


I took Jose's use of it to mean "valid", I followed suit in my response to
his message.



OK. I had not noticed that comment was from you earlier, and asked
only as an afterthought. I have no strong philosophical dispute with
"loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.
Making them responsible for their own litigation expenses, win or
lose, helps keep the cost and efficiency more managable than it
otherwise would be.


As it stands now the losing side pays the costs of both sides, even when
they're right.



How would you like to litigate what you believe
to be legitimate tax case against Uncle Sam, knowing that they can
bury you financially if the particular judge you get thinks you're
wrong? Which brings us to the other problem with loser pays:
Not all cases are black and white, In fact, extremely few are. Both
sides frequently have good positions, based in good faith, on an
honest difference of opinion or knowledge of the facts. The "loser"
may have been 49.999% right. Is it correct to make them pay the other
side's legal costs for pursuing a claim or defense that is based on a
good faith belief, where the winner will only be decided by how a
majority of some particular 12 people may decide? Again, should
Parker-Hannifin or McDonalds have paid the plaintiffs' attorney fees
and expenses because they put up a good faith defense to claims that
they (and I gather, a majority of the writers on these bbs) believe
were not meritorious claims? Now there would be a motivation for the
defendants to rollover and pay the so-called "legal extortion"!


I don't see a problem there. If the loser is 49.999% right they should pay
50.001 of the winner's legal costs.