Does paying for other party&#39;s attorney fees have a chilling effect?
<p>I understand and agree with the fairness in the losing party having to pay the other party's attorney fees. However, won't this foster a chilling effect on the "little guys" (we, the peasants) from suing the "big guys" (big business)?</p>

<p>For example, if Microsoft or Apple infringe on your intellectual property, or your iPad causes you to slip and fall down 11 flights of stairs, or whatever, I'd still be hesitant to sue a company like either of these, given you could potentially have to pay their attorney fees, which amount to one gold bar per hour, give or take. Per attorney.</p>

<p>Is there any law or provision that addresses this or takes it into consideration?</p>

<p>The US has what's known as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">American Rule</a>, where each party pays their own attorney's fees. However, there can be conditions under which the loser has to pay. At the federal level, this is the default per <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)</a>, but  <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1927" rel="nofollow noreferrer">28 USC 1927</a> says that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of
  the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the
  proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required
  by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and
  attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Various states have laws allowing the prevailing part to recover attorney's fees. </p>

<p>I think the problem is that your initial assumption that the loser pays is wrong. In the US.</p>

<p>Both of the rules offered so far rely on the "American Rule," i.e., each side pays its own fees, but neither makes any mention of the many, many exceptions in which a party may end up paying for everyone's lawyers simply because they lost.</p>

<p>One category that you mentioned an interest in -- slip-and-fall cases -- will rarely be one of thsoe exceptions, but the rule may vary from state to state.</p>

<p>The other category -- IP cases -- can frequently allow for fee-shifting to a the prevailing party. Federal statutes governing patent (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/285" rel="nofollow noreferrer">35 U.S. Code § 285</a>), trademark (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1117" rel="nofollow noreferrer">15 U.S. Code § 1117</a>), and copyright (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17 U.S. Code § 505</a>) litigation all allow courts to order the loser to pay the winner's legal fees.</p>

<p>And there are many, many more kinds of cases that permit fee-shifting under varying circumstances, including civil rights (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988" rel="nofollow noreferrer">42 U.S. Code § 1988</a>), FOIA (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552" rel="nofollow noreferrer">5 U.S. Code § 552(a)(4)(E)</a>), FLSA (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216" rel="nofollow noreferrer">29 U.S. Code § 216</a>), EAJA (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2412" rel="nofollow noreferrer">28 U.S. Code § 2412</a>), and antitrust (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/4304" rel="nofollow noreferrer">15 U.S. Code § 4304</a>).</p>

<p>Keep in mind, though, that this means not only that you could be forced to pay the other side's fees, but that they, too, could be ordered to pay yours. You undoubtedly have less money to spend on lawyers, but there are many firms that handle these cases on contingency to address that disparity.</p>

<p>You could fairly say that this has a chilling effect on litigation, but that is probably the point. The courts want to discourage parties from infringing on each other's patents, they want to discourage flimsy assertions of infringement, and they want to encourage the presuit resolution of these disputes.</p>

<p>You can’t look at the laws of a country individually, they come in a package. In the USA, the package is “everyone pays for their lawyers, and everyone can spend as much money on their lawyers as they like”. If you sue Apple for $1000 and they spend a million on lawyers, that’s their problem. Obviously changing only the “loser pays” portion of the package would create a bad law. </p>

<p>Germany for example has a different law: Loser pays, but the court sets the lawyer cost according to the value of the court case. If you sue Apple for $1000, the court will set lawyer and court cost to say $100 each (the exact amount is different). If you are greedy and ask for a million, the cost will be something like 20,000 each. And if you are awarded 1000 of that million, you more than 99% lost the case, so you lose out big time. As a result, people don’t ask for unreasonable amounts of damaged, unlike the USA where asking for a million instead of $1000 has no downside to you. </p>

<p>Summary: If you change to “loser pays”, you have to make some other changes as well, and there is no chilling effect. </p>

united-states business civil-law