This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Nov 11, 2003
Congress should pass Graham's bill to clean up the litigation
process
If every time someone filed a lawsuit, the loser had
to pay for the winner's legal costs, the number of frivolous suits would
dwindle, and legitimate suits would be settled sooner.That's why Congress should
pass a bill introduced by three senators, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
The bill would impose such a rule in federal courts.It would not put a damper on
any legitimate lawsuits. In fact, it would help to move those suits more quickly
through the system, encouraging earlier settlements and less backlog in the
court system.And it would provide a disincentive to filing groundless suits.As
the system currently stands, lawyers and plaintiffs looking for a quick
settlement can file a suit for little or no reason. If they lose, they've lost
their time but little else. And they may come back again and again.The
businesses or individuals they are suing have to pay to defend themselves.
Often, they settle the case just to limit their legal costs. Businesses are
often intimidated into making unnecessary settlements this way.But if a
defendant knows that in the end the loser will have to pay the winner's legal
bills, he will be encouraged to stand his ground against nuisance suits.And
those who file frivolous suits would be much less bold about filing the
paperwork, knowing they would have to pay if they lost.Think of the abuse of the
court process this would clear up.If losers had to pay for all legal bills, we
wouldn't have had much of the activist litigation we have seen lately.Cities and
anti-gun activists probably wouldn't be as willing to sue firearm manufacturers
for the cost of crime if they knew they may have to pay to defend the gun
makers.Now they are willing to gamble that they can get the courts to overlook
the fact that only criminals are responsible for violent crimes, not the
manufacturers of guns, knives or baseball bats. But if they knew the loser would
have to pay, they may not be willing to take the gamble.The same principle
applies to the overweight people suing fast-food chains for their obesity. If
they knew they would have to pay McDonald's legal bills, they may not be willing
to bet that the courts will ignore the fact that only they are responsible for
the number of Big Macs they've eaten.Graham and his colleagues in the Senate
have a good plan to reduce the abuse of the judicial system and streamline it
for legitimate claims. Congress should pass their bill.