[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Quite a few lawyers work on a "only if you win" fee schedule, so it's not impossible.
Of course. But making the looser pay all court fees in all scenarios makes it even worse, since the party putting more money into a defense is more likely to win, all things being equal, and lump the cost on the loser. So it becomes a game of not just "Let's drag this out until he goes bankrupt," but also a game of "If we hire a big name firm for 1200 and hour, he will back down instantly, since he knows he will be financially ruined if he fails."
Perhaps it would be reasonable to say that the looser has to pay legal costs matching what they paid for their own council, or the full cost of the opposition, whichever is smaller. So if you aren't willing and able to cough up for a top tier firm for your side, you won't be forced to pay for a top tier firm that got used against you. And if you win, its not like big businesses will be unduly burdened by paying a couple thousand to the family lawyer.
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Thats how most countries handle it.
And if the loser cant pay the state jumps in.
Only thing the winer pays are taxes.