class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs


« Post hoc ergo propter hoc | Term limits for federal judges? »

February 08, 2005

WSJ and loser-pays

I don't remember the editorialists of the Wall Street Journal ever having been as specifically favorable about loser-pays as they were in their Jan. 27 editorial "Tort Reform Roadmap" (sub - $) and their comments deserve to be memorialized for future reference:

The optimal fix would involve movement toward a British-style loser-pays system. That would curb incentives to bring the nuisance lawsuits that are bankrupting companies and individuals, driving up insurance premiums and increasing health-care costs. Of course, that sort of systematic reform is hard to accomplish, even with a Republican in the White House and larger GOP majorities in Congress. So Republicans are moving instead toward piecemeal reform, which can still be constructive if done right.

David Giacalone, guestblogging at Crime and Federalism, recently expressed surprise that loser-pays has not been the subject of more attention and experimentation. Jim Garven of Baylor also has a short post on the topic. For more on loser-pays, see posts here and at Overlawyered.

Posted by Walter Olson at 12:45 AM | TrackBack (1)

Loser Pays



Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.