Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Defendant Says Righthaven Should Pay Legal Fees

Posted by Unknown on from the win-or-lose-we'll-make-you-pay dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "On June 20 District Court Judge Philip Pro found that Kentucky resident Wayne Hoehn was protected by fair use in posting a Las Vegas Review-Journal column on a sports website. Now Hoehn's attorneys have submitted a $34,000 bill and asked that Judge Pro require Righthaven to pay it. The $34,000 could be just the tip of the iceberg for Righthaven, should the Democratic Underground prevail in what likely will be a far larger fee demand."

27 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Bout time by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that fee shifting should automatically be a part of any civil case. During the settlement, dismissal, or awarding process, the judge should be required to ask both sides if the bringer of the suit should pay legal fees, or a percentage of. As it stands, when you sue, most of the time you have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you get the right lawyer. Change that, break the cycle, and sanity might have a fighting chance.

    1. Re:Bout time by sureshot007 · · Score: 2

      But what happens when you try to sue a large company, and they win because of their superior, and extremely expensive lawyers?

    2. Re:Bout time by DarkFencer · · Score: 4, Informative

      SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Its meant to silence or intimidate critics, who may be completely accurate in what they are saying, just through legal costs. They don't even expect to go to trial, they expect to push a settlement through fear of legal costs.

      Someone who wins a case against a company/individual using SLAPP tactics definitely deserves to have their legal fees paid by the 'SLAPPer'.

    3. Re:Bout time by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      In a perfect world this would work.
      but what if you are the person who was wronged and feels the only way to get justice is through a lawsuit. However, if you had to go up against a large corporation, would you really do it with this kind of stipulation hanging over you?

    4. Re:Bout time by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps, then, legal fees should be capped at 2x the rate that the losing side is paying. This way if you're paying $5,000 for legal representation and they're paying $1,000,000 (just to pull numbers out of thin air), you'll be responsible for $15,000 ($5K for your lawyer and $10K for theirs).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Bout time by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your case is good but you can't afford or attract a good lawyer, well, sucks to be you.

      Yeah, that's awesome. Justice for those that can afford it, for everyone else, oh well, stop being so poor already.

      It's reasons like that why companies like Walmart are able to commit labor violations in every state with impunity, because they know no lawyer is going to touch any case against them unless it's egregious (i.e., results in serious injury or death) and/or a slam dunk, and their million dollar lawyers are able to ensure that pretty much no case against them is ever gonna be a slam dunk.

    6. Re:Bout time by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For every Harry Hardluck with a genuine grievance against Goliath Megacorp, there are dozens, hundreds, of Deborah Dickburgers signing their names on to pro-forma blackmail demands from the firm of Shark, Shyster and Slitpurse. The real solution is for courts and bar associations to sanction the most egregious hustlers, but making Debbie think twice before being party to their antics would be a good first step.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Bout time by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      Just put a limit on the amount you can be asked to pay back based on how much you yourself put in to it. If I sue, say Sony, for removing features from my PS3 and only pay $5000 on a lawyer, then my risk would be limited to having to pay say $6000 of Sony's legal fees since using $100,000 of lawyers fees would be a rather excessive defense to my $5000 lawyer.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    8. Re:Bout time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your case is good but you can't afford a good lawyer, you might be able to attact one to work for a percentage. If your case is good but you can't afford or attract a good lawyer, well, sucks to be you.

      I'd like to tweak that slightly. If your case is good, but you can't attract a good lawyer, it probably wasn't that good.

    9. Re:Bout time by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Germany the plaintiff has to name the whole value for the case (it's called "Streitwert", amount in dispute), and all the lawyer's fees are set according to a fixed table in relation to that number. The percentage of the "amount in dispute" that gets finally awarded is taken as a measure for how successful the plaintiff was, and the lawyer's fees are then awareded according to that percentage. So if you are suing for 1 million and get 10 thousands in the end, you are considered 99% unsuccessful, and you have to pay 99% of the lawyer's fee for both sides.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:Bout time by camperdave · · Score: 2

      ... from the firm of Shark, Shyster and Slitpurse.

      One of my favourite lines from Breaking Bad: "You don't want a criminal lawyer. You want a criminal lawyer."

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Bout time by NevarMore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would lead to lousy legal decisions. Except in cases of large corporation versus large corporation you'd wind up with legal cases being argued by Billy the Intern and Asok the Recent Graduate. Here in the US where case law is the real law, poorly represented cases can have devastating consequences to future suits.

    12. Re:Bout time by VAElynx · · Score: 2

      But that's not the usual case. Usually the trouble is big companies suing here and there because even if they lose they can financially bleed their opponent to death.
      In other countries, loser paying court costs is the standard practice.
      Given that a victory in a lawsuit is supposed to represent that the side was right, why should it ever be that the "winner" , in these cases defendant, in a lawsuit ends up in a worse situation than before he won?
      It essentially reduces to someone being legally able to pay money to cause a loss to someone else.

    13. Re:Bout time by Myopic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but another way to say that is "the real world sucks, and a lot of people and businesses are assholes. Despite this, we want the common recourse to be disassociating from the assholes, and not griping in courts of law. Only egregious or slam-dunk cases should be brought before judges. For everything else, just stop being that person's friend, neighbor, customer, or employee. Our society is litigious enough."

