- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Make an argument against a "loser pays" judicial system
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:If that was true all you lawyers would be fighting to get loser pays instituted everywhere.
whatever costs that you think you save will actually increase
1
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:11 pm to LSURussian
quote:
There are only selfish arguments by an over population of lawyers.
True. There are more lawyers in the US than the rest of the world combined. They fish for work that isn't there. It's very sad. 'Call the man with the hat..he will get you money!'
Meso!!!! OMG, I've got it.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:21 pm to Zach
quote:
Speak in exact terms.
contract dispute between 1 business and another for $100k, employer terminated employee with a contract with that buyout amount. no issue as to breach of the employee's claim. he sues employer for the buyout of $100k
now the employer has to pay $150k once it loses. $100k for the contract claim. $40k in attorney's fees (40% contingency. it could be a lot more if they bill on purpose knowing they'll win. i'm being conservative based on current behaviors, but they would mold), and $10k in litigation costs.
you just raised the costs of doing business by 50%
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:22 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If that was true all you lawyers would be fighting to get loser pays instituted everywhere.
it does exist in some contexts and as a matter of public policy, nobody wants loser pays in general after seeing that
i THINK shareholder derivative suits in LA require the corporation to fund the attorney's for the SHs, which leads to absurd results
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:25 pm to Zach
quote:
Meso!!!! OMG, I've got it.
this is a problem of juries and judges (to a lesser extent). if you don't agree with these damages, imagine adding the lawyer fees on TOP of these damages. once you get to that point, it's "too late" to solve the problem you see
one solution would be stronger summary judgment procedures (which is occurring more and more in LA. the 3rd circuit out here has spoken to us about how they don't like motions for summary judgment...they're trying to change the rules to make it more plaintiff-friendly...at least as of the last time i heard them speak on this). summary judgment kills the claim before you get to trial
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:29 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Someone could have a legitimate claim and not be able to afford the risk of losing-and you can always lose, regardless of the merits of your case.
But an insurer (since that's what we are really talking about here) takes a much greater risk dicking around with legitimate claims.
Loser pays would cause a lot more settlements on borderline claims (either pre-suit, or on the courthouse steps). Claims/cases where one side or the other has the clear advantage would never cross the courthouse threshold, which is as it should be.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
contract dispute between 1 business and another for $100k, employer terminated employee with a contract with that buyout amount. no issue as to breach of the employee's claim. he sues employer for the buyout of $100k now the employer has to pay $150k once it loses. $100k for the contract claim. $40k in attorney's fees (40% contingency. it could be a lot more if they bill on purpose knowing they'll win. i'm being conservative based on current behaviors, but they would mold), and $10k in litigation costs.
this is what quick settlements are for
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:32 pm to udtiger
quote:
But an insurer (since that's what we are really talking about here) takes a much greater risk dicking around with legitimate claims.
exactly
the vast majority of claims people get mad about, and i'm talking about your "tv lawyer" cases, do not involve a dispute of liability. they only involve a dispute of damages.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
now the employer has to pay $150k once it loses. $100k for the contract claim. $40k in attorney's fees (40% contingency. it could be a lot more if they bill on purpose knowing they'll win. i'm being conservative based on current behaviors, but they would mold), and $10k in litigation costs.
you just raised the costs of doing business by 50%
No, it wouldn't. If the employer believed it would lose a lawsuit it would pay the $100k before it reached litigation. The injured party is made whole but no lawyer gets a slice of the pie.
If the employer believed it had the legal grounds to win and the plaintiffs attorney believed the same thing, the plaintiffs attorney would have the obligation to disclose that opinion to the aggrieved and either not take the case or make sure the plaintiff knows he will have to pay if he loses. There probably would be no suit filed.
Justice prevails without a time wasting and costly frivolous lawsuit from being filed.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:33 pm to Cosmo
Te argument against it is that if you are one person taking on walmart or Exxon. you are definitely discouraged form bringing suit because they can afford lawyers 10x outside pay grade.
It also has the issue of piling it on a poorer defendant. If you know you have a good case you could always just smash a guy by getting a very expensive attorney.
It also has the issue of piling it on a poorer defendant. If you know you have a good case you could always just smash a guy by getting a very expensive attorney.
This post was edited on 7/27/14 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:34 pm to Cosmo
quote:
this is what quick settlements are for
the employer probably wouldn't want to settle for $100k. they'll negotiate. if they resist, employee files suit, and he/she has little reason to settle at that point.
but that scenario is easy b/c it involves a stipulation of damages. what do you do with an indeterminate damage? from personal injuries to lost future wages/earning potential, they are an art more than science.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and he/she has little reason to settle at that point.
other than getting the money more quickly.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:36 pm to LSURussian
quote:
No, it wouldn't. If the employer believed it would lose a lawsuit it would pay the $100k before it reached litigation. The injured party is made whole but no lawyer gets a slice of the pie.
again, i used an easy scenario to easily use numbers
turn this into a car wreck with clear liability. why would a plaintiff settle for $10k pre-suit, giving 33% of that to its attorney, when they can file suit and get that $10k in full (with the defendant paying the attorney)?
or what if that employer breached its contract and then intentionally interfered with its employee from getting employment? those lost wages and that damage to reputation are real damages, but not so cut and dry
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:37 pm to Cosmo
quote:
other than getting the money more quickly.
time value of money is a real concept, but if the employer is trying to negotiate, some employees would rather get 100% (sometimes out of principle, sometimes they can afford to do so. that all depends on the negotiations of the employer
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the employer probably wouldn't want to settle for $100k.
False assumption. Why would the employer resist settling if the plaintiff has a legitimate claim?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Your arguments are very weak and obviously self serving, counselor.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:38 pm to LSURussian
quote:
False assumption. Why would the employer resist settling if the plaintiff has a legitimate claim?
thats what im getting at
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:40 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Te argument against it is that if you are one person taking on walmart or Exxon.
give me a scenario.
again, if it is a cut and dry legitimate lawsuit, I still think you will be able to find a lawyer to take your case on contingency and gamble that they won't lose
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:41 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Your arguments are very weak and obviously self serving, counselor.
i do mostly criminal defense.
again, how does this lower the costs of personal injury cases. why would a plaintiff settle for $10k (and give 33% of that to his/her attorney) when they can sue and get all the $10k (and the defendant pays the lawyer's fee)? that's a simple question
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:41 pm to Cosmo
quote:
thats what im getting at
that was just an easy example of litigation with a set #
the vast majority of ligiation does not involve easy numbers like that
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News