4 ms·

Basically, it can be summarized as: Problem: The legal system is expensive and inefficient. If a lot of people are wronged by the same defendant, it is imprac

by fsk 13y ago

Basically, it can be summarized as: Problem: The legal system is expensive and inefficient. If a lot of people are wronged by the same defendant, it is impractical for them to pursue their claim. Solution: Let's have class action lawsuits where the lawyers make a fortune! In this example, the defendants get a decent bonus check. I'm really offended by "class action" lawsuits where the lawyers make millions and the victims get a coupon for $10 off their next purchase. Also, in this case, THE LAWYERS WERE TAKING NO RISK. There already was a ton of evidence from the justice department case. What actually happens is several groups of lawyers rush to file, each with a different lead plaintiff, and then the judge picks which group of lawyers get the big cash windfall.

DannyBee 13y ago
"In this example, the defendants get a decent bonus check. I'm really offended by "class action" lawsuits where the lawyers make millions and the victims get a coupon for $10 off their next purchase." Me too. But the only good solution to this is no class action lawsuits (which i'm actually fine with, but let's be real that anything else won't work in all cases). "Also, in this case, THE LAWYERS WERE TAKING NO RISK. There already was a ton of evidence from the justice department case. What actually happens is several groups of lawyers rush to file, each with a different lead plaintiff, and then the judge picks which group of lawyers get the big cash windfall. " This is so wrong i don't even know where to start. So if i wanted to, say, create a new version of facebook, you'd say i wasn't taking any risk because i can already see what facebook did?
- fsk 13y ago
  What does making a Facebook clone have to do with pursuing a civil lawsuit WHEN GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ALREADY PRODUCED A TON OF EVIDENCE SHOWING GUILT. Making a Facebook clone is risky, you could spend the money and get no users. Suing these defendants is almost risk-free, there already was a ton of evidence due to the Justice department investigation.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    So "having some evidence that never resulted in a conviction" = risk-free? This is identical to the facebook case in terms of risk. The lawyers outlay a lot of money (many millions) up front. Clients pay basically nothing. The lawyer could lose all of it due to things outside of their control. Actually winning, even with a good start, requires a large amount of time, energy, and expense. The idea they can't lose because the justice department got some evidence is completely irrelevant to anything. It saves a small amount in discovery costs. That's it. It doesn't even save the plaintiffs money, it saves the defendants money because the discovery they produce is near identical The plaintiffs still need to go through all the discovery. They still have to take depositions, go through all the documents, etc. You seem to have literally no idea what is involved in a lawsuit. I would be more than happy to walk you through what actually happens.

by fsk 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago

"In this example, the defendants get a decent bonus check. I'm really offended by "class action" lawsuits where the lawyers make millions and the victims get a coupon for $10 off their next purchase." Me too. But the only good solution to this is no class action lawsuits (which i'm actually fine with, but let's be real that anything else won't work in all cases). "Also, in this case, THE LAWYERS WERE TAKING NO RISK. There already was a ton of evidence from the justice department case. What actually happens is several groups of lawyers rush to file, each with a different lead plaintiff, and then the judge picks which group of lawyers get the big cash windfall. " This is so wrong i don't even know where to start. So if i wanted to, say, create a new version of facebook, you'd say i wasn't taking any risk because i can already see what facebook did?

fsk 13y ago
What does making a Facebook clone have to do with pursuing a civil lawsuit WHEN GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ALREADY PRODUCED A TON OF EVIDENCE SHOWING GUILT. Making a Facebook clone is risky, you could spend the money and get no users. Suing these defendants is almost risk-free, there already was a ton of evidence due to the Justice department investigation.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  So "having some evidence that never resulted in a conviction" = risk-free? This is identical to the facebook case in terms of risk. The lawyers outlay a lot of money (many millions) up front. Clients pay basically nothing. The lawyer could lose all of it due to things outside of their control. Actually winning, even with a good start, requires a large amount of time, energy, and expense. The idea they can't lose because the justice department got some evidence is completely irrelevant to anything. It saves a small amount in discovery costs. That's it. It doesn't even save the plaintiffs money, it saves the defendants money because the discovery they produce is near identical The plaintiffs still need to go through all the discovery. They still have to take depositions, go through all the documents, etc. You seem to have literally no idea what is involved in a lawsuit. I would be more than happy to walk you through what actually happens.