6 ms·

There is some truth to this. The courts are becoming hesitant to make the massive attorneys fees awards that were more commonplace in the past (1,000 damages an

There is some truth to this. The courts are becoming hesitant to make the massive attorneys fees awards that were more commonplace in the past (1,000 damages and 200,000 in fees). But, generally speaking, everyone is still on board for realizing that at the end of the day the attorneys fees award will probably be the biggest part of the award. The fact is, as soon as judges stop giving out those attorneys fees awards, you’re going to stop having attorneys pursuing these civil rights cases. That’s the bottom line. As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not.

gbronner 4y ago
The goal of obtaining justice for the client is rather different than the goal of maximizing legal fees
- fn-mote 4y ago
  The goal is also to create an incentive for the company to behave appropriately (legally) in the future. A few low-cost losses is not going to do that. The goal is social justice, not just individual justice.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    High cost losses won't necessarily do that either. The fallacy is that these transactions have to be financial. They don't. Any number of other remedies - from jail time downwards - would provide a stronger deterrent. Without strong deterrents and the threat of even more expensive class action - possibly leading to personal ruin - individual losses can be written off as a cost of doing business. Generally the sanctions for bad behaviour are far too light, and strongly biased towards business owners over customers/victims. The Sackler/Purdue story is a perfect example. Inconceivable levels of harm were caused - far more harm than a high profile terrorist attack. But the Sackler family is still worth billions. And no one is going to jail.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Generally agree. Companies can mitigate the costs through insurances and just passing on costs to customers.
  - gbronner 4y ago
    The goal is to produce a relatively low-cost way to resolve reasonable disputes while eliminating opportunities for fraud and bad actors. A formal written complaint prior to filing for abitration might have been equally effective. Incentivizing escalation simply drives up the costs of resolving disputes.
giantg2 4y ago
"As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not." For "minor" violations, they are not a priority at all. At least that's my experience and what I was told by that lawyer as well. If nobody in the system will enforce or defend your rights, then do you really even have those rights?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > If nobody in the system will enforce or defend your rights, then do you really even have those rights? Nobody is a stretch. They can be enforced, just at great expense. So some people can defend those rights; others can’t. We can’t extend this to the latter not having the rights because people intervene on behalf of others’ legal cases all the time, there are non-profits set up to do this (e.g. the ACLU and EFF) and some wealthy retired lawyers’ pass times.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    The police don't, the DA doesn't, the judges don't - they are the main actors in the system. The civil rights attorneys and ACLU only take on the biggest issues due to constrained resources. Same with the DOJ Civil rights division.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > police don't, the DA doesn't, the judges don't - they are the main actors in the system Most civil rights violations aren’t criminal offences. It literally isn’t the police or DA’s job.
      - DarylZero 4y ago
        That's just describing the problem.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Supposedly their job is to seek justice. Trampling people right, even if civil offenses, is something they aren't supposed to do. In fact it's their job to not violate those rights and take steps to mitigate their impact if they do occur. Violating those rights can undermine any criminal case they're working on.
jacquesm 4y ago
True, but US legal fees are quite literally off the scale compared to the rest of the world. There isn't a country where lawyers siphon off so much, individually and collectively.
- thesuitonym 4y ago
  Do you have any numbers to back this up? $500/hour doesn't seem that insane to me for an expert's time.
  - mrtranscendence 4y ago
    I don't know. I'm an expert (at some things, anyway), and I make $68 an hour. Maybe an attorney isn't billing 100% of the time, but if they billed six hours a week they'd make more than I do. That feels like a lot of money.
    - thesuitonym 4y ago
      I assume that's your wage from an employer, and that's a totally different number. If that's your freelance fee, you are seriously being underpaid. After paying taxes, fees, insurance (both personal and business), anything less than $200/hour for skilled labor (not even expert professional) is a steal.
      - mrtranscendence 4y ago
        That's a good point; I'm not a contractor. I doubt my total compensation comes anywhere close to $200 an hour, though. When I was briefly a contractor last year I believe the total amount paid from the contractee to the contracting firm was closer to $150 an hour. I think my pay is normal for my title ("ML engineer"), location (Cincinnati), and experience (master's, 10 years in the workforce). Though I wouldn't turn down a substantial pay raise ...
        giantg2 4y ago

