At 08:11 PM 6/7/2003 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
Too often proportionate to who can pay the most for quality. Not always though, Karl's case against ICANN being a near and dear counterpoint for obvious reasons.At 06:17 p.m. 7/06/2003, James S. Tyre wrote:I was afraid that things had come to that in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave but it is still distressing to hear a practitioner confirm it.Is the fear of being sued so strong in the US that people with a just and strong case can be intimidated simply because they cannot afford a defence?
Speaking as a US litigator for 24 years, emphatically "yes."
What about the quality of Justice?
Have you had such threats? I'm not aware of any, though there are many facts of which I'm not aware. Obviously, I can offer no guarantees, but if it were me, I wouldn't be too concerned about coming to the US. Part of that is a gut level feeling that, other things being equal, Twomey would be less likely to authorize the lawsuit than Lynn would have been; but that's only a feeling.but the American rule, unlike the English rule, is that attorney fees are not routinely awarded to the prevailing party, they are the exception to the rule, and only if there is a specific authorizing statute or contractual provision.
In other words, should I take threats not to set foot in the US (or get sued under whatever pretext) seriously?
Realistically, no. As well-intentioned as such calls are, they rarely result in much of tangible value.Or do you think an icannatlarge call for legal help would be a shield?