Q&A: Are there too many frivolous lawsuits?

It seems to be an article of faith that the American legal system is awash with frivolous lawsuits.

It’s not.

Under the applicable rules of civil procedure, suits may not be brought “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation,” while the litigant must certify the “claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,” and that “the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” I’ve quoted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, but each state’s rules are basically the same.

Here’s Kentucky’s version of this rule that prohibits frivolous lawsuits: https://govt.westlaw.com/kyrules/Document/N69150F90A91B11DA8F5EE32367A250AE?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

Frivolous suits do sometimes get filed — the courts are still open, thank goodness — but they don’t last, with almost all of them dismissed long before trial. The purpose of the civil legal system is to weigh the merits of private claims and by and large it succeeds quite well.

Over the years I have seen a great deal of misrepresentation in the media and online as to the merits or non-merits of specific tort cases and civil litigation generally. Often these misrepresentations have an obvious political tilt and are designed to generate contempt and distrust for our legal institutions.

To answer the question, as a lawyer I have never seen a lawsuit wholly lacking merit where the plaintiff obtained a favorable judgment, much less an obscene amount.

This is a blog post, not specific legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is intended or created.