5 ms·

I get that people will probably disagree, but she just seems to not make very good business decisions. Maybe I'm way off base, but I've read a bunch of well qua

by rnovak 11y ago

I get that people will probably disagree, but she just seems to not make very good business decisions. Maybe I'm way off base, but I've read a bunch of well qualified lawyers say that juries are just plain unpredictable, and that no competent lawyer can "guarantee" to win. In that light, even if the $1M settlement wasn't what you're asking for, I would think it paints a better picture of you than losing and having to pay the other side? Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?

WalterGR 11y ago
Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing? Perhaps her primary concern isn't a cash payout.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  Were that the case she wouldn't offer to drop her appeal for $2.7 million.
  - WalterGR 11y ago
    Her offering a high or higher number doesn't imply that she was only out for cash. Perhaps that amount was what she considered sufficient to punish KP appropriately. And for the record: Consider this statement as me playing the race card. But look: I wasn't on the jury, and I haven't reviewed the court records, and like everyone else here I'm playing armchair quarterback.
    - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
      I'm not making any judgements on the case itself; I didn't follow it at all beyond blurbs I heard here on HN and on reddit. However, part of what I heard and just now validated is that $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran. If the numbers didn't match up exactly I might have a different reaction, but with that settlement amount it seems entirely pragmatic, not principled.
      - WalterGR 11y ago
        $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran. So, on one hand that sounds suspicious. On the other, I know how quickly the Internet (flash) mob is to pick up torches and pitchforks. At the end of the day, what are we to do? Trust juries as the final arbiter, when we know that they're not infallible? Trust reddit - same, if not more? Has her husband been convicted of running a Ponzi scheme - or is it merely "alleged"? Did literally none of EP's lawyers think, "You know... that number is too obvious. We should fudge it a little."? Armchair quarterbacks. :)
    - pushnpop 11y ago
      Her husband "Buddy" seems to like penises, maybe Pao isn't a woman at all. Edit: It's all in the article. http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher-ellen-pao http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
    - jn1234 11y ago
      If she wanted to punish KP, she should've said that she would donate whatever she wins minus legal bills to a charity.
      - WalterGR 11y ago
        You should contact her and let her know that that's the min bar.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
obstinate 11y ago
This logic would basically forbid any lawsuit, no matter how meritorious. Leaving aside what you think her odds are, this isn't how it works. You have to balance the odds of each outcome, not just the absolute best and worst cases.
- rnovak 11y ago
  Aren't like 95%[0] of all cases settled before they even reach trial? To me it seems like that would indicate this logic isn't entirely flawed. [0]http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/ http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsu...
  - Steko 11y ago
    The problem with the logic is you can basically plug any number in there and say they should have settled for that number too. If people always just settled becuase they might lose guess how much Big Corps will offer for settlements? It's easy to say she should have settled in hindsight but if she had won big we'd be saying KP should have offered her more.

by rnovak 11y ago

WalterGR 11y ago

Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing? Perhaps her primary concern isn't a cash payout.

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
Were that the case she wouldn't offer to drop her appeal for $2.7 million.
- WalterGR 11y ago
  Her offering a high or higher number doesn't imply that she was only out for cash. Perhaps that amount was what she considered sufficient to punish KP appropriately. And for the record: Consider this statement as me playing the race card. But look: I wasn't on the jury, and I haven't reviewed the court records, and like everyone else here I'm playing armchair quarterback.
  - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
    I'm not making any judgements on the case itself; I didn't follow it at all beyond blurbs I heard here on HN and on reddit. However, part of what I heard and just now validated is that $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran. If the numbers didn't match up exactly I might have a different reaction, but with that settlement amount it seems entirely pragmatic, not principled.
    - WalterGR 11y ago
      $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran. So, on one hand that sounds suspicious. On the other, I know how quickly the Internet (flash) mob is to pick up torches and pitchforks. At the end of the day, what are we to do? Trust juries as the final arbiter, when we know that they're not infallible? Trust reddit - same, if not more? Has her husband been convicted of running a Ponzi scheme - or is it merely "alleged"? Did literally none of EP's lawyers think, "You know... that number is too obvious. We should fudge it a little."? Armchair quarterbacks. :)
  - pushnpop 11y ago
    Her husband "Buddy" seems to like penises, maybe Pao isn't a woman at all. Edit: It's all in the article. http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher-ellen-pao http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
  - jn1234 11y ago
    If she wanted to punish KP, she should've said that she would donate whatever she wins minus legal bills to a charity.
    - WalterGR 11y ago
      You should contact her and let her know that that's the min bar.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

obstinate 11y ago

This logic would basically forbid any lawsuit, no matter how meritorious. Leaving aside what you think her odds are, this isn't how it works. You have to balance the odds of each outcome, not just the absolute best and worst cases.

rnovak 11y ago
Aren't like 95%[0] of all cases settled before they even reach trial? To me it seems like that would indicate this logic isn't entirely flawed. [0]http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/ http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsu...
- Steko 11y ago
  The problem with the logic is you can basically plug any number in there and say they should have settled for that number too. If people always just settled becuase they might lose guess how much Big Corps will offer for settlements? It's easy to say she should have settled in hindsight but if she had won big we'd be saying KP should have offered her more.