The tension between the interests of relatively strong and relatively weak claimants -- which helps to stretch legal ethics to the breaking point in the Vioxx settlement -- would be more manageable if we adopted the sensible incentives of loser-pays. Thus argues PoL's own Marie Gryphon in this new piece at City Journal.
Loser-pays and the Vioxx settlement
- Federal judge orders cost-shifting for fishing expedition
- § 1920 and e-discovery costs
- Around the web, February 21
- Marie Gryphon cited for work on loser pays
- H.R. 1996: Government Litigation Savings Act
- Around the web, September 30
- "Twombly is the Logical Extension of the Mathews v. Eldridge Test to Discovery"
- KBR seeking loser-pays against Jamie Leigh Jones
- Around the web, August 11
- Loser pays in action: punishment for a patent troll
- Around the web, August 1
- "$7 million to sue Wal-Mart"?
- Around the web, June 18
- Around the web, June 7
- In Texas, it's not 'loser pays,' but it's still pretty good
Center for Legal Policy at the