What should we do to people that file frivolous lawsuits (whether they win or not)?

Question

And what are your thoughts on the criteria that should be used to identify a frivolous lawsuit?

(I know this sounds like somebody's homework question. But seriously, I would like to get your thoughts. These are the kinds of things I think about!)

Answer 1

(1) How you define "frivolous" is very subjective. Remember, there would have been people in the 1950s who said that filing a lawsuit to require that a little black girl be allowed to go to a white school was "frivolous." There are also many suits that sound frivolous, but in fact are not frivolous when you hear all the facts (i.e. the McDonald's coffee case--the woman received 3rd degree burns, McDonalds refused to pay a small sum for her medical bills, and McDonalds had done multiple studies showing how many more people would get third degree burns if they kept their coffee 5 degrees higher than the recommended temperature, and they STILL decided to go forward).
(2) Because of this "scalpals" (i.e. mechanisms for determining frivolous cases on a case-by-case basis) are much better than "hatchets" (legislative responses such as "tort reform" barring all sorts of suits, or classes of damages, which may prohibit some legitimate plaintiffs from getting the relief they deserve or may not adequately discourage bad corporations from engaging in harmful behavior).
(3) The rules already have plenty of provisions to protect against "frivolous lawsuits." Nearly every state has a requirement that all pleadings be certified not to be frivolous, and if they are, the attorneys or the parties can be sanctioned. The discovery rules allow fee shifting for any case dismissed for frivolousness--in other words, a plaintiff bringing a frivolous suit may have to pay the other side's attorneys' fees.

(4) What about "frivolous defenses"? How many times have we heard about companies spending more time and money defending claims, hiding documents, going through procedure after procedure, to "price out" plaintiffs who can't afford attorneys (or whose attorneys won't take a case on contingency). That happens, too.

Answer 2

Well, if they win -- obviously it wasn't a "frivolous" suit as the law uses that term. A frivolous suit, by definition, is one that has no legal merit and has no valid claims under law.

Under most rules of procedure, a lawyer who files a frivolous lawsuit is subject to sanctions -- and doing it often enough, subject to suspension or disbarment. And then there is the fact that, the losing party usually has to pay the court costs of the winning party -- and for frivolous law suits, that also usually includes attorney fees.

Basically, it's very hard to draw a line in advance on what is really frivolous -- the rules of procedure (various states and federal in the US) have changed a number of times over the past few decades trying to determine that balance. See Perdendosi's answer above for more details.

Answer 3

A frivolous lawsuit by definition is a lawsuit without merit. It means basically there are no grounds for filing. I think if you file several that are dismissed on the grounds of being frivolous you should face fines or even time in jail for fraud. Dr. Phil had a show on this yesterday and the lady had filed 8 lawsuits against her neighbors that had all been dismissed. In my opinion is should have paid the other parties legal fees and a fine as well as court costs for wasting everyones time.

Answer 4

I think people who file frivolous lawsuits should be made to pay all legal fees and court costs incurred by all parties. Maybe that would stop some of the BS lawsuits.

Answer 5

We should have them shot in the knees and then dragged through the streets naked and then imprisoned in a cage in the streets where people can stone them.

My ex husband has taken me to court for pure fun 4 times in the last year. Yesterday was the last court appearance regarding maintenance. He lost as he provided no evidence to support his case and he has to pay mine and his costs amounting to £14000.

However I am waiting for the next solicitors letter telling me he is appealing or going back with the correct evidence.

Its never ending and makes your life a misery. B@stards!

Answer 6

We should simply end contingency fees and make plaintiffs pay their own costs...you lose, it wasn't a free shot at the brass ring.