I agree with you that the court did absolutely the right thing to award legal costs to the kid. What I object to is simply how tremendously expensive legal fees are. In many cases, you can win a case, and still be poorer than you started - when legal fees are not awarded, or when your opponent simply can't pay the fees.
Hence the reference to the Scientologists. They often start lawsuits they haven't a hope of winning, but where they know that they have a lot more money than their opponent. They essentially force their victims to resort to attorneys, and then once they are penniless from legal fees, settle for a pittance, or just drop the case altogether. It doesn't matter what the courts find (if the case even gets to court), the Church of Scientology won.
Warning: rabid anti-lawyer rant follows. I don't really hate lawyers.
What do lawyers actually do that is worth the amount they charge? They protect us from other lawyers, without actually accepting any risks. If they fail to protect us, they still charge us, and they go off to find someone else to exploit. They are the only group that can be counted on to profit from litigation, and they will usually profit several times more than anyone else involved.
I wonder, would it be smarter, if someone sues you, to represent yourself in court? Sure, you are virtually ensuring that you will lose, but you limit your costs to the actual damages awarded, quite likely less than legal fees anyway. Not only that, but it will probably be over much faster, without two sets of lawyers dragging the case out for their mutual gain, so you can get back to your own life sooner.
What school are you at, Nyarlathotep? Are the unfortunately named Crusaders then a universal plague?
[ Parent ]