top | item 22512694

(no title)

huntie | 6 years ago

The problem with the English Rule is that it protects the rich.

discuss

order

Fnoord|6 years ago

No, it does not, its exactly the other way around. English Rule protects the innocent, who did not commit a crime, as they'll eventually win the case.

American Rule protects the rich (and those in power, such as police, public prosecutor, etc), as it allows them to bully the poor who can't afford a lawyer, or lose so much money that their interests are harmed. A clear example of that is patent trolls.

The rich can afford in either system, but the poor can only afford in English Rule. It should not be about poor vs rich but about truth (ie. guilty vs innocent).

alistairSH|6 years ago

How does loser-pays protect the poor? As noted above, unless you have significant resources, bringing suit against a large corporate entity is extremely risky, as you could get stuck paying for their army of lawyers, paralegals, and investigators.

In the US system, a poor person can bring suit, using a lawyer working on contingency, and not fear for being stuck should they lose.

Your argument seems to hinge on the "correct" party always winning, but that's far from the case.

perl4ever|6 years ago

I used to work in litigation support and something that stuck in my mind was an article some years ago in a trade magazine about how a new trend in venture capital from the UK was funding American lawsuits.

I always think of that when someone is sneering at the American legal system or blaming Americans for everything they interact with globally.

srtjstjsj|6 years ago

> as they'll eventually win the case.

Citation needed.