What are some remedies for a poor person if a petty rich guy buries him with frivolous lawsuits?
<p>A poor, jobless person made a careless remark about a rich and petty person. The rich person gets to know about it and sues the poor person for defamation. </p>

<p>Does the poor person need to hire a lawyer to defend himself against the lawsuit? Lawyers charge by the hour. The poor person can hardly afford lawyers. </p>

<p>What are some cost-effective remedies a poor person can take if a petty rich person buries his poor victim with frivolous lawsuits? </p>

<p>Answers in the context of U.K, U.S, Australia are welcomed.</p>

<p>Such a lawsuit is known as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">strategic lawsuit against public participation</a>, or SLAPP.  In the United States, several states have enacted laws that penalize those whose file SLAPPs.  The provisions of these laws vary from state to state, but they usually allow a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that their statements were constitutionally protected free speech about a public figure.  These laws may allow discovery to be halted until the motion to dismiss is decided;  they may also require a plaintiff who files a SLAPP to reimburse the defendant's attorney's fees, possibly also with punitive damages.  Some state's laws require the speech to be before a government forum (as opposed to, say, on Twitter), or to be aimed at procuring government action.  And several states have no such laws at all.</p>

<p>A summary of various US states' anti-SLAPP laws can be found on <a href="https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the website of the Public Participation Project,</a> an organization advocating the establishment of such laws.</p>

<p>Note that these motions to dismiss are not always brought by "the little guy" against "the big guy".  A notable recent case was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181015/18170340846/will-donald-trump-support-federal-anti-slapp-law-now-that-helped-him-win-stormy-daniels-defamation-suit.shtml" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stormy Daniels's libel suit against Donald Trump,</a> which was dismissed earlier this year.  Daniels had filed suit against Trump claiming that one of Trump's tweets about her was defamatory.  Trump moved to dismiss under Texas's anti-SLAPP law, on the grounds that his tweet was protected political speech about a public figure (namely Daniels);  and the judge agreed.</p>

<p>In the context of England and Wales (I don't know about Scotland), if the lawsuit is sufficiently frivolous, the defendant can engage a lawyer on a no-win, no-fee basis.  The default in England and Wales is that the losing side pays <em>both</em> sets of lawyers†.</p>

<p>See <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/mar/09/hardeep-singh-no-win-no-fee-libel" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/mar/09/hardeep-singh-no-win-no-fee-libel</a> for an example of this.</p>

<hr>

<p>† There are exceptions to this.  The most common one is where the claimant sues for £X, the defendants offer to pay £Y (which is less), and damages are eventually decided to be <em>less</em> than £Y.  The costs from the time of the offer to the end of the case then have to be paid by the winning claimant who prolonged the case unnecessarily.</p>

defamation costs frivolous-arguments