Report this comment to a moderator

Jackson proposes sweeping reforms to cut litigation costs

I just do not understand the APIL argument at all. How can it be a bad thing for the claimant to have to bear the cost of an insurance premium in return for the peace of mind he receives. And if s/he doesn't, then surely it would be a good thing if s/he has to be subject to the resulting risk? Wouldn't it be just so much easier if we abandoned loser pays and adopted loser pays only when there's bad faith together with a properly structured contingency framework?

15-Jan-2010

5:28 pm