Sunday, January 30, 2005

Mandating "loser-pays" is a bad idea

The article linked in this posting is all about what a bad idea it is to mandate that the loser in a civil lawsuit pay the legal expenses of the winner. I agree. This wouldn't be the right decision in every case and a mandate would discourage people from battling big opponents in court. We have learned in some high profile cases that money sometimes can win victories. Just look at O.J. Simpson. You'd hate to sue a big company and lose to some big money tactics and have to try to foot that bill.

However, I would strongly advocate a bill that places a strong recommendation for judges to impose a loser-pays penalty in cases he deems to be wholly without merit or frivolous in nature. It sounds like the law already allows a defendant to petition the judge for such redress, but having this strongly advised in the law (always at the judge's discretion) would be a good thing.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think that loser pays rocks so what that there arn't many witness to prove it.