In the Netherlands, this is subject to restrictions. Even if one party is ordered to pay the "full" costs, this will generally be capped (except in cases of frivolous litigation). Mostly, though, compensation for costs is limited to "reasonable" costs, and then usually according to a formula based on the work performed and the interests at stake or the complexity of the case.The American Rule, briefly, is that (absent a statute, rule, or contractual provision stating otherwise) each side in the litigation has to pay for their own attorney's fees and their own costs. In many other countries, this isn't the default- the default, instead, is the so-called, "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner Rule," which is that the prevailing party in litigation has their fees and costs paid by the loser. #Winner #IsCharlieSheenStillAlive?
In the US also. One of the most nototious "copyright trolls" has been censured for many things, including inflating the costs of his services. I don't think that he currently has a license anywhere, anymore.In the Netherlands, this is subject to restrictions. Even if one party is ordered to pay the "full" costs, this will generally be capped (except in cases of frivolous litigation). Mostly, though, compensation for costs is limited to "reasonable" costs, and then usually according to a formula based on the work performed and the interests at stake or the complexity of the case.
In the Netherlands, this is subject to restrictions. Even if one party is ordered to pay the "full" costs, this will generally be capped (except in cases of frivolous litigation). Mostly, though, compensation for costs is limited to "reasonable" costs, and then usually according to a formula based on the work performed and the interests at stake or the complexity of the case.
I think that I got about $10.00 out of the settlement for the Canadian RAM memory price fixing scheme. Probably would have been about a quarter for the settlement in the bread price fixing scheme case and yes, in Canada we had a scheme in which supermarkets engaged in price fixing on, of all things, bread.In the United States, the general rule (at the federal law, and in many states) is that when you do get fees (through statute, rule, or contract), you use the lodestar method to determine reasonableness.
While it possible to recover more than you would normally earn (through a "multiplier"), this is highly unusual.
One issue that has come up repeatedly is that settlements allow attorneys to make much more than they normally would, such as in a class action case. Imagine this:
Class action filed.
Settlement is based on class members settling for X.
Attorneys get a percentage of X.
But the settlement is structured so that many class members will not go through requisite hoops to get their settlement.
Like other forms of exceptionalist traditions (firearms, healthcare, file-your-own taxes etc.), it's always good to see a practice which promotes such a positive and equitable outcome, and which doesn't support a vast, extraneous industry with a societally detrimental effect.B. The "American Rule."
Like other forms of exceptionalist traditions (firearms, healthcare, file-your-own taxes etc.), it's always good to see a practice which promotes such a positive and equitable outcome, and which doesn't support a vast, extraneous industry with a societally detrimental effect.