Each party in a court case should be entitled to a legal fees allowance equal to the amount spent by the opposing party.
Posted by blreuh@reddit | CrazyIdeas | View on Reddit | 83 comments
FeaturelessPat@reddit
While I do agree with the sentiment the slap suits would instead just get that more effective. Because imagine you're a private person or a miniscule company and something like Disney sues you. If they win not only would you have to pay whatever the court mandates and your own lawyer. But you'd also have to pay for all 50 lawyers Disney has employed, and each is five times more expensive than your one.
Wooden_Credit4577@reddit
Slapp suits by definition can never succeed though... Unless the judge is in the pocket of the company or something. Only records i found were when the suits were mislabeled slapps
blreuh@reddit (OP)
When did I say the loser has to pay lmao
FeaturelessPat@reddit
True, I misread. But where would the money come from then? Taxpayers? Insurance?
blreuh@reddit (OP)
You could have an immediate tax on legal expenses so every dollar you spend you have to give a dollar to the opposing party
PiemasterUK@reddit
What, regardless of if you win or lose the case?
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Yeah obviously
PiemasterUK@reddit
So I could just sue every company for any kind of spurious and nonsensical thing, not even bother hiring a lawyer, wait for it to go to court, lose (I don't even need to bother showing up), and then force them to pay me whatever they spent on their legal council?
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Read my post again
PiemasterUK@reddit
That seemed fairly unambiguous to me
blreuh@reddit (OP)
I’m sorry if you are high on the autism spectrum or something but I expected people to extrapolate that giving a dollar to the opposing party meant 50 percent of your expenditure is allocated to the legal fund of the opposing party
TurtleFisher54@reddit
Nah I think you're just missing the point
w3st3f3r@reddit
Oh I’m sorry I expected people to read into what I said and come away with an understanding that’s not at all what I said but it’s what I was thinking, how dare you not be able to read my mind, I’m gonna insult your intelligence now. This is how you sound.
usernamesarehard1979@reddit
You should probably just stop talking now. You sound like an idiot.
PiemasterUK@reddit
No, just a regular normal guy trying to translate whatever brainrot kids are posting on reddit today.
So basically you are proposing a system that achieves exactly nothing. When you are facing a court case, you can choose to hire a really expensive lawyer and just hope that your opponent spends enough on their own legal expenses to cover them, because if they don't for whatever reason then you can't afford the bill, or you can hire a cheaper lawyer at which point your opponent can spend whatever they like on their own legal expenses because yours won't be expensive at all and so they won't have to pay the 'tax'.
blreuh@reddit (OP)
What you are saying genuinely makes zero sense. The scenarios you have provided do not follow at all from the premise. I have no idea what you even think my proposal is. Please read my post again thoroughly and evaluate whether your scenarios are even possible given the premise.
PiemasterUK@reddit
Posting a one sentence half baked idea and then whenever someone questions it just repeating "read my post again" doesn't cut it dude. Clearly you haven't communicated what you think you have communicated and reading it a million more times won't help.
blreuh@reddit (OP)
My idea ensures that both parties in a legal case have the same budget by awarding an equal legal allowance to the other side of a legal case for every dollar expended. In the comments I’ve elaborated and said that this balance money could come from the pockets of the person spending the initial money sum that
Slow_Conference570@reddit
People get your idea fine. They are pointing out that this creates strong disincentives. It stimulates abuse of the system.
blreuh@reddit (OP)
That’s the whole point to create disincentives. It would stop obscene amounts of money being spent on court cases to crush people with empty pockets
Tyler89558@reddit
It would also give someone cause to make completely bogus lawsuits to get someone to pay them money for the legal fees to pursue said bogus lawsuit.
PiemasterUK@reddit
Okay, I get that, I think that many people would consider this a worthy goal.
It is the execution here that I think is going to cause problems. Because you need to commit to your legal expenses (by hiring a lawyer) before knowing what your opponent's legal expenses are going to be. If you spend a lot on a lawyer, assuming the other party will too, and your opponent does not then you are going to have to pay up for that lawyer (and actually pay your opponent for theirs too). On the other hand, if you assume your opponent won't spend a lot then you might skimp on your legal expenses too, but then what if they do end up spending a lot? You can't retroactively go back and hire a better lawyer in response.
blreuh@reddit (OP)
The parties involved could sign an agreement pledging a mutual contribution to the total budget if both parties think a higher legal budget is in their best interest even if it means the other side also receives it.
