It's not obvious that loser-pays would prevent them from setting it up as well.
Believe me, they do not have any capital to invest to indemnifying their client against a judgment. None.
The possibilities of losing a fair amount of money in case of this sort would essentially write the police a blank check to engage in whatever without threat of lawsuit.
1. We're talking about changing laws, so it would affect all lawyers pretty much equally.
2. I don't think any supposed '"We don't get paid unless we get money for you" ambulance chasers' have a lot of cash either.
Can you elaborate on this point? I don't see how a change in laws must affect all lawyers pretty much equally at all.
2. I don't think any supposed '"We don't get paid unless we get money for you" ambulance chasers' have a lot of cash either.
Seems like they have enough cash to take out huge adverts on TV and in phone books.
Now suppose you are up against a bank that can run up $10M in fees (or claim their in-house lawyers cost that) - now to be $1000 at risk you need a case that is 99.999% sure before the lawyer's insurance company will let them take it.
With correct insurance/lawyer-agreements, the poor can set it up so that they have no chance of paying anything. In effect, they sell part of the expected value of their suit to decrease their variance to the point that they do not pay money in any circumstance.
>I think the 'English rule' would encourage many poor people to litigate if they believed their case was strong.
Well, to be precise, it would encourage many poor people to litigate if their lawyer (or their insurance company) believed their case was strong. And isn't this exactly what we want? That justice is pursued?