I’ve hear proponents of loser-pays explain why they think it would be a great idea. It really takes little explanation, to be honest. The theory is that if the loser of a law suit pays their own legal fees, as well as the fees of the person they were in litigation against, lawsuits would become more rare. I think it would definitely cut down on frivolous suits, but it would make lawsuits in general far more prevalent, as well as far more costly. Face it, if I know that I don’t have to pay my lawyer if I win, I am going to get the most expensive lawyer I can find, one that has never lost a case. I don’t care how much he costs, the guy I’m suing or is suing me is going to have to pay him. You’d see cases where the plaintiff wins, is awarded a few thousand dollars, and costs the defendant $1 million in legal fees.
I want to see less lawsuits, but I don’t think this is the way to do it.
Well, for my part, I’m not a gambling man. I’m not going to risk having to pay my lawyer absurd fees if I lose, especially if it’s a frivolous suit (which I would clearly have a high probability of losing).
As far as your objection of “You’d see cases where the plaintiff wins, is awarded a few thousand dollars, and costs the defendant $1 million in legal fees.” That’s easily solved just by instituting a cap, isn’t it?