Another thing, I wasn’t thinking that the money one party spends would be reimbursed if the other party spends money, which I think you are under the impression that my proposal includes. If you spend money then you’ve spent that money.
Its possible for one party to wait to the last moment to hire incredibly expensive lawyers but I could add a clause adding a deadline on legal expenditure, and you should be able to pledge a given amount of money on the condition that your adversary also spends a given amount of money (whether that be an equal or different amount). This would mean even if the parties don’t sign an agreement they can still make their expenditure conditional on certain factors. Also sorry for my passive aggressive autistic comment
cum-yogurt@reddit
Right. So I could just hire my friend as a lawyer and sue Disney. They’ll spend $1 million on their legal defense and so they must give my friend a million dollars.
And then I lose the lawsuit but oh well, I’ll just have my friend split the milly.
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Woah if only I had thought of this before writing the post and said they would be entitled to a legal fees allowance and not cash
LackWooden392@reddit
The post is one short sentence, dumb ass. It's deeply ambiguous.
unmelted_ice@reddit
And that’s what he is saying lol.
I sue Disney. I spend $1k on a lawyer to do so. I then give $1k to Disney (because that is what my legal expenses were).
Disney spends closer to $50k by the very nature of having really really good in house lawyers that get paid very well. Disney then gives me $50k because that’s what they spent on their legal fees.
I’m up $48k and will be doing it again next week
The idea was too crazy you didn’t understand it
stiiii@reddit
And yet no one understands how it would work but you....
Fornicatinzebra@reddit
Bud. Imagine the world you describe.
You sue me. I hire a lawyer for $500, so I must pay you $500 based on the tax you describe. You dont hire a lawyer, so you pay me nothing.
I just paid you $500 to sue me.
LordMoose99@reddit
So yes literally you could sue anyone wealthy and expect to have your expenses covered. That would lead to more BS lawsuits and just make everything more expensive
messick@reddit
I would love having to sell my house just so I could afford to pay Disney to be sued by Disney.
mnimatt@reddit
Rich people would have their lawyer friends work pro bono
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Barely an issue. If this is the best that people got the this might be the best idea of all time
mnimatt@reddit
Barely an issue? You're clueless
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Compared to what we have now it’s basically nothing. Long term it would become less of an issue due to rich people ceasing to have higher proximity to expensive lawyers relative to the poor.
mnimatt@reddit
Why would they cease to have higher proximity to expensive lawyers relative to the poor?
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Because people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford expensive lawyers would now have equal means to
mnimatt@reddit
So rich people abusing the system to not give poorer people the money to access lawyers won't be a problem once rich people give poorer people the money to access lawyers? What?
Let me put it simpler. Corporations will still have good lawyers working officially for "free" on cases with high stakes and a need to not give their opponent money, with the real reimbursement being high payments for representation on open and shut cases that are routine for corporations.
This idea is ineffective at best, even if you ignore what a horrible idea it is ethically. Imagine going to court against your rapist so you get the best lawyer possible, but then you have to fund your rapists court representation as well. Just an all around, absolutely horrible idea.
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Ok now imagine that your rapist through an accident of birth was born into a family with tens of millions of dollars. They are able to spend a fraction of their personal wealth on a lawyer far more expensive than your entire net worth. Don’t you think this is a far more pressing concern than circumstantial negative effects of having an actually fair court case?
mnimatt@reddit
Circumstantial negative effects? This is a guarantee. You'd would see rape victims paying good lawyers to defend their rapists day one. You'd likely see victims losing court cases as a direct result of it. It'd turn the system into a schoolyard bully who says "quit hitting yourself" while hitting you with your own arms.
Rich people abusing the system is terrible, and we should find ways to bring equity into court rooms, but this idea is actually worse. The potential of being forced to pay for the legal representation of your own abuser is emotionally traumatizing and cruel, and that's exactly what you would be doing to countless people without effectively combating the problem of wealth disparity in the legal system, or in general. And there's no way it's constitutional, at least not in the US.
GettinGeeKE@reddit
Imagine a crazy scenario where public legal representation are paid well enough to be considered good representation.
This solves your concern wholesale, lowers the overall cost to the average person, and only punishes those that intend to tip the jucidical scales by throwing money at the courts.
Where would the money come from? The unused tax from the huge civil cases these corporations constantly fight.
