Quote:
Originally Posted by East Coast Okie
I know where you are coming from and I can't dispute your analysis. A frustration I have is that so many judges, certainly those in state court, even when faced with a ridiculously frivolous case, simply won't pull the trigger on attorney fees. I tend to do guardian ad litem work and frequently watch opposing counsel slug it out. Sometimes, one side is really far out there in terms of bringing frivolous claims, etc. The kids suffer as a result, which is where my ox gets gored. Unfortunately, the judges where I practice just won't address it. I wish they would because a lot of people simply get outgunned because they are going pro se against an attorney, or they have to let their attorney go mid-stream because the other side has frivolously run up costs and the well runs dry in the interim. Money that could go to the kids goes to the lawyers who run up fees with impunity.
|
Oh God.. arguing for the prevailing party in a
family case??? That is even worse. Now you're giving a powerful and coercive incentive to parties to lie even more than they do.
Courts could be better gatekeepers, but an English rule system would just be terrible in family court.
I suppose you'd set up a system where the wealthier parent would always win. I've seen what should be slam dunk custody cases go down in flames for inexplicable reasons. I'm sure you have as well. In such cases, if the party is wealthy, that's fine, but that's usually not the case. Loser pays sounds fine at first blush, but when you start applying it automatically, you really run into some inequitable situations.