There are some simple things that could be done to protect against this kind of abuse:
- Loser pays the winner's costs, but capped such that the loser won't be bankrupted. This effectively means that when a big company loses, they get to pay for all of the trial, but individuals can still lose without being totally doomed.
- A judge could be allowed to grant "free trial" if he thought the case had merit and one of the parties couldn't afford the legal costs. This would mean that the state would cover the legal costs of that party no matter the outcome.
Loser pays a proportion of the winner's costs equal to the loser's costs (i.e. loser spends £100 in legal fees, winner spends £1500 in legal fees, loser has to pay £100 of the winner's costs, leaving the winner with £1400 to pay) has some nice properties.
Even better - loser pays the winner the exact amount they paid their legal team. By their own admission "at arm's length" so to speak, that was the value of the litigation to them.
Um, wouldn't that enable people to ruin people's lives at will? Just sue them over and over. Even if the claims have no merits, eventually they will be bankrupt.
My understanding is that (in the U.S.,) the defendant generally doesn't recover any expenses. But I'm not a lawyer and all that. I guess they can counter sue, and courts generally don't tolerate people filing tons of frivolous lawsuits.
Doesn't something like the loser paying winner's cost already exist?
I've heard about it, but I don't know much about law. My lawyer once told me, here in my country, it was possible for the winner to ask the loser for compensation, but that had many "ifs". But I have no idea how it works in the US. Does it exists at all? Anyone with legal experience could shed a light?
- Loser pays the winner's costs, but capped such that the loser won't be bankrupted. This effectively means that when a big company loses, they get to pay for all of the trial, but individuals can still lose without being totally doomed.
- A judge could be allowed to grant "free trial" if he thought the case had merit and one of the parties couldn't afford the legal costs. This would mean that the state would cover the legal costs of that party no matter the outcome.