The problem with this country is when someone defames you and you take them to court, you incur the expense of legal fees weather you win or lose. THIS needs to change. When someone brings a suit or case against you and they lose, THEY should incur ALL LEGAL fees for both sides!
Then no one will be able to access the courts, because all I have to do is get such expensive legal representation that you could never afford to lose.
Then what? Pass some stupid legislation to "cap court costs?" So now I can't choose my own defense because it might cost too much for you?
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.
The problem with this country is when someone defames you and you take them to court, you incur the expense of legal fees weather you win or lose. THIS needs to change. When someone brings a suit or case against you and they lose, THEY should incur ALL LEGAL fees for both sides!
Then no one will be able to access the courts, because all I have to do is get such expensive legal representation that you could never afford to lose.
Then what? Pass some stupid legislation to "cap court costs?" So now I can't choose my own defense because it might cost too much for you?
These ideas are pretty Un-American.
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.