Loser-pays is alas the exception in our system, but it does have its moments: after a judge declared unconstitutional a law in the state of Illinois attempting to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly ordered the state to pay $510,250 in legal fees to the game sellers, and it seems Kennelly meant business, since he has announced “the time for waffling has passed” as to the state’s coming up with payment. (John O’Connor, “Judge wants legal-fee payment plan from Blagojevich”, AP/Chicago Tribune, Dec. 11; Mark Whiting, 1up.com, Dec. 12; Slashdot, Dec. 13 and comment thread at Slashdot which mentions us and includes some discussion of loser-pays generally.
3 Comments
I don’t know much about it, but loser-pays seems like very bad policy to me. This blog is built on examples of people who unjustly lose lawsuits; you propose that they, as a rule, get stuck with the bill? Of course I know it’s much more complicated than that, but it seems that it would do much more harm than good, by discouraging settlement, among many other things.
No it would encourage Attorneys to only file for something VALID!
Instead of the the crap they seem to actually make an intended living on today!
Their role in this life, and their support, can be had via means that are honorable.
Best statement about lawyers is that there is still 1% that really makes the other 99% look bad!
CEB is absolutely correct. The current system does encourage settlement – it encourages you to settle a case that you don’t owe just so you don’t run up ridiculous legal bills trying to defend yourself.