> but rather in frivolous cases, the losing lawyer ought to pay.
nobody would take jobs then unless the chance of winning was 99%.
The lawyer would also in those case being getting charged money to work.
nobody would take jobs then unless the chance of winning was 99%.
The lawyer would also in those case being getting charged money to work.
Edit: Also the lawyer would not being charged money to work, they would be getting fined for wasting the court and jury's time. That's like saying a contingency lawyer is working without pay: well yeah, but it's factored into the cost of business. There are still chances for high payout but now there is also a much needed downside.
Oh ok, as long as it isn't applied to every case.
Isn't this somewhat handled by awarding "token damages" of $1 or similar? The litigating party "won", but it was determined that they were not actually harmed as claimed.
this on the other hand further increases costs of those frivolous cases requiring a second trial to test frivolousness of the case