3 ms·

There should be no need for leverage. Counsel should be advising they use the courts as intended to cause compliance with contracts and laws that should be enfo

There should be no need for leverage. Counsel should be advising they use the courts as intended to cause compliance with contracts and laws that should be enforced and respected. If your only remedy is causing embarrassment, that's a sign that the system is badly broken. This is like saying "Don't bother contacting support, raise a ruckus on Twitter or contact an insider if you have a problem with <insert tech company>." Yes, maybe maybe public embarrassment, Twitter, and insiders are the most practical, effective ways of resolving issues today, but that's not the way it should be.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> should be no need for leverage Lawsuits are part of a negotiation. Everyone wins if the parties can settle out of court. In most lawsuits, the court is a bogeyman: you’re posturing to show you’ll win and that the other side should capitulate before wasting everyone’s time and embarrassing itself in a public forum. > counsel should be advising they use the courts Counsel should recommend what works. New York’s courts work. But they work slowly. > like saying "Don't bother contacting support, raise a ruckus on Twitter or contact an insider No, it’s saying consider doing all those things.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  > Counsel should recommend what works. New York’s courts work. But they work slowly. Sorry, I was using a different kind of "should" - you were thinking of the pragmatic, I was speaking philosophically. In a hypothetical, just, efficient, utopian society, I think that world would be a better place if lawsuits were judged and enforced more consistently and more quickly, and if people in that society chose to avoid using public embarrassment as leverage to circumvent the courts. Obviously, we don't live in that world, so the pragmatic approach is to use the tools that are most functional. I wish that we could change our actual society to conform more closely to that hypothetical one.
voxic11 4y ago
The courts are the last resort, you shouldn't use them unless you cannot resolve your issues via negotiation. Embarrassment can be a very useful tool in negotiation.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> should be no need for leverage Lawsuits are part of a negotiation. Everyone wins if the parties can settle out of court. In most lawsuits, the court is a bogeyman: you’re posturing to show you’ll win and that the other side should capitulate before wasting everyone’s time and embarrassing itself in a public forum. > counsel should be advising they use the courts Counsel should recommend what works. New York’s courts work. But they work slowly. > like saying "Don't bother contacting support, raise a ruckus on Twitter or contact an insider No, it’s saying consider doing all those things.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago
> Counsel should recommend what works. New York’s courts work. But they work slowly. Sorry, I was using a different kind of "should" - you were thinking of the pragmatic, I was speaking philosophically. In a hypothetical, just, efficient, utopian society, I think that world would be a better place if lawsuits were judged and enforced more consistently and more quickly, and if people in that society chose to avoid using public embarrassment as leverage to circumvent the courts. Obviously, we don't live in that world, so the pragmatic approach is to use the tools that are most functional. I wish that we could change our actual society to conform more closely to that hypothetical one.

voxic11 4y ago

The courts are the last resort, you shouldn't use them unless you cannot resolve your issues via negotiation. Embarrassment can be a very useful tool in negotiation.