It's my understanding that, in the British system, unlike in the US,
the loser of the case is responsible for the legal fees and court costs
of the winner. That would tend to make their system more workable, an d
would almost certainly make them more likely to foot the bill for the
highest-paid law firm in Detroit, knowing they wouldn't have to pay for
the other guy's representation if they lost.
Of course, my understanding could be way off-base. But, it seems like I
read that somewhere.
-- Walt
On 12/11/2010 12:03 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: "Bob W"
It's a philosophical difference, and no more "indefensible"
> > than the US system of "one law for the rich, one for the poor"
> > which allows those with deep enough pockets to buy their way
> > out of just about any situation.
>
> My understanding is the British law in this case is sort of in
response
> to an old U.S. Supreme Court decision that EVERY defendant should
have
> access to adequate legal counsel.
>
> The U.S. decision applied only to criminal cases, but the British
> didn't
> make that distinction when Parliament passed their law. And they
> actually put some teeth in their law.
they did make a distinction. There are different rules and entitlements
applying to criminal and civil law and different organisations
dealing with
each branch.
<http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/default.asp>
What I meant is the British applied the concept that "no one should be
denied effective legal representation just because they can't afford
to pay a lawyer" to civil law as well as criminal cases.
They did not limit it to criminal defendants the way the U.S. Supreme
Court decision did. In the U.S. you can still be cheated of justice in
civil matters simply because you don't have as much money to pay
lawyers as the other side does.
Civil litigation is expensive, and someone with enough money can screw
you in court - burying you in lawyers, forcing you to choose between
bankruptcy or surrender. Sometimes both.
It happened to someone I know.
He was a one man shop working on computer networks starting the early
80s. When the internet began to open up to commercial operations, he
registered his domain name as gateway.net.
Later a company in South Dakota chose the name Gateway2000. In the
late 90s they realized the 2000 part of their name was getting ready
to become obsolete, and changed their name to Gateway.
They offered my friend $1000 for the domain name he had been using for
15 years, and when he declined to sell, they sued him for trademark
infringement. Buried him in lawyers.
The first thing they did was seek an injunction to prohibit him from
using his domain name until the case was settled. An injunction the
court granted despite his showing that he had been doing business as
Gateway, using the domain name gateway.net a decade before the
Gateway2000 company was incorporated, and long before they decided to
change their name to simply Gateway.
Gateway2000 had the money, and were able to buy the court. Their
lawyers shopped around until they found a judge who would grant the
injunction.
Bankrupted him. Gateway used their financial muscle to buy "justice";
or more properly, to deny justice to my acquaintance.
Which, BTW, is why I never recommend Gateway, and won't buy anything
from them. And since Acer now owns Gateway, screw them too!
Any human system which tries to be just is subject to freeloaders, to
people
whose entitlement may seem unfair, and to people we just plain don't
like
such as wife-beaters, but that's part of the price of trying to be a
just
society. One that I personally don't mind paying provided there are
reasonable efforts to identify and deter the few freeloaders.
I'm not criticizing it. As you might infer from above, I don't think
it's a good idea for "justice" to be for sale to the highest bidder.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
