Providing compensation to victims of abusive lawsuits
Summary
SB 668 would create a new section of West Virginia civil procedure law allowing a prevailing party, after dismissal of a civil action, to request attorney’s fees and costs when the dismissed claim was brought for an improper purpose, was not warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument to change the law, or lacked evidentiary support and was not promptly withdrawn. The bill is aimed at what it describes as “abusive lawsuits,” and it is designed to compensate parties who are forced to defend against claims that the court later determines were frivolous or otherwise unsupported.
The bill also sets procedures and limits for fee awards. Courts must give notice and an opportunity to respond before making a finding, may consider a party’s history of filing similar frivolous or repeatedly relitigated claims, and may reduce or deny an award if it would create an unreasonable burden or if the claim was withdrawn or corrected within 20 days after a motion to dismiss was served. The bill specifies that fee awards are generally imposed on the attorney, with law firms potentially jointly responsible, while pro se litigants are exempt unless they acted unreasonably. The new section would apply only to claims filed on or after January 1, 2027.
Impact
SB 668 would add §56-4-72 to the West Virginia Code, creating a new statutory basis for awarding attorney’s fees and costs in dismissed civil cases involving frivolous, harassing, or unsupported claims. It would expand potential financial consequences for litigants and their counsel, while preserving existing court powers to dismiss claims, assess costs, and impose sanctions under other law or court rules. The bill would affect civil litigants, attorneys, and law firms, and it would likely influence pleading and settlement behavior by increasing the risk of fee-shifting in cases deemed abusive.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger deterrence against frivolous litigation and more protection for defendants who incur costs defending meritless claims. The bill’s stated purpose frames it as a remedy for victims of abusive lawsuits, suggesting a pro-defendant and pro-accountability approach. No committee transcript or vote record is available here to show opposition or amendment debate, so the public record provided does not reflect any organized controversy beyond the policy choice to shift fees in dismissed cases.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on whether the bill would deter abusive litigation or instead chill legitimate claims, especially close or novel cases that require good-faith legal development. Another likely issue is who bears the financial burden: the bill places awards primarily on attorneys and, in some cases, law firms, which could raise concerns among the bar about professional liability and access to courts. The 20-day withdrawal/amendment safe harbor and the court’s discretion to reduce or deny awards may also be debated as safeguards versus loopholes, but no specific opposing viewpoints are documented in the provided materials.
To establish civil liability for judges who knowingly violate the law, conduct unlawful hearings, or abuse litigants in the performance of their duties
To provide compensation to those who have been adversely affected by the actions of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal’s Judicial Investigative Committee