      It's a sliding scale. The balance is hard to find because there are no bright lines.

    14. Re:Bout time by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Some countries employ investigative judges, who actively investigate the case themselves, rather then actively limit themselves to what lawyers of each party bring before them (and how).

      This system has some issues of its own, such as activism among judges, or easier succumbing to corruption, but it most certainly addresses the case of fair representation far better.

    15. Re:Bout time by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For everything else, just stop being that person's friend, neighbor, customer, or employee.

      But how does that solve the problem of our legal system being used by the big dogs as an impediment to justice instead of facilitating it? There needs to be fairness in the courts. Like anything else having to do with our government anymore, all too often cases are decided not by what is just but instead by who has the most money to throw at the problem. Consider what happens whenever Apple's Lawyer Brigade fires off a Cease and Desist letter; a lot of the time, that in itself is enough to scare someone into submission, because regardless if the person is technically right, the odds of them actually getting justice are slim to none. It goes against the entire spirit of equality in the eyes of the law.

      Of course the simple answer will always be a glib "the world sucks, just find another job/friend/partner/whatever", but it does nothing to solve the problems that cause these situations in the first place. What incentive is there for a rich company or person to not break the law? Why should the individual respect a legal system that metes out justice according to the amount of capital the participants have?

    16. Re:Bout time by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Without this any company that has a legal team can just start suing any citizen that crosses it, regardless of whether they hope to win or not, just to stick them with legal fees. Great way to bully customers into submission - "Oh yeah, you're going to post a bad review about us online? We're suing you, have fun paying those legal fees."

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    17. Re:Bout time by marnues · · Score: 2

      That's a nice sentiment, but it's really not very true. There are far too many variables other than seeking real justice.

    18. Re:Bout time by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, if you like cutting off your nose to spite your face, I suppose you could see it that way. Because your viewpoint relies on the "Jackpot Justice" myth, which is just that - a myth. Actual frivolous lawsuits are actually dismissed at trial. Don't be a chump for corporate immunization from accountability.

  2. Copyright law requires it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    One thing about copyright laws is that the prevailing party in a copyright suit is entitled (as a matter of law) to attorney fees, as well as costs. Learned that from the NYCL.

    1. Re:Copyright law requires it by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, not quite entitled:

      In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorneyâ(TM)s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

      17 USC 505.

      It's up to the discretion of the court, it's limited to a reasonable amount, rather than the actual amount, and under some circumstances (e.g. an ordinary infringement suit where the copyright wasn't registered in a timely fashion, and the plaintiff prevails) fees are not available at all.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  3. Nationalize the legal system by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 2, Funny

    Simple solution, nationalize the legal system.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  4. Would be nice but... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    Right now, the trial bar and lawyers in general have a stranglehold on governments and they won't want to do anything that jeopardizes their revenue streams. Healthcare cost go up largely due to the lack of tort reform. Drugs are expensive in this country because the companies are building in the cost of a future lawsuit. OB-Gyn's have completely moved out of some cities because the malpractice insurance costs are stupid high. The "english" system of loser pays makes a lot of sense. That being said, what if the government controlled the legal fees just like some politicians want to control gas prices or other commodities? Maybe the EPA could declare lawyer-speak as toxic to the environment. Oooo....coool.

    1. Re:Would be nice but... by scot4875 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Healthcare cost go up largely due to the lack of tort reform.

      Popular Republican talking point, but factually incorrect. Tort reform would certainly save some money, but it's not even close to being a major source of waste.

      Drugs are expensive in this country because the companies are building in the cost of a future lawsuit.

      Also bullshit. Drugs are expensive in this country because of the obscene profit margins and the equally obscene amount spent on advertising. Reduce those to more normal levels and drugs could easily cost less than half of what they do now.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    2. Re:Would be nice but... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Informative

      Drugs are expensive in this country because the companies are building in the cost of a future lawsuit.

      Drugs are expensive in this country because there are no checks on drugs prices.

      If the drugs were expensive because of a high cost of production, then they would be expensive regardless of the market they're being sold in, but that's not the case. The same drugs that cost $5.00 per pill here are sold for the equivalent of .50 cents in other countries, because the $5.00 price point would price it out of the market there. It's the same reason why a DVD of a particular movie costs $20 here in the states, but you go somewhere in Southeast Asia and you can buy a legit copy of the exact same film for $5....if the movie cost the equivalent of $20 there, nobody would ever buy it.

  5. Re:Righthaven doesn't have right to sue by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    Actually I think you could assign the copyrights for the sole purpose of suing others. What the judge found in this case was that Stephens Media didn't assign the copyrights. They retained ownership of the copyrights themselves, assigning only the right to sue without assigning any of the copyrights in question.

  6. Re:Hollywood accounting by vux984 · · Score: 2

    Then large companies would begin paying lawyers low retainers/fees, but with tons of benefits

    The IRS has managed to figure out how to audit such things as "benefits" for the purposes of taxing it as income. The methods and expertise to do this already exists.