A winning proposition

Texas' loser-pays bill would be a windfall for job creation

  • Follow Editorials

Texas has tipped the scales of Lady Justice in favor of common sense with its new "loser pays" legislation.

In an effort to reduce frivolous lawsuits, Texas lawmakers have passed a bill that would require a losing litigant to pay the winner's attorney's fees and court costs if judge rules the lawsuit was without merit.

Not only does this potentially reduce crowded court dockets, it also removes the burden of frivolous court costs on business owners, allowing them to focus on business pursuits.

Legislation such as this makes Texas what The Wall Street Journal is calling the "best state for job creation," with about 250,000 new jobs in 2010. Texas' deregulation, low taxes and favorable business laws have a laissez-faire flavor that has allowed the state's economy to push forward, even as the rest of the nation, especially the Northeast, continues to lag behind.

The Lone Star State's nurturing business climate is reflected in the startling results of the 2010 national Census: With the help of migration from other states, Texas gained four congressional seats, while the former industrial giants of the North, such as New York, lost seats.

Generally speaking, Census trends showed movement out of heavily regulated states to business-friendly states. In other words, the states with more jobs have more people flocking to them, and the states with pro-business laws have more jobs.

Even more interesting: The states with the biggest population gains were generally conservative, right-to-work states, such as Texas, Georgia and South Carolina, which all gained seats in the U.S. House as a result. Coincidence? Unlikely.

The population and results have spoken. Pro-business laws are succeeding in Texas, so why shouldn't they succeed everywhere else? What the economy needs is a good dose of laissez-faire , Texas style.

If President Obama is looking for ways to grow jobs and the economy, he need look no further than Texas.

Comments (12) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Riverman1
118409
Points
Riverman1 06/08/11 - 11:08 pm
0
0
"In an effort to reduce

"In an effort to reduce frivolous lawsuits, Texas lawmakers have passed a bill that would require a losing litigant to pay the winner's attorney's fees and court costs if judge rules the lawsuit was without merit."

The other side to that is an ordinary citizen wouldn't dare take on a bigger entity where it is possible he would have to pay the attorney fees and court costs. Say he scraped together the money to pay his lawyer to sue some company for a real wrong, he would be in big trouble if he had to pay the extra amount if he lost. I'm not sure about this.

There need to be safeguards and limits to keep the big guys from scaring the common people from suing for justified reasons.

southernguy08
575
Points
southernguy08 06/09/11 - 07:15 am
0
0
Obama looking for ways to
Unpublished

Obama looking for ways to grow jobs and the economy? Good one, AC. This guy couldn't grow tomatoes in his back yard.

allhans
25543
Points
allhans 06/09/11 - 08:15 am
0
0
If an attorney can see some

If an attorney can see some merit in a complaint you might have, won't the attorney usually take your case on a contingency basis?

BTW I know of few lawyers that will turn down a case even it has no merit at all.

curly123053
7175
Points
curly123053 06/09/11 - 08:50 am
0
0
I agree with Texas all the

I agree with Texas all the way on this law. People today will sue you if you look at them wrong for crying out loud. People today love to sue when they do not get their way and it has become totally insane. I have gotten subpoenas several times to testify on injury claims during my 22 yrs as an EMT. The majority of the time the suits were a bunch of "junk", with people trying to get what money they could out of someone and one time @ USCA. The USCA claim was a scam which got thrown out of court after my EMS report was put forth as evidence. That was an clear example of a "suit without merit', and it's not the only one. Some people use suits to try to defraud as what happened in this case in my opinion.......I think people who really feel they have been wronged and do not make up stuff as in the mentioned case will not be affected very much. Someone who loses a suit will not always be seen as someone who sues without merit and should not have to pay the loser's attorney and court costs if they did not fabricate stories as what happened at USCA that day. I bet half of the civil court cases involve folks just trying to get rich off of somebody because of some petty reason or no good reason at all. This Texas law will cut a lot of those type of suits.

Riverman1
118409
Points
Riverman1 06/09/11 - 08:58 am
0
0
Allhans, sure an attorney

Allhans, sure an attorney will take your case for a percentage of the settlement if he wins, but that practice will decrease under this plan where an individual could be responsible for the legal fees of a large corporation or something.

This hits home to me because for the first time in my life I'm thinking of suing a large bank. They have me mixed up with someone else and have refused to correct the matter although I have furnished them all kinds of information. There comes a point where they have to be made aware of their risks when they harm the consumers.

If I were in Texas and could possibly end up having to pay for the bank's legal fees I'd think hard before suing them even though I'm dead right. There is too big a risk that they could always come up with some legal manuever to get my case thrown out and leave me paying their high paid lawyers.

curly123053
7175
Points
curly123053 06/09/11 - 09:39 am
0
0
@ Riverman, your case as

@ Riverman, your case as mentioned would not be a case without merit if you lost due to the evidence you have accumulated as long as the evidence is not altered or fabricated. I do not think your case in Texas would fall under the new law. This is for the people using the civil courts to try to rip people and corporations off. I would also like to see lawyers become liable too if they knowingly advance a suit without merit. That would stop a lot of suits by some of the shady lawyers looking to profit off suits.

Riverman1
118409
Points
Riverman1 06/09/11 - 09:52 am
0
0
Curly, the problem is whether

Curly, the problem is whether I should pay their attorneys will become part of the litigation. They will argue I should have to pay until I exhaust my funds. So not only do I end up paying to sue them, but, in essence, I pay my attorney to defend me against them.

Riverman1
118409
Points
Riverman1 06/09/11 - 09:56 am
0
0
Curly, one more point. A

Curly, one more point. A judge already has the power to throw out frivolous lawsuits. He can also start disciplinary action against an attorney who brings such an uncalled for suit. Enforce the current rules and everything will be fine.

faithson
6525
Points
faithson 06/09/11 - 12:55 pm
0
0
Texas... enough said !

Texas... enough said !

faithson
6525
Points
faithson 06/09/11 - 01:00 pm
0
0
Oh yea.. isn't that where

Oh yea.. isn't that where the bug exterminator, aka 'the hammer', who is awaiting an order to show up at his local prison is from ? Any one who trusts the legislators in Texas are legislating for the people, I want to sell some Florida swamp land to.

justthefacts
33981
Points
justthefacts 06/09/11 - 01:07 pm
0
0
Yes, because we all know that

Yes, because we all know that the legislatures in other states are legislating for the people....sure, right.....please.

Riverman1
118409
Points
Riverman1 06/09/11 - 06:30 pm
0
0
Traditionally, the onus is on

Traditionally, the onus is on the attorney not to allow someone to bring a frivolous suit. The attorney should be disciplined by the judge for such an action. If you say the plantif has to pay the other side's attorney, the attorney bringing the suit will simply say he told the plantiff he may have to pay the other attorneys and court costs if he losses as a way of justifying his involvement in a frivolous suit.

That negates him from responsibility for an unreasonable suit. It's simply a way of removing the blame from the lawyers and placing it on the people....and protecting the big boys.

Brad Owens
5224
Points
Brad Owens 06/09/11 - 07:00 pm
0
0
I'm gonna sue you all for

I'm gonna sue you all for punitive damages...

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs