Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I couldn't find the thread I started this in, so...
>>
>> Thinking on it, paying the lawyers at the end might actually be a big 
>> factor in cutting down silly lawsuits.
> 
> That's great, and paying programmers only when they actually deliver a 
> product that meets specs would significantly cut down on useless 
> programs, too!
> 
> Seriously, many lawyers advertise on TV here that they only take a fee 
> if they *win* your case.  But if they don't choose to do so on their 
> own, would you really advocate requiring them to work without knowing 
> for certain if they would be paid?

In the original context, the lawyer always got paid. They just got paid 
at the end by the loser. Of course, if the loser starts out broke, the 
lawyer would only take the case if the lawyer thinks they're likely to 
win against the big bad rich corporation. Which could also be a benefit.

I wasn't advocating the lawyers taking a case even if they think they 
won't be paid. Indeed, getting lawyers to not take silly cases was kind 
of the point. :-)  I was simply considering "how do you keep someone 
wealthy from using 'attack lawyers' to screw up someone who has done 
nothing wrong but can't afford a defense lawyer?"

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message