The Reality Behind Frivolous Litigation
Posted by
Robin BaraApril 17, 2009 10:58 AMTags:
None
Most people, at some point in life, will hear about a ridiculous lawsuit filed by some overzealous attorney practicing somewhere in the country. These lawsuits, once picked up by the media, spark a frenzy of public agitation towards lawyers. While practicing attorneys know such cases will be dismissed, the public does not easily forget these absurdities, and as a result, attorneys may be viewed as untrustworthy and dishonest by those outside of the profession.
Courts consider “frivolous litigation” a legal claim or defense filed even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit.
For example, I am sure most people can recall the $54 million dollar lawsuit filed over a pair of pants in 2007. This claim was actually filed by an Administrative Law judge in D.C. against a dry cleaner who lost his pants. Not only did the case get dismissed, but the judge lost his job as well.
Although it may seem that the court dockets are packed with these types of lawsuits, this is not the case. Contrary to what some may believe, it is not the norm for an attorney to file a merit-less claim. Aside from the high ethical standards placed upon attorneys, lawyers know that judges often interact with each other and see the same practitioners repeatedly.
As such, not many lawyers are willing to risk their credibility with judges by wasting their time with a baseless lawsuit. Even though most cases settle before reaching the judge, it’s a misperception to assume they do not know which lawyers are notorious for wasting the clerk's time by docketing this non-sense. In a community as close knitted as the legal field, a bad reputation is not easily shed, in both the court room and among peers.
Similar to physicians, attorneys often specialize in a specific area of the law. As a result, it is not uncommon for an attorney to have to refer a client to another attorney who may be of better assistance in an area. Not many attorneys are willing to put their reputation on the line by referring a client to someone they know will not act in the client’s best interest.
The legal profession is taking steps to further decrease frivolous litigation. In 2005, Congress strengthened Federal Rule 11 and on the state level, the local bar associations have similar authority. A House Report posted by the Library of Congress had this to say about its purpose for reforming FR 11:
Judges do not feel the painful costs of frivolous lawsuits, and as they have sat as judges over the last decade they have only seen the standards of how frivolous lawsuits should be treated erode over time, starting with the explicitly forgiving nature of the toothless Rule 11 that was enacted in 1993. It is time courts were made to take the harm caused by frivolous lawsuits seriously again--by making sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits mandatory, not discretionary, on the part of the judge--and to empower the victims of frivolous lawsuits with the certainty that they will be compensated for the frivolous lawsuits they suffer under. Only the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act can help free all Americans from the fear they feel today under the constant threat of frivolous lawsuits.
While every profession has its share of jerks, attorneys are held to a high standard of ethics. Not only does frivolous litigation harm the public's perception of the legal profession, it also dissolves the creditability of attorneys who, in good faith represent plaintiffs whom they believe have a legitimate cause of action.