6

When people talk about the "American rule," they usually mean a system where every party pays their own legal costs, and the winner is not compensated in any way for the costs of litigation. Using that as your basis, the American system itself is actually a "hybrid." The details change a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in general: The loser in ...


5

Several scholars have addressed this issue. Here's a quick bibliography. It appears that the most relevant "experiments" are the imposition of loser pays in medical malpractice suits in Florida for the first half of the 1980s, and Alaska's loser pays system. The Gryphon article below includes and discusses a decent amount of empirical data; the Di Pietro et ...


4

Online stores shipping stuff internationally usually include a clause in their Terms along the lines "buyer is responsible for all clearance/import fees and taxes". What those fees and taxes are depends on: destination country (the actual tax) carrier (e.g. FedEx) (clearance charges as the carrier also acts as your customs broker) value and, ...


4

Each side paying for their own litigation costs is called the American Rule. As you noted in your question, it contrasts the English Rule where the losing party pays the winning party's litigation costs. In the United States, there are literally thousands of specific exceptions to the American Rule but they can be divided into these general categories: ...


4

Tell your attorney that you will not pay him/her for services you have not authorised - he/she works for you, therefore you give him/her instructions, not your ex.


3

What's the use of contracts if you can't take a contract violator to court? A clear, thoughtful contract can be a deterrent to misconduct, and Australia is one of many jurisdictions where pro se litigation is allowed. Self-represented litigants certainly have to undergo a steep learning curve and are expected to comply with a code of conduct, procedural law,...


2

Yes. Usually a lawyer can charge until a court formally withdraws him from representing you in a case for representation in that case (even if a new lawyer has entered an appearance and you have fired him). A terminated lawyer, even after withdrawal, can also charge you for legal fees incurred to collect the lawyer's bill from you if the fee agreement ...


2

If your ex has an attorney, your attorney is generally forbidden from communicating with her under the rules of ethics unless her attorney consents. But, the deeper question, that your attorney bills you for discussions with third parties that are over frequent due to the inappropriate conduct of the third party, is one you just have to live with. This is ...


2

The law isn't necessarily consistent across all states and even all different kinds of reasons that fees are awarded within a state, but the predominant practice is for interest to be awarded only post-judgment and not pre-judgment on attorneys' fees.


2

Contracts mitigate risk - they do not eliminate it First of all, the "point" of contracts is that they set out legal rights and obligations for all commercial transactions. Buy a cup of coffee? That's a contract. Go to the movies? That's a contract. Buy a house? That's a contract. Build 23km of motorway? That's a contract. Now, when I buy a cup of coffee,...


1

The short answer to your question is yes: the usual rule is that the losing side “pays the costs” of the winning side. In legal jargon, “costs follow the event.” However, costs law is its own complex, specialised area of Australian law, often taught as part of a civil procedure course using Dal Pont’s textbook. There are three important caveats to the ...


1

Don't know if they can do this in Austraila, but in the U.S., Lawyers will typically take payment from the settlement once the case is one (typically, losing the case means you must pay all legal fees in addition to punitive and compensatory damages). In fact, it's more likely that a lawyer won't take a good case if the defendant (the guy getting sued) is ...


1

There are some classes of cases with fee shifting and some without it. The big disadvantages of the fee shifting where it is present are: In a significant subset of cases, particularly in tort law and in cases involving novel legal questions, it is very hard to predict in advance, even with the best available information, whether someone will win or not, ...


1

It's not as simple as just "American System" and "Loser Pays". When Americans hear "Loser Pays" they assume (incorrectly) that the loser would have to pay the practically unlimited cost of the winner. That need not be so. In Germany, the first thing that the judge does is establish how much the parties are arguing about. If I ask for a million in damages, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible