There's a rather significant difference between the American and European (at least in most of Europe) court systems in that in the latter when someone sues someone else, the loser is automatically sentenced to pay all of the winner's legal fees, in addition to whatever punishment was imposed for the crime, while in the United States that's not the case.
The former is the case for example in Finland. Whichever party in the lawsuit loses is automatically required to pay all the legal fees of the other party.
The reasoning behind this principle is rather simple and straightforward, and two-fold:
Firstly, someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing, or someone who has been wronged, should not be penalized in any way, such as suffering a monetary loss due to the lawsuit. It's wrong to punish the innocent, and it's wrong to have them suffer heavy monetary losses for something they haven't done, or for being the victim of a crime or injustice. (Especially in the latter case it would be especially unjust if they are the victim of some kind of crime, and on top of that they need to pay exorbitant amounts of money just to seek justice.)
Secondly, it stops abusing the judicial system to financially hurt somebody. In other words, it stops spurious lawsuits designed to cause monetary losses to somebody, or to intimidate or harass somebody. If the lawsuit is spurious and without any basis, then the accuser will just be losing a ton of money because he will have to pay the other person's legal fees.
On paper this sounds great, and very reasonable and logical. In practice, however, and as unintuitive as it might sound at first, it can actually lead to injustice. Even this system can be abused, and is being abused.
The major problem with this system is that it puts no limit to what the reasonable attorney fees of the opposition are. There is no law that impose proportionality to these fees, that would make the amount of money that the losing party has to pay in any way proportional to the gravity of the offense.
I have written previously about a particularly obnoxious case here in Finland, where a person was found guilty of distributing copyrighted material online, but the gravity of the crime was so minor that the judge saw it as worth just a mere 100€ fine, but the person ended up having to pay a whopping 33100€ in total, because of this system.
So that's right, for a crime as minor as being worthy a 100€ fine (which is something you could get if you steal candy from a store for the first time), the person ended up having to pay 33100€, which is obnoxiously disproportionate to the severity of the crime.
This is because there is no limitation in Finnish law about what the claimed salaries of the attorneys are. They can essentially demand whatever they want. They can claim any hourly salary they want, and any number of hours spent on that case they want, basically without limitation. There is no statute of proportionality of any kind. The winning attorneys, essentially, get to decide what the monetary punishment of the losing party is, past the judge, past the law, past everything. It's pretty much up to their own whims and discretion. Thus, if the attorneys thought that a 100€ fine was too much of a slap in the wrist for that person, they essentially could decide their own fine to be imposed onto him, pretty much at will. And thus a 100€ crime became a 33100€ crime, because the attorneys so wanted. And this is all legal.
Is the opposite system better?
There is actually an argument presented for the American system: It is argued that an European-style system where the losing party automatically pays the legal fees of the winning party, as above, may disincentivize and discourage people from seeking justice, for the fear of not having a strong enough case, or for the opposition having too good lawyers, and losing in court and having to pay exorbitant sums of money (which in the United States are much higher than in Finland). It's essentially a gamble: If you win, it doesn't cost you anything and you get justice, but if you lose, you end up having to pay a crapload of money. Thus it's no wonder that people are too afraid of seeking justice, especially for more minor crimes, because the stakes are way too high.
Thus, a legal system where the losing party does not automatically have to pay the legal fees of the winning party is better in this regard.
On the other hand, this does lead to abuse, as explained above: It allows rich people and rich corporations to abuse the legal system to bully people, and to cause them monetary harm, even with frivolous lawsuits. While the losing party can counter-sue to have the other party pay their legal fees, it's a whole arduous and stressful process in itself.
So it's a dilemma. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Both systems can be abused, and thus neither is perfect.
The former is the case for example in Finland. Whichever party in the lawsuit loses is automatically required to pay all the legal fees of the other party.
The reasoning behind this principle is rather simple and straightforward, and two-fold:
Firstly, someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing, or someone who has been wronged, should not be penalized in any way, such as suffering a monetary loss due to the lawsuit. It's wrong to punish the innocent, and it's wrong to have them suffer heavy monetary losses for something they haven't done, or for being the victim of a crime or injustice. (Especially in the latter case it would be especially unjust if they are the victim of some kind of crime, and on top of that they need to pay exorbitant amounts of money just to seek justice.)
Secondly, it stops abusing the judicial system to financially hurt somebody. In other words, it stops spurious lawsuits designed to cause monetary losses to somebody, or to intimidate or harass somebody. If the lawsuit is spurious and without any basis, then the accuser will just be losing a ton of money because he will have to pay the other person's legal fees.
On paper this sounds great, and very reasonable and logical. In practice, however, and as unintuitive as it might sound at first, it can actually lead to injustice. Even this system can be abused, and is being abused.
The major problem with this system is that it puts no limit to what the reasonable attorney fees of the opposition are. There is no law that impose proportionality to these fees, that would make the amount of money that the losing party has to pay in any way proportional to the gravity of the offense.
I have written previously about a particularly obnoxious case here in Finland, where a person was found guilty of distributing copyrighted material online, but the gravity of the crime was so minor that the judge saw it as worth just a mere 100€ fine, but the person ended up having to pay a whopping 33100€ in total, because of this system.
So that's right, for a crime as minor as being worthy a 100€ fine (which is something you could get if you steal candy from a store for the first time), the person ended up having to pay 33100€, which is obnoxiously disproportionate to the severity of the crime.
This is because there is no limitation in Finnish law about what the claimed salaries of the attorneys are. They can essentially demand whatever they want. They can claim any hourly salary they want, and any number of hours spent on that case they want, basically without limitation. There is no statute of proportionality of any kind. The winning attorneys, essentially, get to decide what the monetary punishment of the losing party is, past the judge, past the law, past everything. It's pretty much up to their own whims and discretion. Thus, if the attorneys thought that a 100€ fine was too much of a slap in the wrist for that person, they essentially could decide their own fine to be imposed onto him, pretty much at will. And thus a 100€ crime became a 33100€ crime, because the attorneys so wanted. And this is all legal.
Is the opposite system better?
There is actually an argument presented for the American system: It is argued that an European-style system where the losing party automatically pays the legal fees of the winning party, as above, may disincentivize and discourage people from seeking justice, for the fear of not having a strong enough case, or for the opposition having too good lawyers, and losing in court and having to pay exorbitant sums of money (which in the United States are much higher than in Finland). It's essentially a gamble: If you win, it doesn't cost you anything and you get justice, but if you lose, you end up having to pay a crapload of money. Thus it's no wonder that people are too afraid of seeking justice, especially for more minor crimes, because the stakes are way too high.
Thus, a legal system where the losing party does not automatically have to pay the legal fees of the winning party is better in this regard.
On the other hand, this does lead to abuse, as explained above: It allows rich people and rich corporations to abuse the legal system to bully people, and to cause them monetary harm, even with frivolous lawsuits. While the losing party can counter-sue to have the other party pay their legal fees, it's a whole arduous and stressful process in itself.
So it's a dilemma. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Both systems can be abused, and thus neither is perfect.
Comments
Post a Comment