3 ms·
My guess is WPEngine looked at the amount being asked from them (the lawsuit says "tens of millions of dollars" based on public posts indeed it seems above thir
by chx 2y ago
My guess is WPEngine looked at the amount being asked from them (the lawsuit says "tens of millions of dollars" based on public posts indeed it seems above thirty million a year), divided it by the hourly rate of the best legal representation they thought they can get and decided it's cheaper. They wanted to take no risks. From the other side, after you are sued by Rachel Kassabian you really have no choice but get the best you can find and they thought a former (Acting) Solicitor General of the United States is it. As they say, that escalated quickly.
There's not really a measure to say how much worse an $1000 or $500 per hour lawyer would be but no one is taking chances when you have this much money on the line.
- Aeolun 2y agoI mean, presumably you can look at a history of wins in similar cases instead of hourly rate or reputation?
- chx 2y agoThe case could go to trial but most cases are settled outside of court. You need to ensure the other side sees how much they have to lose should the case proceed to trial. In many ways this is a game of chicken.
- ValentineC 2y agoThis isn't like a football match where the variables are well-known. Lawsuits are decided on facts if they end up going to court, and every case is unique even if they follow similar fact patterns.
- Aeolun 2y agoIf you are saying it’s essentially random, why would you go with an expensive lawyer when you can hire basically anyone (competent). Is it just virtue signalling?
- chx 2y ago1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41741183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41741183 2. If it does go to court presentation will matter an awful lot. There are really technical topics involved which for us are easy to understand but not so much for a jury of peers. Translating well the facts for the jury involves experience, a very good team and talent.