House Panel OKs Fines for Frivolous Lawsuits

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill slapping fines on lawyers for filing frivolous lawsuits was approved on Wednesday by a U.S. House of Representatives panel, acting on a priority President Bush highlighted at last week's Republican party convention.

The Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee passed the proposal on an 18-10 party line vote, and committee aides said it would be on the floor of the chamber next week.

The House measure is the latest in a series of Republican attempts at cracking down on lawsuit excesses.
....
Supporters recalled that Bush, in his speech at the recent Republican convention, declared, "We must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6185299&src=rss/ElectionCoverage§ion=news

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. How large will the fines be for SLAPP suits?

[papau]

3. Excellent question - Indeed corporate vs corporate SLAPP - as in SCO

vs the world and Microsoft vs most - would mean it will never get out of the Senate.

The Big Guys like SLAPP - and any "reasonableness exclusions" carved out for them will have to apply to the rest of us!

[djg21]

7. The reality is that this is crap.

Courts already have the authority to sanction lawyers for bringing frivolous lawsuits under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar State laws. In addition, a prevailing defendant in a frivolous federal lawsuit may recover attorneys' fees from the plaintiff, or from his/her attorney, pursuant to 28 USC 1937. The simple fact is that judges virtually never sanction plaintiffs or their attorneys for brnging frivolous lawsuits. In fact, it is a exceedingly rare occassion when a judge finds any claim to be frivolous.

Unfortunately, and by definition, a frivolous claim is one that is objectively baseless. In other words, no reasonable person could believe that the claimm has merit. This is a virtually impossible standard to meet.

Any proposed legislation purporting to allow fines to be imposed where claims are frivolous will be entirely superfluous and useless.

[Infomaniac]

2. Yeah, this is so needed.

Yeah, this is so needed. We don't have our nuclear plants or ports protected against terrorist attack; but dammit we won't put up with any more of these bogus lawsuits. Nevermind that the federal courts and most, if not all, state courts already have penalties in place for meritless lawsuits. The chance to grandstand and pander to the repubicant base is too good to pass up. These a-holes would probably call the lawsuit filed against the Saudi government by the 9-11 families frivolous too.

[Carla in Ca]

4. I think this is another nail in the coffin of Democracy

And who shall decide which lawsuits are frivolous? I see yet another bureaucratic layer on the system.

[Rose Siding]

6. That's the problem I see

From the article, it looks like the judge sitting for the case would make the decision alone. That seems poorly thought out. I've heard suggestions about boards of arbitration that *might* be worth exploring. Depending on the standards and the way arbitors are selected, that could even end up being a protection for consumers.

The way they want to do it would have a chilling effect on which cases lawyers would be willing to take on. A severe blow to democracy; I agree with you.

[Carla in Ca]

9. Thats right, party line

The lawyers will probably, gee, file a lawsuit, right?

[Massacure]

5. I think this will get shot down.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

8. This is HR4571, and it bears watching. I suspect there will be

more riders put on this puppy.