Free Minds & Free Markets

Civil Suits

"Loser-pays" makes lawsuits fairer in Europe. It could work here, too.

It's "draconian" and "frightening." Anthony Lewis of The New York Times finds it "extremely intimidating." The Washington Post says it's a "tremendous" barrier to legal action, and the American Bar Association has fits over its "attack on access to the courthouse."

Almost everyone seems to agree that a loser-pays rule for lawsuits, an idea floated in the GOP Contract with America, would be terrifying. Even in the modified form that passed the House of Representatives in March—which would require some federal litigants to pay a portion of legal costs if they turn down a settlement offer and do less well at trial—the idea has been attacked as overly harsh. How could the middle class—not to mention the lower class—use the courts if people who lost on a fluke had to pay their opponents' legal fees? Wouldn't they drop even valid suits?

A closer look shows that the actual practice of loser-pays abroad bears little resemblance to the bogey version used to frighten Americans around campfires. No system is perfect, and all litigation carries risks for the innocent, which is one of many reasons for society to discourage it. But as millions of well-informed Europeans see it, loser-pays isn't nearly as terrifying as the way we sue in this country, where lawyers can lay your life to waste and the system will leave you no recourse at all.

Loser-pays is the standard in England, so it is sometimes known as the "English Rule." It is thus often spoken of as if it were some Beefeaters-and-warm-beer eccentricity of the Sceptered Isle. But it has no special connection with England. It has prevailed for millennia in Europe, developing early in Roman law and spreading from there to the civil law systems that evolved all over the continent and became codified in France, Germany, and elsewhere around the time of Napoleon. It even developed in the church courts. Scandinavia, like England, does not trace its civil procedure to the Romans but nonetheless has loser-pays.

The rule's ubiquitousness should give its critics pause. If loser-pays is impractical, why has it lasted in so many places for so long? If it's rigid and historically contingent, how has it endured as philosophies of governance have come and gone? If it's just a way for the rich to grind down the poor, what is it doing in such social democracies as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands? If it grips the middle class with fear, how do the burghers of Geneva, Sydney, and Toronto stand it?

Balance out the rule's theoretical vices with its virtues. The first is fairness. If someone drags you to court and costs you plenty in legal fees, and you finally show you were right, why should they walk away? If they'd hurt you in any other way, wouldn't they have to compensate you?

The practical case for loser-pays is equally compelling. Litigants naturally think too well of their cases; loser-pays pushes them to size up their prospects more realistically. It also curbs the brand of extortion, so routine in American law as almost to have lost its ethical taint, by which lawyers use the costs of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents into settlement. Such abuse runs in both directions: Many plaintiffs with shoddy claims get paid off, while many defendants who are liable as charged get off with paying less than full freight by threatening to inflict the cost of trial. Thus valid legal claims are often paid earlier and more fully in Europe than here. Although the ABA calls loser-pays a "tax on the right to litigate," it could just as easily be called a subsidy for litigating in a rightful cause.

Society has good reason to discourage unnecessary litigation. Aside from their appalling expense, lawsuits are acrimonious and divisive, a breach of the social peace. They may be an inevitable part of life, but they needn't cost as much as here, and in fact they cost far less in Europe. Liability insurance also costs less there, as a share of the economy, by a factor of two-and-a-half or three to one, resulting in big savings for drivers, municipal taxpayers, business owners, and so on. Lawyers are far fewer in number and less powerful.

The only other major exception to the general prevalence of loser-pays is famously nonlitigious Japan. Yet Japan curbs suing by even stronger measures. For example, it charges a fee for lawsuit-filing that is proportioned to the claim of damages, so that the more a plaintiff says he deserves, the more he must pay up front. (If the ABA wants a genuine example of a "tax on the right to litigate," there it is.)

Occasionally someone tries to change or get rid of loser-pays abroad, especially in English-speaking countries where American legal academics (and the fabulously successful American bar) are most influential. But thus far such efforts have only pointed up the rule's durability. Scholars in country after country are well aware of the American alternative and consciously reject it. And with reason: Public outcry over litigation rises to the heavens from our side of the Atlantic, not theirs. European parties have not made a stir lately by campaigning on the need to reform civil procedure, as the Republicans did here.

For years the most prominent American voices for loser-pays have not been conservatives at all. They include Editor in Chief Charles Peters of the neoliberal Washington Monthly ("extortion suits would be quashed....This would mean less work for lawyers and fewer of them"); commentator Michael Kinsley ("would actually encourage lawsuits that are clearly meritorious"); Steven Brill of The American Lawyer and Court TV ("simple, and overdue"); and James Fallows, writing in January in the not-exactly-Gingrichite New York Review of Books ("overdue").

Loser-pays is often mistaken for a double-or-nothing bet: If a suit wins, goes this reasoning, it must win bigger than it does in the United States, while if it loses it must crash in flames. The actual practice is far subtler. Most cases turn on more than one issue, and European courts commonly split the fee pot according to who prevailed on what. Thus a fee award may consist of the net of various line items, added to or deducted from the plaintiff's award as the case may be.

One crucial result is that the litigant with a genuine case risks an offsetting penalty if (as is common here) he stretches the case out by adding less-tenable theories. Even a litigant who squarely wins on the merits can pay a fee offset if he has filed losing motions or made the opponent go to other sorts of needless trouble. Hence each side is pressed to fold its weaker positions.

