Hacker News Reader

Comment by eru | Hacker News Reader

What makes you think so?

Because even if you "win", you now have all of those lovely legal bills that the lawyer sends you. If you loose, you now have all of those lovely legal bills that the lawyer sends you. So the lawyer wins either way.

All campuses have student legal aid offices. I engaged one once myself when I was in university. Even though the complaint is against the University itself, in this case, attorneys are still subject to strict ethical rules and so you can at the very least get an honest read on the situation at a very low or no cost to you. (if they clearly demonstrate a conflict of interest, then you'll have an easy pro-bono case from a real lawyer against the University now for two things)

I would take a look at your Student Legal Aid office and get an appointment. Usually consultations are free.

You can't use the student aid legal office, which is part of the university, to help you sue the university. That's a non-waivable conflict.

Involving lawyers doesn't automatically mean you are going to court. Going to court is expensive, yes.

Most issues can be settled out of court for much cheaper. A good lawyer can help you make that happen.

Well yeah, if you hire someone to help you with something, you often end up owing them money, whether or not it ends up successful.

Whether it ends up being successful or not while still having to pay the lawyer is how the lawyer always win. This is not the gotcha you think it is

Hmmmm. Yes but, if I hire a programmer to build me an app and no one ever uses it, I still have to pay the programmer.

This is exactly the gotcha. You paid for a service. The outcome isn’t guaranteed.

Did you need to use a tractor to move those goal posts?

Did they move goal posts though? The original claim was that "once lawyers are involved, lawyers are the only winners." "Only" because "even if you win you still have to pay the lawyers."

Even if your app is successful, you still have to pay the programmers. Even if you sell the building, you still have to pay the construction crew. Even if you're packed during dinner service you still have to pay the chef.

None of these scenarios are painted as a pyrrhic victory because you had to pay the people who made it possible. All those people are generally paid hourly too. Is it because a good lawyer will bill you $400/hr? Is it because those generally have a lot more upside financially than simply winning a court case?

I think it's projecting anger from spec attorneys taking 40% of personal injury judgments, or class action attorneys making $50 million in fees when the people affected get checks for $8.72, but neither of those apply here particularly when you're paying an attorney $75 to send a demand letter template on their letterhead.

>I think it's projecting anger from spec attorneys taking 40% of personal injury judgments, or class action attorneys making $50 million in fees when the people affected get checks for $8.72, but neither of those apply here particularly when you're paying an attorney $75 to send a demand letter template on their letterhead.

Yes, that's the issue. He's poisoning the well. They get paid, but they aren't on the clock for $500/hr the moment you step in their firm.

Oncologists get paid even if the cancer kills you, that's not a good argument against oncologists.

If we're going to go the programmer goalpost: I charge a lot less to give a brief diagnosis on a code base than to go in and fix it. I'm not trying to be some cold moneu-grubber, I want to help solve problems.

I imagine consulting a lawyer is also a lot cheaper than preparing a case to sue for.

Except the original claim was that *only* the lawyers win.

Depends on the contract.

But I agree in general.

> Because even if you "win", you now have all of those lovely legal bills that the lawyer sends you

Oh come on, that's like saying when you involve engineers to build a bridge, the only people who wins are the engineers because you have to pay them.

Engineers don't get paid more when a project gets further delayed.

You've obviously never worked in consulting.

I've never considered the run of the mill management consultants as engineers, and yeah, I haven't worked in/as a technical consultant.

There are plenty engineering consulting firms. In fact, I'd go so far as to say all engineering firms are consulting firms except the ones that are a department within a larger construction or manufacturing company.

Consulting is when you're hired to advise someone else on a task, right? I'm not sure what service an outside engineer offers except consulting services.

Yes, I know engineering consultancies exist, and I've previously engaged with them.

My point is that engineering consultants, at least in the industries I've worked at, are not paid for the duration of the project, but for specific deliverables. Software is the exception in engineering, not the norm.

Management consulting != consulting in general.

Plenty of engineers and firms bill hourly, so yes sometimes they do.

Depends on the contract. If you're hourly, no. If you're on a time constraint yes. You need a new contract. It's a whole spectrum.

> Engineers don't get paid more when a project gets further delayed.

time & materials is a standard way engineering contracts are done

When lawyers are paid hourly to talk to each other on behalf of their clients, sometimes the bill can get sky high if not managed.

Ever get a $5 settlement check from a class action?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com