American Legal System Vs. British

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Arnie Guitar, Jun 26, 2009.

  1. Do I have it right that in England, if you sue someone, and you lose, you have to pay their legal fees?

    I bring this up from the Michael Jackson thread here. The allegations against MJ were never proven in a court of law, and his denials, along with the denials of those who said they knew him were very strong...maybe he did it, maybe he didn't...but I often wonder when people like MJ are accused of something, that their wealth and station in life has to be part of the reason they're being sued. I wonder if a system where if you lost your case and you had to pay the legal fees of the accused, really does reduce the amount of cases of these types. In MJ's case, do you think he would have been brought up on charges if the accuser stood the chance of losing, and paying his legal bills to defend himself?
  2. I dont like how they split the lawyer profession in two: barrister and solicitor
  3. WASHINGTON POST who finally unveiled
    terrorists for the monsters they really are: fiendish
    forgers and warez doods. Roslyn Mazer unveiled a damning
    dossier that conclusively showed "trademark pirates in
    Pakistan producing T-shirts with counterfeit Nike logos
    and glorifying bin Laden" and that "eight of 10 countries
    identified by a trade group as having the highest business
    software piracy rates in the world - Pakistan, China,
    Indonesia, Ukraine, Russia, Lebanon, Qatar and Bahrain -
    have links to al-Qaeda". Circumstantial? Perhaps? Necessary
    to declare war on all IP theft? Of course. Although we still
    don't get it - who'd pay for pirated stuff anyway? And does
    bin Laden get to sue for using his image without permission
    Attorney Companies