Comment by jessriedel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessriedel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Are you just unhappy that someone is profiting off this, or that the plaintiffs aren't making enough money?

If the former, then you probably need to re-think what would happen if the system was set up a different way (i.e. something other than a order-unity fraction of the total amount). The defendants in a case like this are always going to willing to pay a significant fraction (e.g. 20%) of the potential settlement in lawyer fees in order to fight the suit. If the plaintiffs can't spend a similar amount, they will be at a serious disadvantage in court. These fees are merely a symptom of the (alleged) problem that court outcomes depend so much on lawyer fees. If you want to fix the problem, you need to change the court process; attempts to limit class-action fees will just aid the large corporations.

If the latter, then you just want the court to pay out more money to the plaintiffs. But remember: having the plaintiff lawyer fees directly proportional to the settlement is an excellent motivation for the lawyers to win the biggest settlement they can for their class-action clients.

This case will probably be fine. However, there are tons of cases where the lawyers get 100% of the cash settlement.

The lawyers have to show a benefit for the class, and it can be as small as getting the company to promise to stop doing whatever was a problem and hiring one outside firm to verify compliance. Then then lawyers can get a settlement of $500/hour for all the time they spent on the case with an inflated number of hours.

I have seen cases where the lawyers on both sides are basically conspiring against the class, and the judge is okay with it because he wants to get back to the golf course. The plaintiff's laywers basically say, "hey you agree to the smallest thing the judge will accept as a benefit to the class, and you don't bitch about paying us $500/hr. Deal?"

Were these cases in state or federal court?

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.

"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?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com