Law Prof Characterizes Yahoo Suit as Extortion

netbuzz writes "Fair comment or libel? A law prof/blogger calls those behind the class-action suit against Yahoo 'extortionists.' The targeted lawyers, who include spyware/adware expert Ben Edelman, are not amused." From the article: "Goldman, who according to his blog 'holds leadership positions in the American Bar Association and the Computer Law Association,' addresses the merits of the suit in a generally academic fashion before winding up for the big finish: 'I think these lawsuits are nothing more than a shakedown for cash,' he concludes. 'Even unmeritorious class action lawsuits are expensive to defend, so the plaintiffs' lawyers can exploit those defense costs for their personal largesse. They can make this argument to defendants: settle with me for a fraction of your total expected defense costs, and we're both better off (defendants save some defense costs, plaintiffs' lawyers grab some personal loot).'"

Comments

Justice

[McGiraf]

It's seem that justice is no more a thing to keep society to a certain standard and give everybody a nice and predictable place to live. It's just a bussiness now, like fast food and diaper manufacturing.

Class-action fix

[overshoot]

One possible solution would be to have lawyers on both sides be paid a fixed rate by the state, which would fix some inequalities, although admittedly individual people might still be motivated by money to sue.

If you want to see some real panic in the class-action racket, try this:

Counsel for the plaintiffs in a class-action suit may not receive any more than is actually distributed to the plaintiffs.

That's the classic scam: the defendents settle for $100 million, the plaintiffs' law firm get $95 million of it, $5 million is offered to the plaintiff class if they respond to request 20 pages of paperwork to apply for their $0.75 payout; a total of $120 thousand is actually distributed to the plaintiff class members and "their" lawyers pocket the balance.

Suggest it to your Congresscritters. The ABA and Trial Lawyers' Association will hate it, but if it ever sees daylight nobody will dare vote against it because (unlike a lot of tort reform) it doesn't take a dime from plaintiffs -- the ones they ABA and TLA use to justify their normal way of doing business.

He has phrased it as an opinion

[Bourbon Man]

He made sure he could claim this as opinion. "I think these lawsuits are...." "I see this lawsuit as..." "I see that process as..." These are fairly obvious opinion statements, not statements of fact. If they were meant as statements of fact, he would not have prefaced them with "I think" and "I see". Instead they would read "These are..." "That is..." etc.

Good idea!

[gknoy]

Wow. That seems like a stunningly good idea. Wish I still had points to mod you up.

My only question is ... could it have any down sides? If the class of people to distribute to is large enough, would the lawyers be able to fund themselves properly? (Probably ;))

Re:Why?

[dfl]

Though rare, courts do order the loser to pay fees when the suit is deemed frivilous. A famous (but extreme) case forced Mattel to pay $1.8M to an artist whose lawyer argued the whole case for free. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2004-06-2 9-barbie-trial_x.htm

If the case is truly frivilous, it will cost as much to prosecute as to defend, so there is no way to "extort" money. Moreover, a billion-dollar company can afford to pay $20K to get a case dismissed. A lawyer so desperate for work that he is bringing frivilous class-action cases can't afford to drop $20K of his own money on a hopeless case.