If you were in charge of reforming the legal system, what would you adopt from the Chinese system?
Imagine a contract case where the issues are in plain text, black and white, but the Judge won't even look at the contract until the process of discovery is complete and you've racked up a year's worth of legal bills.
This is an interesting read, and things have gotten no better since 1987; they've gotten much worse: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
In China, I don't believe that there was any discovery process -- perhaps there was something that the lawyers did behind the scenes, but it was certainly nothing like it is in America. Cases go before judges fast, and then they go to trial fast, and they generate less useless paper. (And fewer billable hours.) It can be as little as 6 months from start to finish.
I don't think this is true. Cases - especially frivolous ones - are dismissed all the time, and usually on Motion to Dismiss stage before discovery. And it's usually a judge that decides whether a case has enough potential merit to survive the motion, so saying a judge doesn't get to see the case until after discovery is incorrect.
If a company like Amazon sues you via its attorneys -- even if the matter is at root frivolous or even if they're just trying to bully you -- your odds of getting off the hook before discovery are pretty much zero.
...As in OP, where it appears the civil suit did go to discovery even though it looks like an open-and-shut contract matter.
> And it's usually a judge that decides whether a case has enough potential merit to survive the motion, so saying a judge doesn't get to see the case until after discovery is incorrect.
The courts can dismiss a case prior to discovery only in certain circumstances. They are:
(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) improper venue;
(4) insufficient process;
(5) insufficient service of process;
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
(7) failure to join a party.
The judge will only look at these matters, and will not judge the case on its merits. A lot of cases are dismissed on "failure to state a claim" because the complaints weren't properly written.
The purpose of discovery is to turn up evidence relevant to the trial. That seems... pretty important. The Chinese approach might be faster, but with less evidence before the court, you're arguably making justice worse in the process, by preventing all evidence from being shown to the courts.
There may be an element of surprise for one side, but tremendous delays and expenses are averted.
Having experienced both civil justice systems, let me put it like this: I never want anything to do with the American courts; there's no winning and no justice. I'd never sue anybody in a US court, and I'd hate to be sued -- whether I'm right or wrong, even if I've been robbed, it makes no difference.
I'd gladly defend myself in a Chinese court, though, and I'd not hesitate to bring a case if I was cheated.
I know it's weird, but that's the situation.
That doesn't really fix the issue of the plaintiff holding exculpatory evidence (or defendant holding incriminating evidence) but not presenting them at trial.
So under $10k, both sides present to judge 10 minutes each and a decision is given. No depositions other than questions at trial by judge.
$10-100k both sides present to a judge for up to 100 minutes. This can be a sped up version of each side presenting then getting turns to rebut and the judge asking questions. Online depositions, max half a day. Then a decision.
$100k- $1m 3 days or less of trial. Regular discovery questions, max one day of depositions.
$3m or higher... Regular civil trials.
2. Judges in China tend to ask plantiff to negotiate with defendant instead of going through a whole lawsuit process for civil cases.
That happens in the US as well. Judges can refer cases to mediation before trial.
https://www.commerciallitigationupdate.com/what-to-do-when-y...