Those attorneys would get money from the losing side. If the losing side does not have a legit case, most of those attorneys would just say there is not possible win & they are not risking a loss of time on someone without assets. For a $1k representation they might, but not for a case that could run 10k+
Frivilous law suits would stop due to attorneys on both sides realizing they wouldn't get paid.
I have an ex who has had a couple lawyers drop her once they realize she submitted false information & that I go after lawyers who allow my ex to submit false documents.
These lawyers want to repay their loans & would stop representing Frivilous law suits almost overnight if they thought they would never get paid.
I still have never heard a convincing argument as to why we should not do a closer pay all system. Though I am certainly open to the concept if a rational, and persuasive, idea comes along.
Those attorneys would get money from the losing side. If the losing side does not have a legit case, most of those attorneys would just say there is not possible win & they are not risking a loss of time on someone without assets. For a $1k representation they might, but not for a case that could run 10k+
Frivilous law suits would stop due to attorneys on both sides realizing they wouldn't get paid.
I have an ex who has had a couple lawyers drop her once they realize she submitted false information & that I go after lawyers who allow my ex to submit false documents.
These lawyers want to repay their loans & would stop representing Frivilous law suits almost overnight if they thought they would never get paid.
I still have never heard a convincing argument as to why we should not do a closer pay all system. Though I am certainly open to the concept if a rational, and persuasive, idea comes along.