As someone who as gone through a fair deal of litigation and arbitration, this is wrong (or at the very least, inapplicable). It’s a common armchair lawyer’s myth.
If your opponent has more than $100,000 the tables are fairly even; more than $1 million, totally even. There is a ceiling to court costs, and a finite amount of time before judges issue rulings. (Spending to try and get an outcome predictably pisses off judges.) Getting to a judge costs money; once you’re there, American courts are robust.
At an individual level, these thresholds are prohibitive. At a corporate level, they’re not. Exhibit A for you should be the SEC’s win-loss record, even against individuals. (It’s mixed.)
Do you think there are any viable financial instruments that would allow the little guy to not be bossed around by the threat of ruinous legal fees? eg: Insurance that would cover up to $100,000 in legal fees in the event that you are sued. (If everyone were required to have such insurance, it would be quite cheap.) Another option could be to allow the defendant to "double the stakes" and say, "If I lose, I will pay 2x the amount you are asking for. If I win, you must pay the amount you are asking for... to me." That would allow innocent-but-nonrich people to secure loans for legal fees. Heck, some firms might even "invest" in the defendant by charging a percentage of the winnings (if they are judged not guilty).
Surely class actions cover this sort of thing? And I know court costs work differently in the US and UK, but there are plenty of "no-win, no-fee" legal firms over here - affectionately known as "ambulance chasers" lol.
You seem to have completely misunderstood me. I'm talking about situations where a poor or middle class person is being sued by a rich person or large company. How does a class action cover that? And ambulance chasers sue big companies on behalf of poor people, not defend poor people from lawsuits. Both of your examples are the opposite of what I'm talking about.
It seems you interacted with reasonable people who wanted to uphold the rule of law. Not all lawyers, prosecutors, judges, or police officers are like that. The best suggestion I can make is to look up the correlation between time spent preparing in a criminal case and conviction rate. I do not have research db access anymore and can't do this for you.
It should be obvious that time/money spent and outcome correlate by looking at the reverse. Spending no time would assuredly prepare an inadequate case. What is unusual is the almost unbounded positive direction correlation.
You need to divorce "following the law" and "following the law that was intended or that may result in the most freedom for the most people." Many high level cases are the former, not the latter.
I have a friend who went to prison for a crime someone else committed, almost solely because the defense did not have the financial resources to fight the charges effectively.
As someone who as gone through a fair deal of litigation and arbitration, this is wrong (or at the very least, inapplicable). It’s a common armchair lawyer’s myth.
If your opponent has more than $100,000 the tables are fairly even; more than $1 million, totally even. There is a ceiling to court costs, and a finite amount of time before judges issue rulings. (Spending to try and get an outcome predictably pisses off judges.) Getting to a judge costs money; once you’re there, American courts are robust.
At an individual level, these thresholds are prohibitive. At a corporate level, they’re not. Exhibit A for you should be the SEC’s win-loss record, even against individuals. (It’s mixed.)