if you run it like the feds, with their pre-trial scheduling and difficulties in continuing trials, you put pressure on the lawyers. this actually would really frick a lot of lawyers on both sides who have taken on too many cases, and WOULD combat the churn firms somewhat

quote:
So if you reject a reasonable settlement offer and then lose, you're on the hook for the legal fees from the point the offer was made.

we do kind of have this in place with offers of judgments, just fwiw

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Teddy Ruxpin

Member since Oct 2006

39640 posts

Posted on 7/27/14 at 7:06 pm to SlowFlowPro

This thread won't go anywhere unless people accept what the overall outcome of cases are or aren't.

If you believe or experienced Slow's world that most claims are only an issue for damages, then loser pays would be a terrible idea. Right now, the vast majority of claims don't make to trial for whatever reasons.

A plaintiff in Slow's world of loser pays has zero reason to not file suit and see it to the conclusion. This would raise defense costs. The argument of "marginal" cases isn't really in thay scenario.

If you don't believe the above occurs or isn't significant, then perhaps you'll have a different conclusion.

This post was edited on 7/27/14 at 7:09 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by casualobserver

Baton Rouge

Member since Oct 2011

144 posts

Posted on 7/27/14 at 11:37 pm to SlowFlowPro

quote:
So if you reject a reasonable settlement offer and then lose, you're on the hook for the legal fees from the point the offer was made. we do kind of have this in place with offers of judgments, just fwiw

I think you've done an excellent job explaining why loser pays is a bad idea, however, offers of judgment in federal court do not shift attorney's fees unless costs are defined to include attorney's fees, such as civil rights cases.

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board