How do you think this would affect the legal system . . .?

Question

Have the losing lawyer pay all costs for the losing client.

Answer 1

An attorney is a hired hand. You want to sue some one,. hire an attorney. They will all represent you even if they believe that you are in the wrong, but they will put forth their best effort to present the known evidence and points of law in your favor, even if you are dead wrong. Some times the only law they can present is minority law (cases that have been overturned at an appellate level in anouther judicial district.) No one, not even the attorney knows what the outcome of the trial will be. The judge or jury (if there is one) will decide the results. Sorry you lost.

Answer 2

It's a violation of the right to contract. Even if it was not a violation, it is based on a common perception that makes it too simplistic to work. Despite how the legal system is portrayed int he media, the vast majority of lawsuits are between parties who have both done something wrong (even though one party may be more "wrong" than the other).

Also, about 90% of all lawsuits settle before trial, meaning the parties work out a deal between themselves where both sides usually "give up" something. Who wins that suit?

Additionally, when suits go to trial, the judge often "splits the bay in half." For example, you owe me money. I sue you claiming you owe me $11,000.00. You admit you owe me money, but claim it is only $1,000.00. The judge's ruling is that you owe me $6,000.00. We're both $5,000.00 away from our claims; who won?

Finally, most states and the federal courts already have a provision that states the losing side and its attorney each pay 1/2 of the prevailing party's fees and costs for all frivolous claims and defenses.

Answer 3

it would wreck the system