gbronner 4y ago

The goal of obtaining justice for the client is rather different than the goal of maximizing legal fees

fn-mote 4y ago
The goal is also to create an incentive for the company to behave appropriately (legally) in the future. A few low-cost losses is not going to do that. The goal is social justice, not just individual justice.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  High cost losses won't necessarily do that either. The fallacy is that these transactions have to be financial. They don't. Any number of other remedies - from jail time downwards - would provide a stronger deterrent. Without strong deterrents and the threat of even more expensive class action - possibly leading to personal ruin - individual losses can be written off as a cost of doing business. Generally the sanctions for bad behaviour are far too light, and strongly biased towards business owners over customers/victims. The Sackler/Purdue story is a perfect example. Inconceivable levels of harm were caused - far more harm than a high profile terrorist attack. But the Sackler family is still worth billions. And no one is going to jail.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Generally agree. Companies can mitigate the costs through insurances and just passing on costs to customers.
- gbronner 4y ago
  The goal is to produce a relatively low-cost way to resolve reasonable disputes while eliminating opportunities for fraud and bad actors. A formal written complaint prior to filing for abitration might have been equally effective. Incentivizing escalation simply drives up the costs of resolving disputes.

giantg2 4y ago

"As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not." For "minor" violations, they are not a priority at all. At least that's my experience and what I was told by that lawyer as well. If nobody in the system will enforce or defend your rights, then do you really even have those rights?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> If nobody in the system will enforce or defend your rights, then do you really even have those rights? Nobody is a stretch. They can be enforced, just at great expense. So some people can defend those rights; others can’t. We can’t extend this to the latter not having the rights because people intervene on behalf of others’ legal cases all the time, there are non-profits set up to do this (e.g. the ACLU and EFF) and some wealthy retired lawyers’ pass times.
- giantg2 4y ago
  The police don't, the DA doesn't, the judges don't - they are the main actors in the system. The civil rights attorneys and ACLU only take on the biggest issues due to constrained resources. Same with the DOJ Civil rights division.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > police don't, the DA doesn't, the judges don't - they are the main actors in the system Most civil rights violations aren’t criminal offences. It literally isn’t the police or DA’s job.
    - DarylZero 4y ago
      That's just describing the problem.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Supposedly their job is to seek justice. Trampling people right, even if civil offenses, is something they aren't supposed to do. In fact it's their job to not violate those rights and take steps to mitigate their impact if they do occur. Violating those rights can undermine any criminal case they're working on.

jacquesm 4y ago

True, but US legal fees are quite literally off the scale compared to the rest of the world. There isn't a country where lawyers siphon off so much, individually and collectively.

thesuitonym 4y ago
Do you have any numbers to back this up? $500/hour doesn't seem that insane to me for an expert's time.
- mrtranscendence 4y ago
  I don't know. I'm an expert (at some things, anyway), and I make $68 an hour. Maybe an attorney isn't billing 100% of the time, but if they billed six hours a week they'd make more than I do. That feels like a lot of money.
  - thesuitonym 4y ago
    I assume that's your wage from an employer, and that's a totally different number. If that's your freelance fee, you are seriously being underpaid. After paying taxes, fees, insurance (both personal and business), anything less than $200/hour for skilled labor (not even expert professional) is a steal.
    - mrtranscendence 4y ago
      That's a good point; I'm not a contractor. I doubt my total compensation comes anywhere close to $200 an hour, though. When I was briefly a contractor last year I believe the total amount paid from the contractee to the contracting firm was closer to $150 an hour. I think my pay is normal for my title ("ML engineer"), location (Cincinnati), and experience (master's, 10 years in the workforce). Though I wouldn't turn down a substantial pay raise ...
      - giantg2 4y ago