Tort reform

[noonereal]

Last year Texas passed a law that says (roughly) if you bring a suit that is thrown out of court because it was without merit, you're obligated to pay all the defendant's fees. - It's a Republican introduced law.

Thoughts?

[Boreas]

Bad. Who decides on the merits? The judge..... the elected judge.

John

[d-ray657]

I'd have to see the law. In most jurisdictions, one who brings a frivolous lawsuit (or asserts a frivolous defense) is subject to paying the opponent's fees. Simply losing or failing to state a sustainable claim do not make the claim frivolous. If the statute merely codifies that law, I have no problem with it. If not, I do have a problem with it, because it chills access to the courts. Many people who suffer a legal wrong have no funds to afford their own lawyer, much less the fees of a defense lawyer. Under this law, it encourages people to lump it or take the risk of financial ruin (if the defendant's conduct hasn't already caused it).

If the statute makes simply losing a basis for paying the defendant's fees, it is another law that disadvantages the middle class. One who has no assets has nothing to risk by pursuing a claim, because he or she would be essentially judgment proof. On the other hand, those who have modest assets do face great risk in asserting a right. I have won cases I didn't think I would win, and lost cases I thought I would win. There is always some element of uncertainty in litigation. Businesses will often have insurance to pay the fees for the defense of most claims. The individual - not so likely.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I'd have to see the law. In most jurisdictions, one who brings a frivolous lawsuit (or asserts a frivolous defense) is subject to paying the opponent's fees. Simply losing or failing to state a sustainable claim do not make the claim frivolous. If the statute merely codifies that law, I have no problem with it. If not, I do have a problem with it, because it chills access to the courts. Many people who suffer a legal wrong have no funds to afford their own lawyer, much less the fees of a defense lawyer. Under this law, it encourages people to lump it or take the risk of financial ruin (if the defendant's conduct hasn't already caused it).

If the statute makes simply losing a basis for paying the defendant's fees, it is another law that disadvantages the middle class. One who has no assets has nothing to risk by pursuing a claim, because he or she would be essentially judgment proof. On the other hand, those who have modest assets do face great risk in asserting a right. I have won cases I didn't think I would win, and lost cases I thought I would win. There is always some element of uncertainty in litigation. Businesses will often have insurance to pay the fees for the defense of most claims. The individual - not so likely.

Regards,

D-Ray

This post is exactly why I love you guys here at political chat.

So much thought and knowledge available for the asking.

Thanks Don

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I'd have to see the law. In most jurisdictions, one who brings a frivolous lawsuit (or asserts a frivolous defense) is subject to paying the opponent's fees. Simply losing or failing to state a sustainable claim do not make the claim frivolous. If the statute merely codifies that law, I have no problem with it. If not, I do have a problem with it, because it chills access to the courts...

Yep. Those will frivolous, "Hail Mary" lawsuits won't show up as often.

While I understand the trial lawyers and the left's (and your) argument, I do think our system is pretty screwy. Having lived in Germany, where the loser pays legal fees (as is true most everywhere outside the US, I believe), there are certainly far fewer lawsuits from people who walk around with chips on their shoulders, aggrieved about everything and searching for someone with deep pockets to relieve their misery.

That said, the last place I'd look for an intelligent answer to this mess would be Texas (along with Arizona and South Carolina).

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Businesses will often have insurance to pay the fees for the defense of most claims. The individual - not so likely.

Regards,

D-Ray

This just might be the crux of the biscuit; To make it less palatable for individuals, employees, disgruntled customers, etc., to sue a business.

Business to Business lawsuits, not so much.

In otherwords, I see it as yet another attack on the individuals ability (freedom) to protect himself from abusive and unsavory business practices.

Placing the rights and desires of the business owner over that of the common citizen.

You know; The Conservative ideal.

Dave

[Big_Bill]

I would like to see a law passed, that would make the Lawyer or lawfirm responsible for the legal fees of people that they sue, should he or she loose the case.

All to many layers today will take cases where their fees will only be paid if and when a settlement is reached. And due to the extremely expensive cost of defending oneself, many try to settle out of court, even when they know that they are not responsible or guilty of the charges of the lawsuit.

I believe that if lawyers would be responsible for the defendants expenses if they loose the case, lawyers would only accept cases that they were convinced had merit, and a strong chance of winning. This would help reduce the courts overload, and put an end to many frivolous lawsuits.

It would also help those sued by government, as it would help the defendant prevent total financial ruin even if they win the case.

[d-ray657]

Everybody hates lawyers - until they need one.

I might win a case, or I might not, but I never loose one.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Everybody hates lawyers - until they need one.

I might win a case, or I might not, but I never loose one.

Regards,

D-Ray

My post was not intended for you D-Ray,

Lawyers are greatly needed and appreciated for their outstanding knowledge of law !

It is just that those that take cases that they know have no merit, with hopes of settling them out of court, that I find offensive.

Finding a good lawyer is like finding a good dentist, you may not enjoy seeing them, but your very happy the have them when you need them :roll eyes:

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

My post was not intended for you D-Ray,

Lawyers are greatly needed and appreciated for their outstanding knowledge of law !

It is just that those that take cases that they know have no merit, with hopes of settling them out of court, that I find offensive.

Finding a good lawyer is like finding a good dentist, you may not enjoy seeing them, but your very happy the have them when you need them :roll eyes:

To be candid, you have identified the reason why I have not pursued an employment law (as opposed to labor law) practice. I was very interested in pursuing discrimination cases when I started in private practice. It became apparent, however, that those who were successful in that practice had high volume practices. Some took cases knowing that they would be able to obtain a nuisance value settlement. On the flip side, employers and employers' counsel viewed almost all cases as nuisance value cases. That meant that there was little chance of settling a meritorious case for close to what it was worth. I was not interested in getting into the business of taking cases for nuisance value settlements and I was also not inclined to engage in the risk of having to fully litigate all cases that I had evaluated as meritorious. Almost all employment law cases are taken on a contingency. At that time, cases under Title VII were limited to back pay, which created a situation in which there was low reward, but significant risk. I will still take an occasional discrimination case, but only when there appears to be a glaring injustice for which there is a reasonable chance of obtaining a remedy.

Still, if the law were changed to make it easier for employers to obtain attorneys fees - and to obtain fees from counsel - the discrimination statutes would become all but worthless. The statutory scheme depends heavily on the concept of "Private attorneys general." The civil rights agencies are not sufficiently staffed to prosecute but a fraction of discrimination claims. The provision of the civil rights laws providing fees to a prevailing plaintiff creates an incentive for private counsel to enforce the policies upon which the laws are based. The chances of enforcing such policies would shrink to nearly zero if plaintiff's counsel were faced with the prospect of not only not being paid, but also being on the hook for opposing counsel's fees. All the while, defense counsel are being paid on a monthly basis. It is not a situation that would promote equal employment opportunity.

Regards,

D-Ray