Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play
Not only has it been proposed, as I explained above for certain types of litigation, and in certain contracts, it's already in place.The "fee shifting" SJHovey brings up is pretty clearly a strawman - nobody would seriously propose that. (would they?)
Seems a bit one-sided doesn't it? I maim you with my crappy machine. You win, you pay your own lawyer. I win, you pay both? No wonder businesses and insurance companies have had no success in getting this passed.I think it's pretty common sense that the intent of a "loser pays" reform would be:
1) If the plaintiff wins, he gets the award from the suit and has to pay his lawyers out of the award, keeping anything left over for himself. The defendant pays his own lawyers plus the amount of the award. This is exactly how it works now.
2) If the plaintiff loses, he pays his lawyer fees (if any - none if his attorney is working on a pure contingency basis) PLUS the defendant's (reasonable) lawyer fees as apportioned by the judge.