Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
Of course, making the losing party pay is pointless if the losing party has no significant assets. One attorney told me that you can't, for instance, generally go after an attorney for filing a frivolous lawsuit. If the attorney can demonstrate that his client wanted to sue the attorney's pretty much protected from litigation.

The losing ATTORNEY pays. It is not the client that is admitted to the bar, and it is not the client that has the expertise to evaluate a case.

If the attorney has arranged with his client ahead of time that the client will cover costs of a loss, good for them.

And if a poor client comes to you with a good case, you represent him on a contingency basis, just as is now done. Its just your bar of "good case" has been set higher, since your costs if you lose will be somebody ELSE's $300/hr attorney, not just your own time.

Thats the way I would see it, from the cheap seats.

R:
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.