<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: February 14 roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/02/february-14-roundup-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/02/february-14-roundup-3/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 05:21:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hugo S. Cunningham		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/02/february-14-roundup-3/comment-page-1/#comment-348008</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hugo S. Cunningham]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 05:21:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=68767#comment-348008</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[One-way fee shifting would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment&#039;s &quot;equal protection&quot; clause.  Nevertheless, it served a useful purpose in Massachusetts about 40 years ago against sleazy insurance companies that refused to pay even obviously reasonable claims.

If we are stuck with one-way fee shifting, I would like it deployed in favor of the First Amendment to protect libel defendants:  if the speech in question is substantially true, or otherwise protected by the NY Times v. Sullivan decision, the plaintiff and his attorney are jointly and severally liable for the defendant&#039;s defense costs.  In pro-se cases, the liability would be shared by the plaintiff and the jurisdiction that failed to shut down his lawsuit promptly.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One-way fee shifting would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment&#8217;s &#8220;equal protection&#8221; clause.  Nevertheless, it served a useful purpose in Massachusetts about 40 years ago against sleazy insurance companies that refused to pay even obviously reasonable claims.</p>
<p>If we are stuck with one-way fee shifting, I would like it deployed in favor of the First Amendment to protect libel defendants:  if the speech in question is substantially true, or otherwise protected by the NY Times v. Sullivan decision, the plaintiff and his attorney are jointly and severally liable for the defendant&#8217;s defense costs.  In pro-se cases, the liability would be shared by the plaintiff and the jurisdiction that failed to shut down his lawsuit promptly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
