If we can have the British system of law, then we should also have the British system of health care.

Stacey is dead on.

This would stop a lot of frivolouw litigation.

Yes, they have a great dental plan.

If the House committee has no jurisdiction to award legal fees and the Chancery Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and therefore it's res judicata, perhaps the ACLU would like to step up and cover Donna Rowland's legal costs?
Ha! Perhaps not.
Smells like a Bredesen appointed Court of Appeals to me.

We don't want to close off the courts to those with legitimate grievances but limited means, especially if they're going up against an army of corporate trial lawyers.

I prefer a modified version of the English system that Camp is suggesting. A plaintiff that loses should only be liable for the defendant's costs up to the amount the plaintiff himself paid.

This would serve a dual purpose. It would discourage the John Does from filing frivolous suits. It would also discourage well-financed defendants from trying to intimidate plaintiffs with crushing "loser pays" costs or filing endless appeals to drag lawsuits out.

For an idiot, that's not a bad ideal. I mean that honestly. It truly is not a bad idea.

Since we are just stripping down our current system, we should also consider what the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure say under Rule 11. Yes, there are already sanctions in place for frivolous lawsuits.

Adopting the "loser pays" system of litigation would be a real shock to the current system and loaded with unintended consequences. Arguably it could spark even more lawsuits from judgment proof plaintiffs pursuing smaller claims that currently are below the threshold for a lawyer to take on and be paid from the recovery. (plaintiff lawyer practice 101 is first figuring out likely contingent fee award x probability of success - cost). Shifting to loser pays would boost the amount recoverable by plaintiff. If his client is judgment proof (couldn't pay the defendant's attorney fee if he lost) then defendant can sue at will.

Campfield would probably want to put the plaintiff's lawyer on the hook for the costs - something that the current rules of professional responsibility don't allow.

Something also tells me that Stacey is tired of being sued by the tenants living in his slums.

Exactly B! Stacy would have us preclude the means by which people who otherwise can't afford an attorney actually can. Everyone knows that for the most part when it comes to simple torts, plaintiff's lawyers do not get paid unless they win.

It's fascinating to me how the current General Assembly is allegedly pro-business yet it totally disregards the fact that lawyers and law firms are businesses and pay taxes!

B has a good idea, too. Make the plaintiff's lawyer responsible for some of the costs.

Then again, if we're going to address abuse on the plaintiff's side, we have to address the defense side, too. If John Doe sues MegaCorp over a legitimate grievance, for example, the defense could pack on costs through high-priced armies of lawyers and endless appeals to intimidate and discourage a plaintiff with a legitimate gripe.

Brawndo: and that's exactly what corporate defendants do. Stacy ought to consider going to law school, becoming an attorney, and then casting judgments.

Yep. Actually, frivolous B2B lawsuits are the ones that are clogging up our court system. I'd like to see Camp's suggestion for cracking down on those, as well as SLAPP suits. We never hear about those when the political class pushes for tort reform.