This idea has teeth.
deccan2008@reddit
So are you a lobbyist for lawyers?
blreuh@reddit (OP)
This proposal is literally the opposite it heavily disincentives legal expenditure
carinislumpyhead97@reddit
I think you’re just missing a line that dictates which party sets the allowance. I would rephrase this to the party with the least means sets the budgetable allowance for legal fees for both parties.
So for the Disney example. If I am in a legal battle with Disney, Disney would be limited by what I am able to put towards legal fees, and be unable to exceed that amount on their own legal fees.
This could also combat overbilling/spending due to the simple nature that I have no money so you don’t get to use all of yours.
GettinGeeKE@reddit
OPs point is that all hired legal representation would be taxed at 100%.
This money would be allocated directly to the opposing party for their explicit use in court.
For the Disney example.
Disney hired 10 lawyers. The cost is $20 million (the lawyers each cost 1 million and tax their client per law for another $1 million)
The 10 million collected in taxes is made available to the other party for explicit use in court likely to hire quality representation. All unused funds are retained by the state and court fee compensation is only applicable to the non tax cost of going to court.
This does what you are saying in a much less limiting way. Disney can spend as much as they want at double the current price and you get equivalent resources for court to fight them.
I honestly like the idea. Not only is it pragmatic, it doesn't limit choice and better aligns many inequality incentives of the current court system. Probono work would truly be an altruistic endeavor as it would provide an advantage in court to the client in resources if needed and a net good to society if the tax funds were unused, all choices, no limitations and almost always more equality.
Savannah_Lion@reddit
Wouldn't that cause circular bookkeeping shenanigans?
Party A spends $50,000 and has to hand over $50,000 tp party B. Party B spends that $50,000 on their legal fees which in turns means they have to hand over $50,000 to Party A. Party A basically gets their money back and Party B gets screwed.
OrangeKnight87@reddit
OPs idea is obviously flawed but your example is ironically wrong. Both parties spent 50k on legal and 50k to opponent, so both spent 50k net...
EverettGT@reddit
I thought he was saying that the party that spent less could get reimbursed for spending more up until it matches the party that spent the most.
It's an interesting idea, but I think lawyers would REALLY REALLY like it and it would cause them to encourage random people to sue massive companies as much as humanly possible.
Rough-Tension@reddit
That would also create incentive for law firms to charge outrageous fees because they know they won’t have to worry about their client having the money or not. As long as you’re just slightly under the other side, you’ll get it? Really strikes against public policy
EverettGT@reddit
Yeah. If you sue Goldman Sachs, then your own lawyers could get paid as much as Goldman Sach's lawyers. I can see problems from this haha.
Rough-Tension@reddit
Oh uh, I have bad news. This very much can be and often is the case if there’s a statute on point that authorizes the winner to collect fees from the loser. Disney has probably done that exact thing in court before.
drfury31@reddit
But also if a large company sued, you could assemble a team of top lawyers to defend you, on that company’s dime.
Yes. It would probably send the average person into bankruptcy, but it could totally destroy companies so there would be an incentive not to sue and work things out.
I mean hypothetically, crazy ideas am I right?
WorldlinessGrand3878@reddit
Your idea still fails because it creates a guaranteed incentive to inflate legal spending and to game what counts as “legal spending.”
Even with your clarifications:
GettinGeeKE@reddit
I don't see how we couldn't write law for these scenarios.
If this is the case, are they doing this now? It sounds like we already have legal loopholes that should be addressed anyway.
Yes it's not a silver bullet for full legally represented equality but it's closer and the use of the money is descretionary. It incentivizes legal representation efficiency by allowing those who would not have the means of affording representation to do so.
How would an increase in cost for pay to win legal strategy not help filter out weak cases?
In what way does this increase abuse?
I feel that this might be a boon for ethical representation via pro bono work in the name of the common good if any unused money from the funding stream is forfeit to the state.
WorldlinessGrand3878@reddit
If the plan is to implement this one change and fix everything adding a clause for every loophole is not gonna be effective that doesn't work in any law area the rich always have their lawyers lobby and such unless we address every single loophole that will ever possibly exist.
I agree there are plently of cases where rich people can hire better lawyers to exploit the law thats a seperate issue.
The use of money may be discretionary but the incentive structure is such that both sides should spend as much as possible, as mentioned rich people have better ways of hiding use of funds via consulting and such as well as if they win tax payers for the bill for everything / the loser is indebted for life trying to pay back the other sides legal fees.
