Hacker News Reader

It's cliché, but totally on point:

Only sue if you have nothing to lose, or your opponents are ridiculously rich. (preferably: both).

If you have nothing to lose, you probably can't afford lawyers in the first place.

Not quite your point, I know, but it seems to apply here.

If you're going after a target with deep pockets you will have no problems with lawyers who will work for a share of the settlement.

Edit: changed my wording to be more accurate.

I think you mean they'll work for a piece of the reward, not for free.

Yup, that's what I meant.

In Australia, there's a deterrent in civil suits that a losing plaintiff pays costs for a successful defendant. Does the US have that at all?

I'm not in any way experienced in law, but it seems like that would help reduce the number of fishing expeditions and barratry.

This is spread all over Europe as well since it comes from Roman Law.

Same here in Brazil

In this case, Australia is a common law country. Its legal heritage is English, not civil/Roman.

While it would reduce "fishing expeditions", it would make me feel less secure in the legal system, because I might be afraid of the financial risk to sue someone.

It's not guaranteed, but it's common for the judge to order costs to be paid by the losing party. I'm really not familiar wtih the details of the system, sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com