In the shed thread, we touched briefly on some form of tort reform to make the system work better. I thought this story was particularly germane to that discussion.
According to the story, "Under federal law, the “prevailing party” in certain civil rights cases may collect “a reasonable attorney’s fee” from the losing side."
So the idea of "loser pays" already applies in some civil rights cases in the US. I noticed that the concept is already in widespread use in the British Commonwealth.
This particular case involves Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, which have been refusing to pay the "reasonable legal fees" awarded to the "prevailing party" in McDonald v. Chicago, which decided they were not allowed to ignore the Second Amendment.
They have now been ordered to pay up by the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
What are the advantages and disadvantages to instituting "loser pays" in the US justice system? Good idea, or not?
According to the story, "Under federal law, the “prevailing party” in certain civil rights cases may collect “a reasonable attorney’s fee” from the losing side."
So the idea of "loser pays" already applies in some civil rights cases in the US. I noticed that the concept is already in widespread use in the British Commonwealth.
This particular case involves Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, which have been refusing to pay the "reasonable legal fees" awarded to the "prevailing party" in McDonald v. Chicago, which decided they were not allowed to ignore the Second Amendment.
They have now been ordered to pay up by the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
What are the advantages and disadvantages to instituting "loser pays" in the US justice system? Good idea, or not?
