Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For the attorneys - "Loser pays"

Do you support it? Why or why not?

In what type of cases?

As a criminal defense attorney, I am all for it. I see a lot of stupid cases prosecuted simply because the prosecutor and the arresting cop have no skin in the game. If the jury comes back with a "Not Guilty" the prosecutor and cop just say "oh well" and go home.

So, yeah, if the prosecutor loses any case he prosecutes, he goes to jail and pays the fine. It might bring reason back into play!

Any/all types but feel free to comment if you thing there's a distinction. I'm not suggesting the prosecutor in a criminal case goes to jail if he/she loses (and I really hope no one would be in favor of that) but I would be in favor of 'the state' paying any/all defense costs as well as any loss of income and verifiable other costs incurred. I was primarily thinking of civil suits though.

As a general proposition, no. There are plaintiffs with tenable cases who can't afford their own attorney's fee except by contingency much less the other side's. Then there's the ever-popular issue of determining whether the winning side's fees are appropriate or excessive. I do favor strong sanctions for frivolous/dilatory actions and motions and judges who will not tolerate such.

Waders, in odd contrast our local deputy state's attorney is getting a bad rap in (some of) the community for too many dismissals.

Perhaps he is prosecuting cases that he knows he can't win but is just burning public resources because he has no incentive not to.

I do believe that one of the new round of laws passed recently in Texas (~ 700 total new laws) is just that; Loser pays all costs in Civil Cases.

I think that is correct.

I mean dismissals on his motion. It's a political thing. The last state's attorney was more "law and order," prosecuting (and winning) where the case was clear. A certain segment of the population feels that minor misdemeanors are unimportant and other misdemeanors should be reduced to lower sentencing guidelines (which are not mandatory but generally followed by agreement within the circuit.) She lost by very few votes.

I know in Erie County, Pa Court, the Judges will have you making a donation to the law library for bringing frivolous cases before them. In criminal cases it becomes a much tougher issue, mainly because you have a crime against citizens for violence or theft etc. and the victim often wants (and has a right) for their day in court. But civil cases, the loser most times pays (very few exceptions).

I'm waiting for VA to jump in on this.

loser pays is a pretty useless remedy in most small civil cases unless you make the loser's lawyer pay. very few personal injury plaintiffs have the liquid assets to respond to a six figure judgment for the defendant's attorneys fees, and trying to collect them is just throwing good money after bad.

I'd be more in favor of getting rid of lawyers in general.



Biggest waste of perfectly good oxygen with all that hot air that comes out of their mouths.




....love ya Steve. grin

hey, I'm around them all day and sometimes I feel the same way.

Good point. Texas' law refers to the plaintiff paying all costs if losing not the defendant.

Oh, so you just want reform that ups the ante for charging criminals, but not for those lawyers who file frivolous monetary claims? Good answer.

Classic! lol

Agreed! Most indigents are judgement proof anyway. The sad thing is real, damaged persons suffer under the system when the Attorneys SHOP clients.

Loser pays is a good idea

WildmakesfolksthinkbeforeactingAlaska ��2002-2011

I would love to see it in environmental cases - along with a severe beating and mandatory sterilization.

I guess I was assuming that is what would happen if the client couldn't. If an attorney takes something on contingency right now, the risk for an unfavorable judgement to him/her/the firm is (primarily) time. If it was loser pays there would obviously be an added level of scrutiny given the validity of the claim. If the plantiff nor their attorney have the means to pay if they lose then the case is never filed.
I realize there is the 'poor pitiful little Miss' who has a rightful claim but can't afford the representation to take on megacorp but the current system seems to have more opportunity for wrong with free no cost frivilous suits than not. No?
I guess perhaps that's the better question, is loser pays better than systems with no (added) costs to those that lose frivilous suits?
It would be nice, as an innocent person being sued, to know at the end assuming the right judgement is reached, I would not be financially harmed. Obviously many folks 'win' a judgement but take a beating in the process.

There would have to be some type of cap on legal fees that could be paid by the loser or large corporation/wealthy individuals could make the filing of a lawsuit impracticable, simply by threat of spending more on legal defense than the plaintiff could ever afford.

Put a "3 strikes you're out" rule on attorney's like the c@#ksuckers did to doctors in Florida. Lose 3 cases where an attorney represented the plaintiff..... disbarred for 5 years.

That will stop the frivolous litigation and force them to actually believe in the cases they bring forth.