[clavalle]

You are right. Having money equips someone to at least be able to put up a fight to reach a conclusion but that is not the heart of the issue.

Whether you have money or not the real problem is the threat of loss due to the /process/ as opposed the merits and likely result of the case. That is the problem that needs to be solved.

I'm not saying I know how to remove the expense of the process out of the equation but that is what needs to be done.

Your suggestion is a good one. If the result itself is clearer earlier it would take some of the power out of the threat of expensive process.

[thegasman]

Many of the issues raised by your comment are the result of civil procedural rules. These rules are not intentionally designed to postpone rulings on the merits, and instead were built on historical understandings of how a dispute should be fairly addressed: 1) communicate problem to adverse party 2) adverse party responds 3) fact-finding 4) written arguments aimed at resolution 5) trial by judge/peers (if necessary).

I don't believe that moving #4 (or even #5) earlier in the process maximizes the possibility of a logically/legally sound conclusion, which IMO, is the purpose of the justice system. Then again, your comment has identified speed as a priority, not a thorough examination of the merits.

If the procedural rules don't offend you, then we might just be talking about expensive lawyers. Not all lawyers are expensive.

[clavalle]

Not speed but cost of which time is definitely a factor.

Getting to the merits is the point but the point is often lost in the game of the process. True statement?

[thegasman]

>Getting to the merits is the point but the point is often lost in the game of the process. True statement?

True, but you're assuming that the process and the merits are totally distinct (in fact, my own comment reads that way ;]).

But, as another commenter noted, processes themselves can influence merits (e.g. missing a filing deadline, or enforcing discovery requests).