Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
I'd have to see the law. In most jurisdictions, one who brings a frivolous lawsuit (or asserts a frivolous defense) is subject to paying the opponent's fees. Simply losing or failing to state a sustainable claim do not make the claim frivolous. If the statute merely codifies that law, I have no problem with it. If not, I do have a problem with it, because it chills access to the courts. Many people who suffer a legal wrong have no funds to afford their own lawyer, much less the fees of a defense lawyer. Under this law, it encourages people to lump it or take the risk of financial ruin (if the defendant's conduct hasn't already caused it).
If the statute makes simply losing a basis for paying the defendant's fees, it is another law that disadvantages the middle class. One who has no assets has nothing to risk by pursuing a claim, because he or she would be essentially judgment proof. On the other hand, those who have modest assets do face great risk in asserting a right. I have won cases I didn't think I would win, and lost cases I thought I would win. There is always some element of uncertainty in litigation. Businesses will often have insurance to pay the fees for the defense of most claims. The individual - not so likely.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
This post is exactly why I love you guys here at political chat.
So much thought and knowledge available for the asking.
Thanks Don