But actually it applies to both the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not the only one that could be caught paying the other person's fees. But I can tell the gentleman that you can limit the amount of money you may have to pay by prior to 10 days before trial making your final offer and you will not have to pay the fees that have accrued prior to that time. You many be able to strike under the present bill a large percent of what you might otherwise have had to pay. But I do think that if you go down from there and have only 25 percent of what would accrue from that time forward, you do not have very much left out of your loser pays.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill related to legal fees during a floor debate.
Share
More from William Moorhead
I just think, if the gentleman is not in favor of loser pays, of course he is not going to like this at all. But under the amendments that we have put into the bill, a lot of the sting of loser pays has been taken out already----
I rise in support of H.R. 1170, which provides for a three-judge court review of statewide referenda. H.R. 1170 provides that requests for injunctions in cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed by State referendum must…
This is an unconscionable tax on innovation, a tax on American inventors for seeking to share with the American public the results of their creativity. This amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia proposes to take another $34…
If the judge determines that it would be manifestly unjust for him to order those fees, he can avoid them.





