Hacker News Reader

Comment by chx | Hacker News Reader

So now we know the lawyers on both sides.

To recap, in the lawsuit post, someone said about the law firm WP Engine got:

> Quinn Emanuel is one of the premier (and most expensive) litigation firms in the US. Partners in their litigation department run $2000/hour or more. Associates cost almost $1000/hour.

And I noted the team is lead by Rachel Kassabian who was lead counsel for Google which in Perfect 10 v Amazon (originally it was against Google) resulted in thumbnail of copyright images in search results being fair use.

Automattic chose Neal Katyal. His latest accomplishment was trying to defend Johnson & Johnson 's dicey "Texas Two-Step" and lost while billing $2,465 an hour.

A hell lot of money will be spent on this case, that's for sure.

View on HN

Here is now Automattic is presenting this for an opposing view:

> Neal has been adverse to Quinn Emanuel a number of times, and won every case.

He's only faced Quinn Emmanuel twice...

And one of those was a motion for summary judgment that QE's client was not expected to win.

Like, I know they bill by value delivered, but would a $500/hour lawyer really be that much worse?

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.

I mean, presumably you can look at a history of wins in similar cases instead of hourly rate or reputation?

The 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.

This 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.

If 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?

1. 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.

Do you know the phenomenon of "Tournament wages"? Very prevalent in sports, it's why Ronaldo is worth a billion dollars. Because the lawyer's work is only valuable if they actually win, it's a very binary payout, and that drives up competition for "the best".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com