4 ms·
Either that or the slim chance of payoff combined with huge payout made it worth pursuing. If nothing else it means some lawyers get to have their name attached
by afterburner 16y ago
Either that or the slim chance of payoff combined with huge payout made it worth pursuing. If nothing else it means some lawyers get to have their name attached to a litigation suit with Facebook's name on it. Even if they fail they can use it on their resumes. As can the company for seeming willing to tackle big challenges.
This is all devil's advocate stuff mind you.
- anigbrowl 16y agoEven if they fail they can use it on their resumes. As can the company for seeming willing to tackle big challenges. DLA Piper is one of the largest and most powerful law firms in the US, and routinely represents clients such as Wall Street securities firms in multi- billion dollar suits. I think you should click the link above and have a look at the existing resume before making such silly remarks...this is not an up-and-coming law firm in need of wider exposure. pun intended
- afterburner 16y agoMy comments apply to small and large firms. They especially apply to ambitious law firms and lawyers. I imagine DLA Piper satisfies those. This is about money; DLA Piper isn't doing this out of a sense of justice.
- warrenwilkinson 16y agoOr maybe they are? Or maybe a bit of both? Some people (myself included) feel a contract is a contract is a contract.
- anigbrowl 16y agoSurely it is about the money, but the link above suggests that litigation against Facebook will only marginally enhance the partner's reputation. What I am driving at is the idea that mere involvement in a high-profile action is insufficient benefit to justify the reputational risk, unless there is a better-than-even chance of success. I don't see how a senior partner at DLA Piper would want to jeopardize their good name if there were any risk of a court dismissing the suit as frivolous.