3 ms·

How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do th

How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have? Their only excuse is that most businesses do the same thing. Payment processors, freelance agencies, telecoms providers etc, all taking extortionate cuts in relation to the costs incurred providing a service, which comes from our paychecks.

Beltiras 11y ago
Not all class-actions result in a settlement or a verdict and even then not all of them are rainmakers. Saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action several years ago and it stuck with me.
roel_v 11y ago
"How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have?" Well then, why don't you come work for me for a few years, and if the software you develop works well enough and I make a lot of money on it, I'll give you 25%. Deal? (PS you'll have to front your own computer, admin staff etc. too)
- Beltiras 11y ago
  Don't forget research staff and your accountability to some very mis-temperamental validators that your 'work' is worthy of consideration.
- geebee 11y ago
  I'm only partly ok with this analogy. It's true that the lawyers do a lot of work, and only might be paid, but there are some key differences here too. Many viewed this as a slam-dunk victory, the only question was how much. At 25%, the lawyers were in a situation where by settling, they were virtually guaranteed a huge payday. As a result, many people feel that they didn't pursue this case rigorously enough, because they were extremely risk averse. This happens when the numbers get so big that you're comparing a guaranteed huge payout with the risk of losing a larger huge payout, but when both numbers are so high that the decision maker is far more concerned about a small possibility of losing the payout than the difference between the two numbers. Ie, y > x, but when x and y both cross a certain threshold, they may start to lose meaning when such a large chunk goes to the people in a position to settle. As I recall, the lawyers for the plaintiffs were actually scolded by the judge, who rejected the first settlement and told them to go back and fight harder for their clients, which is unusual. Many people see this case as a slam dunk for an easy payoff. A better analogy might be that I convinced you to let me sell your house, and then sold it in five minutes for a huge commission, preferring a quick and guaranteed return for myself. I'd harm my reputation in the future, but if the payoff is big enough that I'm one and done, what does it matter to me?
tptacek 11y ago
Whatever the hit they take on cases like this, the returns also have to cover all the cases they take where they don't make any money.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
x0x0 11y ago
I was involved in a small lawsuit over the sf rental market. We sued our landlord. That turns into over $45k in hard costs fronted by our lawyers if I remember correctly. Take depositions for example: even ignoring the cost of our lawyers in a room for a full day, there's a court recorder at $1k/day, a $300 transcript, proofing by us and our lawyers, lunches, travel, etc. Each of us did 1.5 to 2 days of depositions since each deposition is 8 hours on the clock but less in practice. Then there's things like process serving fees and filing fees ($1600 alone to request a jury trial). Depositions from two of us, the landlord, his partner, a property inspector (and his inspection and report fee), a real estate valuation expert (including his fee to value the rental in the first place), and you'd be surprised how quickly this stuff adds up. Now imagine suing billion dollar corporations with huge internal counsel with incentives to run the clock every step of the way to make it maximally expensive to sue them. And those companies have dozens of involved internal parties, many of whom may not even work there anymore, or who have travel costs, etc. And that's before you get to multiple $500+/hour expert economic valuation experts.

Beltiras 11y ago

Not all class-actions result in a settlement or a verdict and even then not all of them are rainmakers. Saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action several years ago and it stuck with me.

roel_v 11y ago

"How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have?" Well then, why don't you come work for me for a few years, and if the software you develop works well enough and I make a lot of money on it, I'll give you 25%. Deal? (PS you'll have to front your own computer, admin staff etc. too)

Beltiras 11y ago
Don't forget research staff and your accountability to some very mis-temperamental validators that your 'work' is worthy of consideration.
geebee 11y ago
I'm only partly ok with this analogy. It's true that the lawyers do a lot of work, and only might be paid, but there are some key differences here too. Many viewed this as a slam-dunk victory, the only question was how much. At 25%, the lawyers were in a situation where by settling, they were virtually guaranteed a huge payday. As a result, many people feel that they didn't pursue this case rigorously enough, because they were extremely risk averse. This happens when the numbers get so big that you're comparing a guaranteed huge payout with the risk of losing a larger huge payout, but when both numbers are so high that the decision maker is far more concerned about a small possibility of losing the payout than the difference between the two numbers. Ie, y > x, but when x and y both cross a certain threshold, they may start to lose meaning when such a large chunk goes to the people in a position to settle. As I recall, the lawyers for the plaintiffs were actually scolded by the judge, who rejected the first settlement and told them to go back and fight harder for their clients, which is unusual. Many people see this case as a slam dunk for an easy payoff. A better analogy might be that I convinced you to let me sell your house, and then sold it in five minutes for a huge commission, preferring a quick and guaranteed return for myself. I'd harm my reputation in the future, but if the payoff is big enough that I'm one and done, what does it matter to me?

tptacek 11y ago

Whatever the hit they take on cases like this, the returns also have to cover all the cases they take where they don't make any money.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

x0x0 11y ago

I was involved in a small lawsuit over the sf rental market. We sued our landlord. That turns into over $45k in hard costs fronted by our lawyers if I remember correctly. Take depositions for example: even ignoring the cost of our lawyers in a room for a full day, there's a court recorder at $1k/day, a $300 transcript, proofing by us and our lawyers, lunches, travel, etc. Each of us did 1.5 to 2 days of depositions since each deposition is 8 hours on the clock but less in practice. Then there's things like process serving fees and filing fees ($1600 alone to request a jury trial). Depositions from two of us, the landlord, his partner, a property inspector (and his inspection and report fee), a real estate valuation expert (including his fee to value the rental in the first place), and you'd be surprised how quickly this stuff adds up. Now imagine suing billion dollar corporations with huge internal counsel with incentives to run the clock every step of the way to make it maximally expensive to sue them. And those companies have dozens of involved internal parties, many of whom may not even work there anymore, or who have travel costs, etc. And that's before you get to multiple $500+/hour expert economic valuation experts.