Exactly this would do the opposite of filtering out weak cases as there is an incentive to spend as much as possible on both sides for every single case.
Unused money being forfeit to the state? wdym who is paying for the money Side 1 spends $10000 so side 2 gets $10000 and only spends $1000 so they have $9000 "left over" where does that money come from the loser has to pay. So if a poor person hires x in lawyers and loses they would be liable to pay that much directly to the government that seems absurd?
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
GrumpyMcPedant@reddit
Why should a party be punished if their case is more complex than that of the opposition?
This idea assumes legal fees directly correlate to the "quality" of the representation. But reality is far more complex.
I agree that we should always endeavor to make the legal system more fair. But this solution shows vast ignorance about the industry.
blreuh@reddit (OP)
If one party’s case is more complex then they should be able to benefit more from extra resources than their opponent anyway
skysgrummy@reddit
So who pays for this?
blreuh@reddit (OP)
My line of thinking was for every dollar spent on legal fees you must also provide one dollar to the adverse party to do the same. If this is too objectionable a policy the taxpayer would pay directly for a subsidy.
Toothless-In-Wapping@reddit
Then I could file court cases against a large company as my own lawyer so I don’t give any money to them, then they have to give me money equal to what they spent no matter if my case is dismissed and I don’t own the company anything.
It would be free money
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Pretty easy to have a law against that
Toothless-In-Wapping@reddit
Yeah, by not having yours
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Actually misappropriation of funds is already a deeply rooted problem in institutions
Toothless-In-Wapping@reddit
And this doesn’t solve that
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Ok? Not every policy is meant to solve every problem
Toothless-In-Wapping@reddit
But your policy doesn’t solve any problem, it just changes how it happens
CptMisterNibbles@reddit
No, it objectively isn’t.
bemused_alligators@reddit
Most spurious lawsuits include a judgment of legal fees against whoever brought suit.
usefulchickadee@reddit
Ah yes. We should be using taxpayer money to incentivize the legal process to get even more expensive than it already is.
skysgrummy@reddit
I think the first option removes the incentive to pay for a good lawyer effectively ruining that sector. The second would just send more money to lawyers on taxpayers dime, not really desirable outcome
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Do you really value the for profit law sector over having equitable court cases
skysgrummy@reddit
Having the sector does mean having an existing expertise base, so that's quite a loss
blreuh@reddit (OP)
Most people who need that expertise base don’t have the means to access it anyway
LanceLynxx@reddit
Who's footing the bill
theunseenmiddle@reddit
It's too easy to skirt for the wealthier party. If I'm a megacorp, I'm simply going to hire a single lawyer and a team of "corporate and regulatory consultants" who were not part of the legal team. Since legal fees are specifically defined as compensation billed to a client for an attorney for legal services, companies just skirt that bit and still spend at will. You'd have to close that loophole, but there would be others.
Fuzzy974@reddit
No. The richest party is maybe not at fault, at least not until they are proven guilty, so they shouldn't have to put money for the other party on the table.
The taxpayers shouldn't have to make for the difference either.
I think it would be best if each types of crimes could have a limited legal fee amount.
StarshipFan68@reddit
Reverse that: limited by the amount spent by the opposing party
Skirra08@reddit
How do you decide which side has to pay? Is it the side that spends more? Is it the side that is richer? Is it the person filing the lawsuit? The loser?
I can see plenty of flaws with any of these approaches. If I'm Disney and get sued by patent trolls daily I now have to subsidize these frivolous legal attacks. This applies to both of the first two hypotheticals. For the third if I'm an unemployed engineer and Nvidia steals my patent I would have to pay for their legal fees. That hardly seems fair. And in our current system the loser often pays so how is that different?
Essentially your proposal starts with the faulty premise that every lawsuit is brought in good faith and has solid reasons for the suit. That just simply isn't the case. You also assume that money will solve the fairness problem. If you start what would basically be a slush fund for attorneys you're going to see bad attorneys ruin good cases because there's a guaranteed payday for them regardless of what happens to the client.
The problem with this and most other proposals is that nothing is as simple or clear as the question pretends to be. If there were simple solutions we would do them and move on.
Ban-Circumcision-Now@reddit
I would think some financial ceiling that both parties could afford would make more sense in civil lawsuits
skysgrummy@reddit
I think this would work for like 60% not100%
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.