4 ms·

This isn't a "great lawyer" play . It's the standard play for any unscrupulous party engaged against a party with limited funds. Even if a case is pretty open

by ABCLAW 4y ago

This isn't a "great lawyer" play . It's the standard play for any unscrupulous party engaged against a party with limited funds. Even if a case is pretty open and shut, you can tie it up for years in motions for little benefit. This isn't hard at all.It's hard to be on the other side and respond to it. A great lawyer can achieve a settlement against a party like this without the need to throw sacks of cash onto a firepit.

staticman2 4y ago
"A great lawyer can achieve a settlement against a party like this without the need to throw sacks of cash onto a firepit." A lawyer, good or bad, has no control whether the other party settles.
- shon 4y ago
  This is incorrect in my experience. My company was sued by LinkedIn about a year after receiving a $1MM seed round. We were low on money with about $250K left and raising when the suit hit. This is a game of leverage. Lawyers are tools that have to be used effectively to apply leverage. Like any tool, good ones make a big difference. At the time LI was worth about $30 Billion, we had $250K. We convinced LinkedIn to settle after about 4 months in SF court for a nominal amount. Good/ethical lawyers were critical along with significant creativity from our side on how to use them. We survived, raised a round and the company is still kicking.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    If Linkedin decided they wanted to put you out of business the lawyer would not be able to arrange a settlement. A lawyer does not even control whether their own client settles.
    - shon 4y ago
      You think so? Read the case. “LinkedIn v. Robocog”. If you think they let us go out of the kindness of their hearts, I’m interested in hearing more of your thoughts Also, I didn’t say lawyers control settling. I said they’re tools that can be used to achieve an outcome. And the good ones are very helpful. Force multipliers. Ours were experts in IP law. They knew it well. We used them along with other leverage points to achieve our settlement.
- _rutinerad 4y ago
  In the same way that a parent has no control over whether their child goes to sleep.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    The lawyer can control whether the opposing party settles in the same way I can control whether you retract you post and concede I was correct.
    - _rutinerad 4y ago
      Exactly. And you’re not using that control very well.
- ABCLAW 4y ago
  I didn't say a good lawyer will achieve the settlement. I said they could. Keeping costs down and only spending enough to acquire the absolute key arguments, research and evidence is how you get to discuss a settlement with leverage. A large corp can still pepper you with motions then push into trial, but a great lawyer will be limiting how quickly you burn through your war chest and fight battles judiciously instead of throwing the kitchen sink at every motion.
- e-clinton 4y ago
  You clearly haven’t seen Suits
daniel-cussen 4y ago
You can also refuse to settle, just demanding the law be carried out until its last consequence, regardless of the other party offering everything you want. Sometimes if the other party fucks up in a trial and gets a contempt hearing, the plaintiff can demand double the amount demanded in the original lawsuit as a settlement, but I would recommend also demanding they allow the court to make a declaration as to their wrongdoing.
shon 4y ago
Agreed. This is exactly my experience.
Cupertino95014 4y ago
In fact, I did see this with a friend who was in arbitration with a giant tech company. Supposedly, arbitration is a cost-savings over litigation. I'm sure it is, but that's a little like saying chlamydia is better than syphilis.

by ABCLAW 4y ago

staticman2 4y ago

"A great lawyer can achieve a settlement against a party like this without the need to throw sacks of cash onto a firepit." A lawyer, good or bad, has no control whether the other party settles.

shon 4y ago
This is incorrect in my experience. My company was sued by LinkedIn about a year after receiving a $1MM seed round. We were low on money with about $250K left and raising when the suit hit. This is a game of leverage. Lawyers are tools that have to be used effectively to apply leverage. Like any tool, good ones make a big difference. At the time LI was worth about $30 Billion, we had $250K. We convinced LinkedIn to settle after about 4 months in SF court for a nominal amount. Good/ethical lawyers were critical along with significant creativity from our side on how to use them. We survived, raised a round and the company is still kicking.
- staticman2 4y ago
  If Linkedin decided they wanted to put you out of business the lawyer would not be able to arrange a settlement. A lawyer does not even control whether their own client settles.
  - shon 4y ago
    You think so? Read the case. “LinkedIn v. Robocog”. If you think they let us go out of the kindness of their hearts, I’m interested in hearing more of your thoughts Also, I didn’t say lawyers control settling. I said they’re tools that can be used to achieve an outcome. And the good ones are very helpful. Force multipliers. Ours were experts in IP law. They knew it well. We used them along with other leverage points to achieve our settlement.
_rutinerad 4y ago
In the same way that a parent has no control over whether their child goes to sleep.
- staticman2 4y ago
  The lawyer can control whether the opposing party settles in the same way I can control whether you retract you post and concede I was correct.
  - _rutinerad 4y ago
    Exactly. And you’re not using that control very well.
ABCLAW 4y ago
I didn't say a good lawyer will achieve the settlement. I said they could. Keeping costs down and only spending enough to acquire the absolute key arguments, research and evidence is how you get to discuss a settlement with leverage. A large corp can still pepper you with motions then push into trial, but a great lawyer will be limiting how quickly you burn through your war chest and fight battles judiciously instead of throwing the kitchen sink at every motion.
e-clinton 4y ago
You clearly haven’t seen Suits

daniel-cussen 4y ago

You can also refuse to settle, just demanding the law be carried out until its last consequence, regardless of the other party offering everything you want. Sometimes if the other party fucks up in a trial and gets a contempt hearing, the plaintiff can demand double the amount demanded in the original lawsuit as a settlement, but I would recommend also demanding they allow the court to make a declaration as to their wrongdoing.

shon 4y ago

Agreed. This is exactly my experience.

Cupertino95014 4y ago

In fact, I did see this with a friend who was in arbitration with a giant tech company. Supposedly, arbitration is a cost-savings over litigation. I'm sure it is, but that's a little like saying chlamydia is better than syphilis.