A society of laws needs attorneys.

Our legal system has wandered far from the path.

Here are my proposals to fix the civil side of the law:

1. In civil litigation, the loser is responsible for all legal fees.

2. In civil litigation, the attorney may base the fee on awards for actual damages only.

3. Persons in commission of a crime, and their relatives, dependents, etc. may not recover any civil damages.

Easily understood, easily enforced. I'd be interested in hearing why these aren't a good idea.

WW

 

I am not a lawyer, but its clear to me why your #1 is flawed.
Consider this somewhat common scenario:

Small guy gets screwed by big corporation, intentionally or not, and sues.

Big corporation buries him under a mountain of paperwork, discovery, and legal motions.

Even though small guy and his small time attorney have a fairly reasonable case, they end up losing, perhaps on something as small as a technicality.

Now I ask you... is it really justice that the small guy is on the hook for all the legal fees of Mega-Corp and their army of attorneys? It would personally bankrupt him, even if he had a fairly reasonable claim to begin with!

That does not seem like justice to me. I want to know that I could bring a reasonable case, and even risk losing in court, without destroying my entire financial future.

 

You mean something like this:

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

A good point. However, little guys are bankrupted all the time by legal fees already. If the guy has a good case he can go public and the corporation loses much more than winning the case against one individual. The first provision prevents fishing expeditions by people who spill hot coffee on themselves. I think it would be more likely that reasonable cases would be settled favorably. Still, your point raises a valid concern.

WW

 

I agree with your idea, however, there are counterpoints to make your point 3 unjust

Example. Jorge has a large lawnmower worth $9,000 in his garage. The lawnmower is stolen, and Jorge believes his neighbor Victor stole the mower. Jorge calls the police, informs them he believes Victor has the mower. Neither Jorge nor the police can find reasonable cause to search Victors home. Jorge breaks into Victors garage, takes the mower back, and goes to prison for breaking and entering.

Jorge's family depends on the mower for income, as he is a landscaper. Jorges wife sues Victor for damages to cover lost income, bills, grocieries, etc.

May this be just cause? One certainly might think so?

 

I was thinking of the car chase guy who is injured during his arrest or the prowler who breaks his leg falling off grandpa's old wooden steps just prior to the break in. I would think that Jorge's insurance company would fall on the neighbor like a brick wall. Would the law support him now if he committed a crime to recover his property.

You raise an interesting point.

WW

 

This has already been covered, it would make it impossible for little guys to sue big guys. Actually the system already allows for the loser to pay the other guy's fees if the claim is deemed to be frivolous

I think attorneys should only be able to charge by the hour period, not on commission. They can always do pro-bono or waive the fee if they lose. They should also not be allowed to advertise except for a stndard yellowpage listing. People who really need an attorney already know it...the legal profession should not be allowed to drum up business in a predatory manner.

I think this is generally the case in most states. In some states you can shoot them just for being in your house or on your property, in others you need to actually be under duress. As long as its in your house and there are no survivors to say otherwise they are probably going to take your word for it.

But you have to have some reality. Store owner shoots shoplifting teenager in the back as he flees...maybe the lawsuit is justified there.

 

Rickair,

I see your points but I still disagree with you on point one. The big guys bully the little guys now. The ACLU sues small communities all the time. making the loser responsible would add a much needed filter into the system. If the litigant has limited resources, the lawyer (as you say yourself) could take the case contingent upon winning or counsel against taking it to court. With many fewer silly cases perhaps the legitimate claims of the small timer would get more oxygen.

I don't disagree with any of your restrictions from point two.

WW