European courts also come down hard on the Yankee practice of blowing up routine injuries into whopping cash demands. The litigant who claims a million marks or francs in damages but proves only a hundred thousand is deemed to have lost at least in part, and some lump of fees will be deducted from his award. (Various rules deal with the special cases where damages cannot be precisely calculated.) England's "pay into court" rule serves a similar function: If a plaintiff turns down a settlement offer and does worse at trial, the plaintiff has by definition not prevailed for purposes of fees incurred after the offer.

Thus (a Swiss law professor explained to me) when a Zurich or Frankfurt accident victim walks into the office with a good case, the first order of business after establishing the case's merit is to figure out what is a reasonable amount of money to request, based on what the courts have given for similar injuries. Asking for more could risk a fee penalty. An American lawyer who handled a case that way would probably be sued for malpractice or disbarred on grounds of insanity.

By putting no price tag on the levying of extreme demands, we in this country foster terrorization on matters of substance. Defendants are encouraged to think they're betting the company on every case, though the resulting intense resistance makes it grueling to prosecute claims. Loser-pays would cool overheated demands, get concessions on the table, and curb the purely tactical use of procedural options. The overall terror level in the courts would go down, not up. And a narrowed dispute will normally be more cheaply and speedily resolved than one bounded only by the limits of imagination and ambition.

A common fear about loser-pays is that the side who loses a routine dispute will get handed a bill for 10,000 hours from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. But European courts are well aware of the danger that successful litigants will overinvest in their cases and gold-plate their fee requests. They carefully control the process to prevent that danger, giving the losing side a full chance to dispute a fee award, requiring that work be reasonable and necessary, providing that elite lawyer rates not be paid if a Main Street lawyer could have done the job, and so forth.

Although fee awards are usually set high enough to apply serious incentive pressure, it is notable that no country appears to let winners recoup all the money they have spent on a suit. Some leave a portion of lawyers' hours unreimbursed, while others apply hourly rates that fall below prevailing levels. Some shift expert witness fees, but others do not. (Sweden and Norway require that losers compensate winners for the time and energy spent on forced attendance in court.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    It's an interesting article.I'm European and I live in USA. When I was 24-years -old I published my first fiction book "Somnambulat ishujve te vetmise" (1994) Tirana, Albania.
    Today I'm a plaintiff. I sue an albanian american newspaper "Illyria" his publisher Vehbi.B and the ex editor Dalip Greca. Different lower represent them in the letter and doesn't show up. Another one comes and doesn't show up. One who shows up is the one who didn't show up the first time. One defendants doesn't came for the second time. Two of the authors stole from my books published and not published. For the not published they know with whom they are involved. The reason is that american low doesn't care for the books that don't have copyrights. Moreover these books that do not have copyright in USA although the book is published in Europe. In the end this american low is telling to these americans steal from all european writers that do not have copyright and write, write- this is the low. G. F an unconscious lower of the defendants said to judge How comes the most famous albanian writer stole from her. Than, why they took out of the archive the doc. where he stole from my book? Why "Illyria" published my complain on line about "famous author" My book is in two german web. catalog where are the greatest composers and writers mostly from Germany.

  • nfl jerseys||


  • سهمي||


  • دردشة||

    Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    This website is for travel to Malaysia

  • basim||

    a good website for malaysia is

  • ماليزيا||

    nice article good

  • ||

    Judge Alvin. K. Hellerstein and his power in Southern District Court, NY.
    Judge Hellerstein misjudge my case #5145 for many reasons that have to do with his power. First, on october 8 2010 didn't came in The Court and no one Attorney represented him. Second Judge Alvin. K .Hellerstein didn't mentioned one of the author's name-Ali Podrimja who stole from my book "Somnambulat ishujve te vetmise" and published his story at "ILLYRIA"(october 2007). Third he deviated my opposition letter against defendant's Attorney Gabriel Fischbarg where I wrote: Ramiz Gjini not only stole from my unpublished book "Lulezilet" by using his assault friend Prek Lelcaj but he also stole from my other published works as the book "Somnambulat...).
    Judge wrote nonsense sentences count1, count2, where I'm talking how Ramiz gjini used his assault friend P. to steal my published book "S". He does not even mentioned the book that I had in my hands when his friend Prek attempted to kill me. Judge wrote about copy right certification but on the other hand forgot to write that my book "Somnambulat" remained as book under the copy right Library of Congress because it has a bar code number since february 2010.
    There is no one who can control Judge Alvin. K. Hellerstein. One is that if one of the defendants does not show up and has no reason as was Dalip Greca the case goes in plaintiff's side.
    Another means what does one's power without ceiling.

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • دردشة عراقنا ||

    thnx u

  • دردشه عراقيه||

    Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    This website is for travel to Malaysia

  • دردشة عراقية||

    Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    This website is for travel to Malaysia

  • حجز فنادق مكة||

    thank you very much

  • Rent Car in Egypt||

    thank you

  • ايجار سيارات مصر||


  • دردشة العراق||


  • دردشه||

    Thank you very much this wonderful day and you are also wonderful،
    vere nice

  • بنت مصر||

    Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs

  • ||

    Is loser-pays a good system for handling law suits?"loser-pays"-a-good-way-of-handling-law-suits

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk u MaN

  • منتديات العراق||

  • دردشة عراقنا||

    thnx u

  • مهرجان||

  • تركى||

  • دردشة زين العراق||

  • iq14||

    Thank you for wonderful job already waiting for a new best explanations greeting .. For more topics, programs and the images

  • ahmed kamel||

    Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique à un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 dernières années et ce blog est vraiment bon cet écrivain a les capacités pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    اخبار مصر

  • اخبار مصر||


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online