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?