Pls reopen https://law.stackexchange.com/q/83500, now deleted, and I paste it below. It DOESN'T duplicate What "pre‑existing agreement between Ward and the Province regarding costs"?.

In the former, I was seeking a template directed to opposing party's lawyers. In latter, I was asking whether a paragraph in a SCC judgment hints at waiving legal costs.

How do Self Represented Litigants (SRL) ask counterparty's lawyers to waive counterparty's legal costs?

Presuppose a self-represented litigant ("SRL") in a lawsuit, against a fully legally represented, wealthy party. Opposing party may be a corporation or government.

I don't know if this question needs this second supposition? You MAY presuppose that SRL is Plaintiff, and legally represented counterparty is Defendant.

In practice, how would a self-represented litigant ("SRL") ask opposing lawyers to waive their legal costs? Would SRL write something like this? Indubitably, SRL ought cite at least case law, to substantiate her request.

As you know, Plaintiff is impecunious, and the threat of a giant bill for costs at the end of litigation significantly hurdles him from seeking justice. Even if Plaintiff decides to move forward, if Defendant were to prevail and then seek costs, Plaintiff will be saddled with debt that Plaintiff could not afford to pay.

Furthermore, Defendant is a multi-million OR billion corporation or government [EDIT AS NECESSARY] with a significant interest in its public image and goodwill. If Defendant holds this threat of costs above Plaintiff's head, and Plaintiff is forced to end the litigation simply because Plaintiff is too scared of adverse costs, then the public will perceive that Defendant is using bully tactics to end litigation, not on its merits, but just because Plaintiff can't afford adverse costs. Conversely, if Defendant waives costs, and if the litigation ends successfully in Defendant's favor, the public will know that Defendant won on the merits and will appreciate Defendant's dedication to justice regardless of a litigant's ability to pay.

Because Defendant's public image will be harmed if it demanded costs or if Plaintiff had to abandon the litigation solely because of costs, and because Plaintiff could not pay any awarded costs anyway, Plaintiff requests that Defendant contractually agrees to waive legal costs, as these government agencies and corporate entities beneath have done in the past.

2 Answers 2


It DOESN'T duplicate What "pre‑existing agreement between Ward and the Province regarding costs"?.

I agree that your question is not a duplicate. Accordingly, I voted to reopen.

In the former, I am seeking a template directed to opposing party's lawyers

Not really. Even if that were the case, it would be unavailing. Templates often are too generic and therefore cannot fit the needs of one's legal matter.

What you ask there has to do with persuading the adversary to waive an entitlement to costs.

If anything, you should have provided more context so that your actual question is not overly broad and does not require us to speculate. The lack of detail prevents us from identifying which option would be available or more practical:

  1. to seek a pre-litigation agreement to waive costs, or
  2. to make a reasonable offer of settlement since, if rejected, it would work against the party who refused to settle.

Any of these alternatives has better chances than the naive hope that an experienced litigant will change his mind for fear of "look[ing] bad in the public's eyes". The experienced litigant surely assessed the issue of public perception long before engaging in the litigation of a specific dispute.


Asking for a template is asking for Specific legal advice

Asking for specific legal advice is off-topic and not allowed on the stack.

  • Then why's law.stackexchange.com/q/85049 open and highly upvoted?
    – user42021
    Commented Oct 9, 2022 at 0:31
  • @user for the record: it has votes to close. Moderation on this stack is glacial. Yelling at me does neither change that, nor does it make you more popular.
    – Trish
    Commented Oct 9, 2022 at 0:34
  • 1
    @user: At least in my opinion, that is not specific. In fact, there are two sides to that (how should you handle a counterparty withdrawing consent? It's implicit in that question). This is fundamentally subjective - a non-specific question fits the QA format better because its answers can also answers future questions others might have.
    – MSalters
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 8:03
  • @user Why did you write "Yelling at me"? I was not yelling at anyone.
    – user42021
    Commented Oct 19, 2022 at 3:05
  • @user Bold is extreme emphasis, akin to yelling. Only Capital boldface is.
    – Trish
    Commented Oct 19, 2022 at 12:47
  • @Trish I do not think bold "is extreme emphasis, akin to yelling". I wanted some emphasis, but definitely not yelling or offense. But I am sorry for offending you. "Only Capital boldface is." What do you mean?
    – user42021
    Commented Oct 19, 2022 at 14:53

You must log in to answer this question.