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.

In the US, one tends to either have lawyers on salary (if you're a big 
enough corporation) or have to pay them pretty much up-front for 
defending lawsuits. Hence, it's easy for a big corporation to get you to 
fold even if you're right, just by threatening to make you keep paying 
your lawyer or lose. Even if the lawyer would get paid by the big 
corporation if you win, you don't have the funds to cause that win.

If the usual is to pay the lawyer at the end, this might have two 
effects. First, it lets you defend yourself in lawsuits you're confident 
you'll win. Second, it lets poor people sue big corporations if they 
have a good case.

I can see it might make it harder to find a lawyer to defend you if 
you're actually likely to lose and you're poor, but it might also keep 
someone from trying to sue you if you're poor, because the prosecuting 
lawyer knows he's not going to get paid even if he wins.


Hmmm... Potentially big effects from relatively small changes in the 
normal way of getting paid?

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If the usual is to pay the lawyer at the end, this might have two 
> effects. First, it lets you defend yourself in lawsuits you're confident 
> you'll win. Second, it lets poor people sue big corporations if they 
> have a good case.

  I suppose the pro bono system slightly alleviates the problem. At least
in theory.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I couldn't find the thread I started this in, so...
> 
Using Thunderbird? ;-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I suppose the pro bono system slightly alleviates the problem. At least
> in theory.

Yeah. But in pro bono, the lawyer doesn't get paid at all, so there has 
to be some reason (like civil rights the lawyer believes in) to get the 
lawyer involved.

Of course, in an actual criminal case, the government here will pay for 
your lawyer too.

-- 
   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

Doctor John wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I couldn't find the thread I started this in, so...
>>
> Using Thunderbird? ;-)

Yes. Without being able to search the message bodies, and I couldn't 
find a thread *I* started about it... :-)

I *like* Thunderbird. trn was the only reader I liked more.

-- 
   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

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?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

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

Darren New wrote:
> 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?"

By countersuing for frivolous harassment and asking for attorney's fees 
plus damages?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> 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?"
> 
> By countersuing for frivolous harassment and asking for attorney's fees 
> plus damages?

Yeah, you can afford the lawyer up front to do this. :-)  It's the "up 
front" that's the problem. Ma and Pa Kettle aren't going to have $100K 
to borrow.

-- 
   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