4 ms·

It's interesting, reading your comment I was of the impression that Lerach must be universally disliked for his slimy methods, exploitation of the system and op

by MrJagil 11y ago

It's interesting, reading your comment I was of the impression that Lerach must be universally disliked for his slimy methods, exploitation of the system and oppressiveness in the free market (unicorns scared to go public). Reading the first comment on the linked youtube video(i know) reminded me once again to be sceptical of everything i read though: "Bill Lerach, the former #1 enemy of corrupted corporations. He may not have acted out of personal values but at least for a while corporations had the fear in the back of their minds that if they were going to act unethically it might cost them millions of dollars in security class actions and corporate derivative suits. Where as now they are able to act in a fraudulent manner without fear of consequences. Larach is the most sincere lawyer I have ever seen. He also seems like a really likable guy." I'm unsure what to believe now, though I don't feel signing the wrong paper by accident is evidence of a "corrupted corporation". Of course, could also be the youtube commment was very sarcastic.

downandout 11y ago
To be sure, his work was a mixed bag. His firm ran the shareholder case against Enron, which clearly was not baseless litigation (his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million). However, having read a few things about him, the majority of the cases he brought were designed to extort quick settlements out of the companies. He was/is reviled by corporate America, and he probably appeals to the anti-corporate crowd that likes to see large corporations suffer simply because they are successful. That is why you see varying opinions.
- arethuza 11y ago
  He might also appeal to people who are generally pro-corporate but also like to see anyone (individual or corporation) brought to justice if they misbehave? Can you really "extort" money through the court system in the US?
  - wolf550e 11y ago
    Patent trolling is extortion, isn't it?
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      Extortion is a crime.
      - balabaster 11y ago
        Unless it is mandated or endorsed by the Government - which by proxy of the Patent & Trademark office, patent trolling is. We might think of it, feel that it is or fully believe that it is extortion, but the Government feels that this is okay because "Fuck what we think. Lobbyists said this is fair, so it must be so." <end of cynical rant />
    - arethuza 11y ago
      Actually, that's a good example - thanks. I guess you could argue that problem is how silly patents are though rather than the problem being with the court system itself.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        It's a good example because even if you know you can win to a high degree of certainty, the cost of fighting is much higher than the cost of settling. This applies to a great many kinds of litigation. Patents are not special in this regard, just a clear example.
  - bko 11y ago
    No one is really "brought to justice" in lawsuits since they're not criminal. Its simply a transfer of wealth from shareholders (e.g. anyone who invests in this company through a 401k or market index) to litigants.
  - bko 11y ago
    No one is really "brought to justice" in lawsuits since they're not criminal. Its simply a transfer of wealth from shareholders (e.g. anyone who invests in this company through a 401k or market index) to litigants.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million Why do you feel the need to point out how much Mr. Lerach earns or is worth in your discussion? What is the relevance? You realize the Facebook Board of Directors has 8 billionaires on it, right?
  - downandout 11y ago
    It's relevant because his entire scheme was fueled by personal greed. It also displays the scale at which he operated and the reason that he is a notable example of the kinds of lawyers bringing this type of litigation. As to the greed factor, he invented plaintiffs in 150 cases - in fact he used the same paid plaintiff in over 70 cases. He knew he was breaking the law by doing this and simply didn't care because there was money to be made. In the video I referenced, it explains that he was only caught because it just so happened that this particular plaintiff got caught in a $17 million insurance scam involving the staged theft of some rare art. When he was caught, he rolled over on Lerach. He employed criminals to extort companies and made hundreds of millions of dollars doing it. His actions were seen as so repugnant that the federal government passed a tort reform law that many Congressional staffers referred to as the "Get Lerach Act," although the law unintentionally added jet fuel to his business. The whole thing just smacks of seedy, greedy criminals (Lerach among them) that were out to soak companies for every dime they could get.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Here is an old article that details some of Lerach's firm's settlements in the 1998-2003 timeframe: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0216/082.html http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0216/082.html. The firm was making multiple nine-figure settlements per year. Nobody settles meritless strike suits for that kind of money. Learch's firm recovered $45 billion over 30-40 years. It's simply impossible to do that with meritless lawsuits designed to extract a quick settlement.

by MrJagil 11y ago

downandout 11y ago

To be sure, his work was a mixed bag. His firm ran the shareholder case against Enron, which clearly was not baseless litigation (his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million). However, having read a few things about him, the majority of the cases he brought were designed to extort quick settlements out of the companies. He was/is reviled by corporate America, and he probably appeals to the anti-corporate crowd that likes to see large corporations suffer simply because they are successful. That is why you see varying opinions.

arethuza 11y ago
He might also appeal to people who are generally pro-corporate but also like to see anyone (individual or corporation) brought to justice if they misbehave? Can you really "extort" money through the court system in the US?
- wolf550e 11y ago
  Patent trolling is extortion, isn't it?
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    Extortion is a crime.
    - balabaster 11y ago
      Unless it is mandated or endorsed by the Government - which by proxy of the Patent & Trademark office, patent trolling is. We might think of it, feel that it is or fully believe that it is extortion, but the Government feels that this is okay because "Fuck what we think. Lobbyists said this is fair, so it must be so." <end of cynical rant />
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Actually, that's a good example - thanks. I guess you could argue that problem is how silly patents are though rather than the problem being with the court system itself.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      It's a good example because even if you know you can win to a high degree of certainty, the cost of fighting is much higher than the cost of settling. This applies to a great many kinds of litigation. Patents are not special in this regard, just a clear example.
- bko 11y ago
  No one is really "brought to justice" in lawsuits since they're not criminal. Its simply a transfer of wealth from shareholders (e.g. anyone who invests in this company through a 401k or market index) to litigants.
- bko 11y ago
  No one is really "brought to justice" in lawsuits since they're not criminal. Its simply a transfer of wealth from shareholders (e.g. anyone who invests in this company through a 401k or market index) to litigants.
forgetsusername 11y ago
>his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million Why do you feel the need to point out how much Mr. Lerach earns or is worth in your discussion? What is the relevance? You realize the Facebook Board of Directors has 8 billionaires on it, right?
- downandout 11y ago
  It's relevant because his entire scheme was fueled by personal greed. It also displays the scale at which he operated and the reason that he is a notable example of the kinds of lawyers bringing this type of litigation. As to the greed factor, he invented plaintiffs in 150 cases - in fact he used the same paid plaintiff in over 70 cases. He knew he was breaking the law by doing this and simply didn't care because there was money to be made. In the video I referenced, it explains that he was only caught because it just so happened that this particular plaintiff got caught in a $17 million insurance scam involving the staged theft of some rare art. When he was caught, he rolled over on Lerach. He employed criminals to extort companies and made hundreds of millions of dollars doing it. His actions were seen as so repugnant that the federal government passed a tort reform law that many Congressional staffers referred to as the "Get Lerach Act," although the law unintentionally added jet fuel to his business. The whole thing just smacks of seedy, greedy criminals (Lerach among them) that were out to soak companies for every dime they could get.
rayiner 11y ago
Here is an old article that details some of Lerach's firm's settlements in the 1998-2003 timeframe: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0216/082.html http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0216/082.html. The firm was making multiple nine-figure settlements per year. Nobody settles meritless strike suits for that kind of money. Learch's firm recovered $45 billion over 30-40 years. It's simply impossible to do that with meritless lawsuits designed to extract a quick settlement.