>Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through.
The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
In the UK lawyers have insurance to cover them in case they lose. This encourages them to take pro-bono cases when there is a decent chance of winning.
It was my understanding that pro-bono is under rate or free services, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the terminology you're looking for is 'contingent', where the client only pays a % fee to attorney if they manage to generate a judgement. In this case, does the UK insurance kick in to pay a fee to lawyer if they lose the case?
A friend of mine had a law firm take their (civil) case on a contingency basis and there was an insurance policy to cover the lawyer’s time in case they lost.
That sounds like a pretty neat system. I assume lawyers can't take on a bunch of obvious shitty cases just to get the insurance money right? I assume the insurance companies would raise premiums or stop insuring them if the lawyer is losing a lot?
> Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
The simple[1] solution to that would be “loser pays if they spent more”. Which might seem odd at first glance (why punish the loser even more?), but would align the incentives in the right direction.
[1] Read: I haven't put much thought into ways this could be abused
How about the loser pays at most as much as they have spent? (Not sure how all this would be accounted for, but...) If you spend a ginormous amount of money you already have the advantage of having better representation, no need to add a fear factor into it. I assume there is some cap on the sum people pay even now though?
I believe it's usually implemented as user pays standard rate legal fees - court, lawyer fees and maybe some extra. If you choose to hire a super expensive legal team, that's on you.
Which is a risk worth taking if someone is suing for the right reasons and it's a once in a decade matter of major importance. That or they're fairly sure they'll win the case.
The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.