4 ms·

The attorneys are probably making a simple calculation: a) Take a $1b settlement today, yielding $500m for attorneys. b) Take a chance on a $5b judgement th

by anxman 12y ago

The attorneys are probably making a simple calculation: a) Take a $1b settlement today, yielding $500m for attorneys. b) Take a chance on a $5b judgement that is then challenged with years of appeals and possibly reduced arbitrarily by a defendant-friendly judge down the road. The law firm probably is just happy to get the money.

whoismua 12y ago
Bingo, that was my reasoning too. Bird in hand and all. Probably that's enough money to make every lawyer in their firm a millionaire (not that it's divided evenly) so why take the chance?
- fsk 12y ago
  That's the problem with commission-based sales (like a real estate agent or a headhunter). They say "My fee is a % of the sale, so I want the best price!", but really it's in their best interests to close as soon as possible. So, the lawyers could get their fee RIGHT NOW, or wait years til they get paid and do lots of extra work. Clearly, the lawyers maximize their fee per hour worked by settling now, rather than having years of trials and appeals.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. Also, attorneys don't take appeals work on contingency, so you don't often see as many appeals. The only people what you are suggesting maximizes for is the plaintiffs. You also act as if the lead plaintiffs in cases like you suggest are blameless. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs.
    - whoismua 12y ago
      Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. You still ignored his main point, get the money now without delay and without the possibility of appeals court striking it down or lowering the amount won--if they win. Appeal after appeal can take a few years. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. Can they "strongly suggest" it to the plaintiffs?
      - DannyBee 12y ago
        "You still ignored his main point, get the money now without delay and without the possibility of appeals court striking it down or lowering the amount won--if they win. Appeal after appeal can take a few years." Lawyers don't get money unless clients want the money and are willing to settle. Period. The clients agree because they don't want this risk. They don't want to wait 7 years. It's easy to blame lawyers because they are essentially enablers, but ... Behind every crappy settlement is a crappy plaintiff. There may be a shady lawyer somewhere, but laying the blame solely on the lawyer is silly. For anyone who thinks the settlement is unfair, besides objecting, they can opt out. If he really thinks it is so cheap, easy, and low risk to win a lawsuit, he should do it. "The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. Can they "strongly suggest" it to the plaintiffs? " They can give their plaintiff candid advice, which is usually "This will take 3-7 years of your life, decide whether you'd rather spend that sitting in depositions or with a small amount of money" The vast majority of good class action attorneys are fine with either. They can often win much larger amounts than the settlement amounts to. No court in the world would let them drop out of the lawsuit at this point (fun fact: You can't withdraw in most cases unless the judge lets you, and the judge is not going to let you just because you didn't settle) I'm not going to claim there isn certainly a cottage industry of suing to settle in certain areas. Trotting out this lawsuit as an example of that (when for example, we still don't even know the settlement amount) seems silly.
    - fludlight 12y ago
      > The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. What is the mechanism for making strategic decision for a class action suit? Do the plaintiffs hold a vote? Is the vote usually "we, the lawyers, have decided to settle for $x, either agree or sue on your own" or "should we settle for $x or keep pressing?"

by anxman 12y ago

whoismua 12y ago

Bingo, that was my reasoning too. Bird in hand and all. Probably that's enough money to make every lawyer in their firm a millionaire (not that it's divided evenly) so why take the chance?

fsk 12y ago
That's the problem with commission-based sales (like a real estate agent or a headhunter). They say "My fee is a % of the sale, so I want the best price!", but really it's in their best interests to close as soon as possible. So, the lawyers could get their fee RIGHT NOW, or wait years til they get paid and do lots of extra work. Clearly, the lawyers maximize their fee per hour worked by settling now, rather than having years of trials and appeals.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. Also, attorneys don't take appeals work on contingency, so you don't often see as many appeals. The only people what you are suggesting maximizes for is the plaintiffs. You also act as if the lead plaintiffs in cases like you suggest are blameless. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs.
  - whoismua 12y ago
    Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. You still ignored his main point, get the money now without delay and without the possibility of appeals court striking it down or lowering the amount won--if they win. Appeal after appeal can take a few years. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. Can they "strongly suggest" it to the plaintiffs?
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      "You still ignored his main point, get the money now without delay and without the possibility of appeals court striking it down or lowering the amount won--if they win. Appeal after appeal can take a few years." Lawyers don't get money unless clients want the money and are willing to settle. Period. The clients agree because they don't want this risk. They don't want to wait 7 years. It's easy to blame lawyers because they are essentially enablers, but ... Behind every crappy settlement is a crappy plaintiff. There may be a shady lawyer somewhere, but laying the blame solely on the lawyer is silly. For anyone who thinks the settlement is unfair, besides objecting, they can opt out. If he really thinks it is so cheap, easy, and low risk to win a lawsuit, he should do it. "The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. Can they "strongly suggest" it to the plaintiffs? " They can give their plaintiff candid advice, which is usually "This will take 3-7 years of your life, decide whether you'd rather spend that sitting in depositions or with a small amount of money" The vast majority of good class action attorneys are fine with either. They can often win much larger amounts than the settlement amounts to. No court in the world would let them drop out of the lawsuit at this point (fun fact: You can't withdraw in most cases unless the judge lets you, and the judge is not going to let you just because you didn't settle) I'm not going to claim there isn certainly a cottage industry of suing to settle in certain areas. Trotting out this lawsuit as an example of that (when for example, we still don't even know the settlement amount) seems silly.
  - fludlight 12y ago
    > The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. What is the mechanism for making strategic decision for a class action suit? Do the plaintiffs hold a vote? Is the vote usually "we, the lawyers, have decided to settle for $x, either agree or sue on your own" or "should we settle for $x or keep pressing?"