Why British Civil Courts Are Better Than American Ones

[Drunkencorgimaster]

While I'm not impressed with Scottish criminal courts (al-Megrahi), I just heard on the radio today that if you sue someone in Civil Court in Britain and you lose, you have to pay the defendant's legal bills. Is that true? If so, it is brilliant! That would cut down on all the stupid frivolous lawsuits we have over here.

Nice one Brits!

[DarkLink]

We actually do have that in America, though I'm not sure when it does and doesn't apply. Problem is, while it sounds awesome, it requires even more time, money, effort, and paperwork for it to actually happen, both here and over there. It's a net win for the defendant, but it's still a massive pain for everyone involved.

[White Tiger88]

O'jay enough said.

[Mr Mystery]

We also have a LOT of 'no-win, no-fee' cretins out there. Rather than making justice accessible to all (good thing) it has simply encouraged spurious, speculative and outright malicious cases (bad thing).

Until recently I worked for a Car Insurer, processing claims (surprisingly interesting job!). You would not believe the number of solictiors I had to say 'No, sod off. Your client is at fault' to on a daily basis. Run into the back of a stationery car? Make a whip lash claim! Pulled out of a junction into the path of an oncoming vehicle? Make a whip lash claim! With no-win no-fee absolutely everywhere, there is no reason not to. This of course puts everyone's insurance costs up, and all because we have allowed entirely speculative claims to arise.

Thankfully, the Government are now looking at banning the no-win no-fee practice, and I'm all for it. When any civil matter is brought to the court, both sides should have some kind of risk investment. Unless you are at least 51% sure of a win, the risk is too great.

And on the subject of Al-Megrahi - There wasn't a great deal of evidence behind his conviction. Look into it. It's not to say he was definitely innocent, but there is enough genuine doubt to justify some compassion. Unlike of course Texas, where they'll fit you up and execute you for a crime, simply because you're educationally subnormal.

[Psychosplodge]

The Texan definition of normal is amusing anyway.

But being normal is overated anyway

[Wolfshade]

The issue with no-win no fee is the amount it costs to defend one of these speculative claims. Especially if you do it sucessfuly you get your opponent to drop their case before it reaches court and at that point you still have your solicitor's fees to pay.

[Psychosplodge]

It's how long the solicitors drag it out for to make sure they make their money. I know of a case where an uninsured driver being pursued by police ran a red light and hit someone(his passenger was killed), and a fair claim for compensation (loss of earnings/difference in value of car to pay out/genuine injury not some ouch whiplash) by the victim driver was dragged out for nearly five years by both sets of solicitors, and the legal bill (paid by the insurance) was something like 8 times greater than the compensation. This is all because of legal games they were playing, any reasonable person would have looked at it and I imagine said it was pretty open and shut...

[Wolfshade]

There is also issues about getting the compensation once it has been awarded.
I know a chap who was assaulted and he was awarded an amount and is now receiving it in £40 instalments...

[Psychosplodge]

Oh that comes from some sort of fund that all the honest motorists pay for, no doubt Mystery can shed some more light on it.

But yeah back in the day A girl I messed about with at one point was jumped by two lasses from her school, and IIRC she got awarded £120 off each at a £1 a week...

[Wolfshade]

it is ludicrous.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh that comes from some sort of fund that all the honest motorists pay for, no doubt Mystery can shed some more light on it.

But yeah back in the day A girl I messed about with at one point was jumped by two lasses from her school, and IIRC she got awarded £120 off each at a £1 a week...

Indeed. The name of the fund? Can't say, on account I can't remember it. However it does exist, and it's there to cover the liabilities of an uninsured driver.

[Sean_OBrien]

While I'm not impressed with Scottish criminal courts (al-Megrahi), I just heard on the radio today that if you sue someone in Civil Court in Britain and you lose, you have to pay the defendant's legal bills. Is that true? If so, it is brilliant! That would cut down on all the stupid frivolous lawsuits we have over here.

Nice one Brits!

As mentioned, "loser pays" is not an unheard of concept in the US. It exists in some form on a state level in Texas, Florida and Alaska and it is part of various Federal statutes which can be applied either against the "loser" or the "loser's" attorney depending on the specific circumstance. Outside the US - it is a very common rule of the courts which is one of the reasons why we are so litigious here.

The downside though is that it does present a chilling effect towards legitimate claims. If you have to consider the potential of having to pay the fees of not only your lawyer but also your opponents lawyer - many people do not risk filing suit. Most the frivolous lawsuits could be dealt with if the various existing laws were actually properly enforced regarding vexatious litigation. It also wouldn't be as great of an issue if more judges were willing to actually exercise judicial discretion - it was given to them for a reason to dismiss cases (with or without prejudice) which are nuisance suits.

Instead, lawyers are governed by lawyers (who have no interest in cutting off the money train) and judges are chosen from existing lawyers - in many cases through an elective process which is funded by lawyers. Call me crazy - but that is a scenario that I don't think will ever sort itself out without significant tort reforms. A simple loser pays format though is not necessarily the correct answer.

One of the simplest changes which would solve a lot of the issues is to change the law which allows for strict liability suits (you made the product which I used incorrectly, so I am going to sue you) to actual negligence (you knew your product would do harm no matter how it is used, so I am going to sue you).

Caps on awards as well as on the portion of those awards which a lawyer can collect upon would also knock off a lot of the ambulance chasers. Fairly standard portion of a lawsuit award which goes to the attorney is around 30%. That is over and above their actual billable fees. It is not in the interest of the attorney to settle for the actual costs as they don't get to touch those - their payoff are in the more flexible awards like "pain and suffering".

[Wildeybeast]

On the 'no win no fee' malarkey, whilst I don't wish to defend them, I'm not sure they are doing much to encourage frivolous lawsuits. Surely the whole point of them is that if your lose, you don;t pay your solicitors and they end up out of pocket. As such don't they vet cases and only take on cases where they consider there to be a good chance of winning? Pursuing every case that cones across their desk for the sake of it when the clients aren't paying is a good way to go out of business. If the courts are awarding in these stupid whiplash cases, that is the fault of the courts, not the lawyers.

[Psychosplodge]

I think that's the theory.
I get the impression they drag out/inflate costs in cases they do win to cover costs of the ones they don't and still make an high profit.

[Wildeybeast]

Quite possibly.

[Mr Mystery]

Sadly not.

The majority of such cases are settled out of court. It's generally not worth the arseache of going all the way for the defendant. Pay them a few grand and they sod off.

Sad huh?

[Psychosplodge]

Indeed they are, but it can be a long process literally dragged out for years getting there.