Should the losing party in a civil lawsuit always be required to pay the attorners fees?

Question

Should the losing party in a civil lawsuit, such as a discrimination claim, always be required to pay the attorneys, fees, expenses, and court costs of the prevailing party

Answer 1

A party will always have to pay attorney fees even if you win or lose the case. There are two types of fees, party and party and solicitor and party. For solicitor fees, you will always have to pay since it is a civil case. If its a criminal one, you will not have to pay if your solicitor is assigned to you. However, for party and party fees, sometimes, even when you lose the case, you will not be liable to pay for the winning party. This might be because the other party are the applicants and you're the defendants. In other cases, you will only have to pay court fees like filing of documents and other manual fees. There are several judgments for costs like Plaintiff's/Defendant's Costs in the Cause, Costs Reserved, Costs in Any Event, Costs Here and Below and Costs Thrown Away. Hope this was helpful!

Answer 2

Rauda, the 3rd year law student, is missing something.

In the USA -- perhaps uniquely in the world, or nearly so -- victory in a civil or criminal case does not bring with it the right to repayment of your legal costs (lawyers' fees) UNLESS there is a statutory right, as is the case in some special "public interest"-type cases, such as some discrimination cases and perhaps now some SLAPP suits. One does get attached to a judgment a right to "costs" -- but these are court costs, usually trivial in comparison to the other except in "pro se" cases where the winner acted as his/her own lawyer.

In England, Scotland, Canada, France and the most or all of the rest of the world, except in (UK at least) small claims cases, the winning party gets to have his or her solicitors/advocates fees "taxed" and paid by the losing party. In the UK it may also be possible to be reimbursed for the cost of criminal counsel if one is acquitted.

In the US one is entitled to a criminal defense lawyer at public expense "if yoiu cannot afford [a private] one". But the assigned counsel may be incompetent, or even drunk, and may do little to help you. A good defense of a difficult case can cost tens of millions of dollars: the OJ Simpson case; the Ken Lay case. Such private counsel is never (or never to my knowledge) reimbursed, however outrageous and politically-motivated the prosecution may be.

In England, those who contribute to pay for the costs of litigation on behalf of someone else may be charged with paying the legal costs of the other side if the supported person loses. Whether such an order for costs could be enforced against a person in the US is problematic. But costs awarded against a _party_ in a UK (or other foreign) case can and are collectible (enforceable) in the US courts (under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgment Enforcement Act in force in most states).

Answer 3

Not if the judge says so. The winner can still make a civil
claim for the attorneys' fees and court fees or you can
take the case to a higher court.

Answer 4

i think of it reduces litigation - because of the fact if persons are afraid that they have a shaky case, they gained't sue. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - call VII - equivalent Employment opportunities - 40 two US Code financial ruin 21 states: (e) lawyer's expenditures If the guy noted in subsection (a) of this section is the winning occasion in a proceeding under this subsection, lawyer's expenditures could be allowed by using the court in accordance with the criteria prescribed under section 2000e-5(ok) of this call.

Answer 5

All expenses incurred in court including attorneys fees are charged against the losing party.

Answer 6

yes!
It would end a lot of frivolous law suits

Answer 7

Sure.