What would you think of a law that says the loser of the court case pays. You can be sued or charged with a crime and you will need to spend money for a lawyer to represent you. If you are found not guilty or the suit was wrong do you think that the loser should pay. It might cut down on some law suits. Encourage lawyers to try thier best and not just what the client can afford. It might make DA like the one in the Duke case think twice taking on about trying to cash in on political capital if he also was facing the bill that parents now have to pay if the case is dropped.
2007-01-13 07:55:42 · 10 answers · asked by cece 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
England already does that, it works
2007-01-13 07:58:30 · answer #1 · answered by Jason W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are too many nuisance suits, where the plaintiff has a point, but should have stayed out of court (simply not worth the time and effort). In such cases the judge should have the right to award costs to the plaintiff, even if the judge says the plaintiff is right. This can also happen in a counter-claim where the plaintiff does have things to answer to. The right to decide who should pay for costs gives the judge some latitude.
2007-01-13 16:02:33 · answer #2 · answered by waynebudd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many statutes that allow for the prevailing party to recover attorneys fees and costs, however, there are no statutes that allow a criminal defendant to recover costs against the state or federal government, which is what it sounds like you are advocating. The only recourse is if the actions of the prosecutors, police, etc. were so egregious that they violated your civil rights, you could sue them for that, but not just to get your fees back from the case in which you were found not guilty. Of course, if you won, you would receive far more than just your original legal fees, and they would be required under statute to pay your attorneys fees in the civil rights suit since that is one of the statutes that provides attorneys fees to prevailing parties.
2007-01-13 17:52:05 · answer #3 · answered by Andy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!! This country has become the most litigious society in the world. By making the losing party pay for court and legal fees, it would make people think 3 times before threatening lawsuit.
2007-01-13 15:59:49 · answer #4 · answered by nixdad96 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I typically have language added to my contracts that says if our agreement ends in court the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees from the loser. It doesn't matter in some cases though. My ex-wife can't be bothered to pay child support. It wouldn't do me any good to go after her for fees associated with some trival challenges to my custody order.
2007-01-13 16:01:09 · answer #5 · answered by Goofy Foot 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds good on its face, but say you're suing Exxon. Your average Joe Schmo lawyer against an entire team of all-star lawyers that only Exxon can afford to pay. If you lose, you'll be in debt forever.
2007-01-13 15:59:48 · answer #6 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds good. but the winning in the legal system is based on having a better lawyer/liar,(depending on your perspective) truth is not always the deciding factor in court. less lawsuits would happen if more people took responsibility for their actions. spilled coffee,tobacco to name a couple ridiculous lawsuits.
2007-01-13 16:13:43 · answer #7 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sounds right, so those wrongfully accused would no be charged with having to pay for proving their innocence. this would deter people for sueing others for stupid reasons.
2007-01-13 16:06:15 · answer #8 · answered by kevin O 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds good
2007-01-13 15:59:54 · answer #9 · answered by tjmgyo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Works for me...
2007-01-13 15:59:39 · answer #10 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