Impact of Frivolous law
Impact of a frivolous lawsuit
Abstract
Frivolous lawsuits are lawsuits that have little or no chance of being won due to lack of merit. In law, a frivolous lawsuit is one that is presented when the party had a reason to know that the defense or the claim was futile. Frivolous litigations may be as a consequence of legal theories that bare absurd, additional suits or a repetition of motions. A claim or defense may be referred to as frivolous because it lacks justification or due to the fact that it was not [resented with an argument that can be interpreted in law. Rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure requires that an attorney is required to perform due diligence in their investigation before presenting any defense or claim to the court. The definition on whether the attorney acted frivolously varies according to the jurisdiction. The impact of frivolous cases or a claim includes the wastage of the courts time and the other parties involved, wastage of legal fees and resources.
The major motivation for writing this paper is to ascertain the reasons that may compel a lawyer to present a frivolous claim in court. It is also the intention of this paper to reveal the possible remedies that may exist to ensure that law firms do not present frivolous litigation to the court to minimize the wastage of time and resources (Stallings, 2012).
Problem statement
It is not uncommon to find lawyers filing frivolous litigation in a court either in the form of a claim or defense. Frivolous lawsuits are usually filed before the court when an attorney is entirely aware that the litigation lacks merit. Rule 11 of the federal civil procedures in the United States of America and the vexatious law provides solutions for this challenge (Herr, Haydock, & Stempel, 2015). A judge who determines that a lawyer has presented a frivolous claim or defense may charge that attorney for contempt of court or impose sanctions on their law courts.
Results
Rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure demands that a lawyer performs non-frivolous arguments before the court (Larcker, & Tayan, 2012). The results of this research demonstrate that frivolous litigation is not uncommon in the United States of America. Rule 11 and the vexatious law create positions which are aimed at ensuring that litigants are not into the habit of filing repetitive and redundant motions in court with the purpose of intimidating the other party (Garner, 2011). In a jurisdiction where judges have been strict in imposing the penalties that are provided in rule 11, instances of frivolous lawsuits have decreased dramatically. Most courts have a list of lawyers who have displayed a consistent pattern of presenting lawsuits that lack merit. These lawyers are usually required to pay fines that have a deterrent effect (Hoffman, 2011). If they continue to present frivolous legal suits, sanctions may be placed on their firms. In extreme cases, a judge could choose to disbar the lawyer to ensure that they do not practice law again.
Conclusion
The frivolous lawsuit is also referred to as a vexatious litigation which is mainly presented before the court with the aim of harassing or intimidating the other party. It may constitute in a burdensome and repetitive filing of motions without merit. Since a vexatious litigation is considered to be an abuse of the judicial process, it may result in sanctions. A litigant is judged to be frivolous if they exhibit a pattern of vexatious lawsuits. In extreme cases, a continuous presentation of frivolous lawsuits could lead to disbarment of the lawyers.
References
Garner, B. A. (2011). Garner's dictionary of legal usage. Oxford University Press, USA.
Herr, D. F., Haydock, R. S., & Stempel, J. W. (2015). Motion Practice. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Hoffman, L. (2011). The Case against the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011. Hous. L. Rev., 48, 545.
Larcker, D. F., & Tayan, B. (2012). Shareholder Lawsuits: Where Is the Line Between Legitimate and Frivolous?
Stallings, S. A. (2012). Rule 11: What Process is Due?. St. John's Law Review, 62(3), 12.
