It's my understanding (in some cases I know to be correct) that in USA civil cases, court costs and attorney's fees are included in the award. How common this is, is not known to me.
Jack --- On Sat, 12/11/10, Walter Gilbert <ldott...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Walter Gilbert <ldott...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: I Wish > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> > Date: Saturday, December 11, 2010, 10:16 AM > It's my understanding that, in the > British system, unlike in the US, the loser of the case is > responsible for the legal fees and court costs of the > winner. That would tend to make their system more > workable, an d would almost certainly make them more likely > to foot the bill for the highest-paid law firm in Detroit, > knowing they wouldn't have to pay for the other guy's > representation if they lost. > > Of course, my understanding could be way off-base. > But, it seems like I read that somewhere. > > -- Walt > > On 12/11/2010 12:03 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > > From: "Bob W" > > > >>>> It's a philosophical difference, and no > more "indefensible" > >>>> > > than the US system of "one law > for the rich, one for the poor" > >>>> > > which allows those with deep > enough pockets to buy their way > >>>> > > out of just about any > situation. > >>> > > >>> > My understanding is the British law in > this case is sort of in response > >>> > to an old U.S. Supreme Court decision > that EVERY defendant should have > >>> > access to adequate legal counsel. > >>> > > >>> > The U.S. decision applied only to > criminal cases, but the British > >>> > didn't > >>> > make that distinction when Parliament > passed their law. And they > >>> > actually put some teeth in their law. > >> > >> they did make a distinction. There are different > rules and entitlements > >> applying to criminal and civil law and different > organisations dealing with > >> each branch. > >> <http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/default.asp> > > > > What I meant is the British applied the concept that > "no one should be denied effective legal representation just > because they can't afford to pay a lawyer" to civil law as > well as criminal cases. > > > > They did not limit it to criminal defendants the way > the U.S. Supreme Court decision did. In the U.S. you can > still be cheated of justice in civil matters simply because > you don't have as much money to pay lawyers as the other > side does. > > > > Civil litigation is expensive, and someone with enough > money can screw you in court - burying you in lawyers, > forcing you to choose between bankruptcy or surrender. > Sometimes both. > > > > It happened to someone I know. > > > > He was a one man shop working on computer networks > starting the early 80s. When the internet began to open up > to commercial operations, he registered his domain name as > gateway.net. > > > > Later a company in South Dakota chose the name > Gateway2000. In the late 90s they realized the 2000 part of > their name was getting ready to become obsolete, and changed > their name to Gateway. > > > > They offered my friend $1000 for the domain name he > had been using for 15 years, and when he declined to sell, > they sued him for trademark infringement. Buried him in > lawyers. > > > > The first thing they did was seek an injunction to > prohibit him from using his domain name until the case was > settled. An injunction the court granted despite his showing > that he had been doing business as Gateway, using the domain > name gateway.net a decade before the Gateway2000 company was > incorporated, and long before they decided to change their > name to simply Gateway. > > > > Gateway2000 had the money, and were able to buy the > court. Their lawyers shopped around until they found a judge > who would grant the injunction. > > > > Bankrupted him. Gateway used their financial muscle to > buy "justice"; or more properly, to deny justice to my > acquaintance. > > > > Which, BTW, is why I never recommend Gateway, and > won't buy anything from them. And since Acer now owns > Gateway, screw them too! > > > >> Any human system which tries to be just is subject > to freeloaders, to people > >> whose entitlement may seem unfair, and to people > we just plain don't like > >> such as wife-beaters, but that's part of the price > of trying to be a just > >> society. One that I personally don't mind paying > provided there are > >> reasonable efforts to identify and deter the few > freeloaders. > > > > I'm not criticizing it. As you might infer from above, > I don't think it's a good idea for "justice" to be for sale > to the highest bidder. > > > > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
