- 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: Does anyone hope that the La. legislature will pass a "loser pays" law?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:47 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:47 pm to LSURussian
quote:
By "loser pays" I mean the system Alaska has enacted: It requires, in almost all every category of civil cases, the loser of the lawsuit to pay a portion of the winner’s attorney’s fees.
will cost insurance a metric frick ton of money and increase rates. liability is typically not an issue in these cases and it's only about damages
3
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yup. It also only encourages both sides to rack up more legal fees, even on stupid cases.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:49 pm to civiltiger07
quote:This board is probably significantly more intelligent than the general population, and the population of those who serve on juries. And do you see how easily everbody on here can get caught up in emotional appeals and bias confirmation?
Isn't the whole point of a trial to educate the jury so they can make a informed ruling?
Sounds to me like you are butt hurt because you are possibly a lawyer that sucks at his/her job.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:49 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
If it's a close case, then each side probably had a legitimate claim, as opposed to a frivolous suit, like judge in DC who sued the dry cleaners for losing a piece of clothing.
most jurisdictions have this, including LA. CCP 863
quote:
B. Pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit or certificate, except as otherwise provided by law, but the signature of an attorney or party shall constitute a certification by him that he has read the pleading, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, he certifies all of the following:
(1) The pleading is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
(2) Each claim, defense, or other legal assertion in the pleading is warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
(3) Each allegation or other factual assertion in the pleading has evidentiary support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual assertion, is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
(4) Each denial in the pleading of a factual assertion is warranted by the evidence or, for a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
quote:
D. If, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, the court determines that a certification has been made in violation of the provisions of this Article, the court shall impose upon the person who made the certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction which may include an order to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:49 pm to LSURussian
Me
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:So then system in place seem appropriate.
most jurisdictions have this, including LA. CCP 863
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nope.
quote:
By "loser pays" I mean the system Alaska has enacted: It requires, in almost all every category of civil cases, the loser of the lawsuit to pay a portion of the winner’s attorney’s fees.
will cost insurance a metric frick ton of money and increase rates. liability is typically not an issue in these cases and it's only about damages
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:51 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Yup. It also only encourages both sides to rack up more legal fees, even on stupid cases.
the Plaintiff's bar is salivating at "loser pays"
it's going to potentially increase the cost of litigation a ton, b/c now in clear liability scenarios (which is probably 95% at least), they can hold out for increased damages or threaten trial. if the case has to go to trial, the Plaintiff's attorneys are guaranteed to get their fees (b/c the liability is clear) on top of the damages
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
Some lawyers like it because they can take a small damages case with rock solid liability and ring up big time attorney fees.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:54 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Shouldn't there be a standard to meet to determine that the loser pays?
Yeah. So you sue for $250,000 and win $20,000 at trial. Is that a win? For which side?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:54 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Some lawyers like it because they can take a small damages case with rock solid liability and ring up big time attorney fees.
100%
a good example is a rescission of sale suit, esp with used cars. those suits aren't going to generate enough money for a contingency fee and if the person who bought the car had o buy an older, used car, they're not going to pay hourly for an attorney to run up a bill that will be 50-150% of the car's price
now, if the attorney can make the defendant pay its fees? more lawsuits
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
We know how you earn your living. I knew how you would reply as I wrote the OP. The clear liability cases are mostly settled anyway. If you're saying plaintiff attorneys will inflate their fees then you've just acknowledged how unethical they are.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 3:56 pm to TrueTiger
Plaintiffs' attorneys would love this. They would get their contingency fee and then collect loser pays attorney's fees on top of that.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:02 pm to NOFOX
quote:And you don't think that would be more than offset by the huge decrease in the greenmail contingency cases the ambulance chasers file now?
Plaintiffs' attorneys would love this. They would get their contingency fee and then collect loser pays attorney's fees on top of that.
If a company knows it clearly has liability it will make the injured person whole without sleazy lawyers ever getting invloved.
In both cases the number of court cases decline. Win-win for the public and the courts. The losers are the lawyers.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:03 pm to LSURussian
quote:
We know how you earn your living
i don't do plaintiff's work anymore except in rare scenarios
i've done a ton of it, however, and can tell you how it works
quote:
The clear liability cases are mostly settled anyway.
almost 100% of cases are settled. it's like 95%+
quote:
If you're saying plaintiff attorneys will inflate their fees then you've just acknowledged how unethical they are.
it's no that they will inflate their fees (although many will). you're giving them a freeroll gamble by adopting this system. if there is no risk to the attorney in a case with no liability issues (which are almost all of them), then if that case goes to trial, the attorney is on a freeroll.
in the current system, there is a risk if the case goes to trial that the attorney gets nothing OR if the jury/judge awards a lesser amount, the attorney's expected fees are severely affected (since they're contingent on the damage awards)
now in the new system you'd have this risk + negative equity in the potential of having to pay the loser's fees. ok, that will put the squeeze on cases with liability issues (slip and fall or contract breaches are 2 good examples). HOWEVER, in the primary plaintiff/PI example (car wreck scenario), this risk/liability simply doesn't exist. you're creating an incentive to not settle and go to trial, b/c the attorney has no risk at trial (his fees will be paid b/c liability is certain)
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
It can even cause the defense bar to run up fees if it is a borderline liability case and there is a 50% chance of shifting it to the plaintiff.
So for instance if an insurance company would have authorize a budget of $1,000,000 in a 50/50 case, they may now authorize a $2,000,000 budget if there is a 50% chance they end up paying $0.
That of course assumes the plaintiff has the funds to cover the budget, but it happens with suits between big companies.
So for instance if an insurance company would have authorize a budget of $1,000,000 in a 50/50 case, they may now authorize a $2,000,000 budget if there is a 50% chance they end up paying $0.
That of course assumes the plaintiff has the funds to cover the budget, but it happens with suits between big companies.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:05 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If a company knows it clearly has liability it will make the injured person whole without sleazy lawyers ever getting invloved.
no. almost any car wreck case that goes to trial is a dispute over damages, not liability
ONCE IN A BLUE MOON you'll have an issue of some sort of relationship that may lead to vicarious liability, but most of these issues are decided prior to trial. it's very rare to get to trial and have those issues still pending (my old firm was actually brought on by another firm for this very reason in a trial)
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:06 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The clear liability cases are mostly settled anyway.
Most auto cases do not go to trial over liability (who caused the accident). They go to trial over damages (what level of harm did the accident cause).
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
The insurance lobby in this state does a hell of a job
OP should give us plenty of examples of these frivolous law suits
OP should give us plenty of examples of these frivolous law suits
Posted on 2/14/17 at 4:08 pm to NIH
Muh Hot Coffee Case.
Page 2 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News