I love it when you get all riled up, stacey. Give 'em what for!

Very well said.

Every lawsuit that is filed and every settlement reached increases the cost of doing business and our insurance rates or prices we pay for goods and services.
I think a loser pays system would do much to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits.

Makes me remember this cartoon showing "Jessie Helms and the Truly Needy" -- a pair of tobacco farmers living on the dole.

duh, brett. duh. the price of freedom seems to be too costly to some. exactly my point. thanks for making it.

YOU may believe that equal access to the legal system is trivial. i do not.

that sound silly to you? i'll bet it does.

Ohio law and federal law provide that the court "shall" award attorney fees and expenses if any suit is deemed frivolous by the court. Federal law also provides that if the suit, as originally filed, is not frivolous, but it becomes readily apparent that the suit lacks merit and is not dismissed by the party, then fees may be awarded.

Many laws provide for "fee-shifting," e.g., civil rights laws, in which the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees; however, the courts have limited the circumstances upon which the prevailing defendant may recover fees because the usual disproportionate amount of resources would discourage meritorious claims from being brought, thereby casting a pall upon the civil rights of the persons who might file suit and who usually lack resources, which may make those with the power and resources very pleased, but which would further deprive those whose rights have been trampled of their dignity.

Frivolous lawsuits are rarely brought. Insurance companies and others latch onto these like they are piranha on cattle in the Amazon to "prove" their point.

tell me about "loser-pays" lawsuits, brett. the majority of voters in the last presidential election lost a big one. oh and we're paying. and i guess, according to alan greenspan, the "payments" should continue on and on and on to future generations who "should make other plans for their retirement." interesting. maybe YOU don't know a lot of people who depend or who were depending on ss benefits to fund their retirements, but i do. and even if i didn't, i'd hope my head wasn't up my ass about their plight. the fact of the matter is that mr. bush took a budget that HAD a $250 BILLION SURPLUS, AND TURNED IT INTO OVER A $500 BILLION DOLLAR FUCKING DEFICIT. and who will pay? those who depend or will depend on ss benefits. not those who can afford to "make other plans." not even government employees, who DO NOT CONTRIBUTE to social security.

Judges are busy and have big egos; they don't like their time wasted, especially by some non-entity who can't contribute anything substantial to their re-election campaign or those of their friends. If you don't have at least a "colorable" case, it very rarely goes forward - the pre-trial process sees to that with conferences, demurrers, and motions for SJ. There are times the system blows it and some lame-ass case goes to jury and even wins - I'd bet it's akin to the amount of medical malpractice, or professional screwups, or any other industrial error rate. But the point, I think, is that there are a hell of a lot of cases out there and for almost all of them, it's a last resort for the plaintiff before succumbing to the notion that there is no justice in the world - a notion to which I do not ascribe.

The exceptions don't prove the rule. We only hear about the anomolies - like hearing about conjoined twins getting born, or corporate cheaters. We don't hear about how many healthy babies and good corporate citizens there are. We can't go painting any of these social groups with such a broad brush, be they the powerless or the powerful or just the ordinary. We need to maintain a fair, open forum in which all are welcome to air their complaints against each other. (BTW if losers paid, the forum would not be fair and open, since only the powerful would be able to face the risk of being wrong, and the powerless, even when in the right, have no resources to spare and a lifetime of being told "you're wrong - so give up."

I help provide funding for people suing landlords for buildings so shoddy they collapse on their childrens' cribs; employers who rape their workers and then fire them for taking time off to recover; people who have been denied educational opportunities or civil rights because of their social status. I know that litigation for them is unpleasant and exposes them to invasive and intrusive examination for a matter of years, in many cases. But it's the only way, sometimes, to make some in power treat the rest of us with respect. If we made them agree to pay the other side if they were wrong, these claims would never come to light and these evils would be perpetuated and even encouraged.

I know that when something goes south my first reaction is usually, who can I blame? It's true for victims and wrongdoers alike. That's why we need the option to litigate - just the knowledge that there will be a theoretically objective determination of fault, and repercussions for failing to take responsibility, has made corporate citizens more responsive to their obligations to the rest of us.

The Triangle Shirtwaist fire won't be repeated, not because there's some strong moral fiber in sweatshop owners to protect those they exploit, but because they're afraid of getting prosecuted or sued. Yet similar cases are coming to trial even today, with actual slavery being perpetuated in the US by people who sell to stores where you shop - Target, WalMart, many others. They'll break any law they can get away with breaking to increase their profits. Litigation puts limits on the heedless pursuit of profits at the expense of human lives and liberties.

If there's a better system, I'd like to hear about it. I didn't care for it when I was part of it, but I couldnt' think of a preferable alternative. Making losers pay is equivalent to telling the poor, stay the hell out of court, you can't afford the risk. There are no guarantees in life or in court and even a good case sometimes loses. A poor person with no experience of support from "the system" has no reason to have the kind of confidence that would allow them to mortgage their whole future to address wrongs done to them in the past. Is it better to disable the poor further, or siphon off profits from the rich? Because it is one or the other, and my sympathies lie with the underprivileged. The rich can make more money. The poor can't make more justice.

Great comment Dan.

I had the privilege once to serve on a jury for a criminal case. Was fascinating, yet scary. Not a big case - shoplifting by a mother and teen-aged pregnant daughter at a local Wally World. Mom was pleading not guilty to the charge, saying that the daughter took all the items without her knowledge.

The scary part was how prejudiced the panel of other jurists were. A couple of us seemed to take our task very seriously, the rest just wanted to be out of there in a day. "Of course she's guilty, just agree and let's get out of here". After my experience, I would not want to risk my future on a jury trial. Cold and callous, these "peers" had the woman hung before she ever took the stand. Now, I am not saying I totally believed her story, either. And in the end, she was found guilty. Since it was a first offense, the judge gave her a probated sentence. The whole experience gave me a new insight into how quirky a jury-trial can be.

A lawsuit that while not frivilous did get out of hand. The McDonalds hot coffee suit, coffee is hot, get over it, do not set it between your legs you idiot, styrofoam cups collapse.
Another one you say? Lets sue Wally World because our bag broke, tell me that is not frivilous.
Though some of these cases never make it all the way throug hthe system, they still taint the system by their mere filing and publicity. Bad publicity will stick like glue just look in a joke book at all the lawyer jokes!
Bill and Stacey, I love your blog to death and I don't want to offend or defend someone else but there are frivilous lawsuits and some do make it through the system and part of the reason is stated above in patties comment, juries do not want to hang out there for a long time and will do what it takes to get out as soon as possible. I read somewhere once that many jurors have made up their mind long before the evidence has been completely presented, I wish I could remember where I read that so I could quote it exactly and present the source but alas I cannot.
Anyway, I should stop now as I am very opinionated and tend to ramble at great length about things I know little about. So I will shut up now and go away, for now!