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 o

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.