Slashdot Mirror
'Legalist' Startup Automates The Lawsuit Strategy Peter Thiel Used To Bankrupt Gawker (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Gizmodo: "Two Harvard undergraduates have created a service called Legalist that uses what they call 'data-backed litigation financing,' analyzing civil lawsuits with an algorithm to predict case outcomes and determine which civil lawsuits are worth investing in," reports Gizmodo. The process is very similar to what billionaire Peter Thiel did when he secretly funded a lawsuit from Hulk Hogan against Gawker Media. "Legalist says it uses an algorithm of 58 different variables including, as [Legalist cofounder] Eva Shang told the Silicon Valley Business Journal, who the presiding judge is and the number of cases the judge is currently working on. The algorithm has been fed cases dating back to 1989 and helps people figure out how long a case will last and the risks associated with it. In a presentation at Y Combinator's Demo Day on Tuesday [Legalist was developed as part of Y Combinator's Summer 2016 class], the founders claimed that the startup funded one lawsuit for $75,000 and expects a return of more than $1 million. Shang says the $1.40 is earned for every $1 spent in litigation financing, which can prove to be a profitable enterprise when you're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars." Shang told Business Insider in reference to the Gawker lawsuit, "That's the kind of thing we're staying away from here." The company will supposedly be focusing on commercial and small-business lawsuits, and will not be backing lawsuits by individuals.
If you don't want to be bankrupted, don't post a nude sex tape of someone who was filmed without his knowledge, and then ignore a court order to take it down. Just saying.
startup wanted to cash in on this. Lawsuits as a Service! Can't wait until this extends to software patent litigation.
Awesome. Unleashing AI and Big Data on the Law. The fireworks are going to be awesome on this one. I give it 10 maybe 20 years before the whole system implodes. Everyone will be sued into oblivion.
:T:R:A:N:S:
> the founders claimed that the startup funded one lawsuit for $75,000 and expects a return of more than $1 million
Or, you know, a loss of $75,000 if they lose the case.
Gawker's behavior bankrupted Gawker, end of story. Peter Thiel picked up the legal bills so that the person they wronged could afford to sue them. It's a sad commentary on the American legal system that even a celebrity with some extant wealth can't financially sustain a lawsuit on his own.
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
"Legalist says it uses an algorithm of 58 different variables including, as [Legalist cofounder] Eva Shang told the Silicon Valley Business Journal, who the presiding judge is
That different judges give different outcomes is already common knowledge but putting an actual dollar value on it might have significant repercussions.
What happens when someone asks for a judge to recuse themselves because the litigation value tripled when the judge got assigned? It's a lot harder to defend the integrity of the system when supposedly impartial actors have quantifiable effects.
I stole this Sig
...if it really worked, people would keep it a secret and wouldn't try or need to get VC money to fund it.
Function YouAreAWinner(PlaintiffSide as Object, Defense as Object) as Boolean
If PlaintifSide.Facts > Defense.Arguments Then YouAreAWinner = True Else YouAreAWInner = False
End Function
The solution to frivolous lawsuits is the loser pays system. If you lose a suit, you have to pay the winner's legal expenses (vetted by the judge). Automatically...
And, yes, the rule ought to cover criminal proceedings too with wrongfully accused compensated by the prosecutor's office.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
When your legal system becomes the realm of financial investment trading you KNOW your system is broken.
I look forward to the creation of a new stock exchange. Lets call it LAWDAC. You can now day trade on court cases.
Let Asians build the world's fastest trains and the continent-wide energy systems we can only dream about. We have lawsuit AI technology we can use to rob each other blind as we cash those unemployment checks.
Peter Thiel had a vendetta, and an honorable one at that. How dare Gawker's BKWs (bigoted keyboard warriors) out somebody who is gay. That is inexcusable in my view.
These financing assholes trying to get rich as a gamble have no honor.
And if you were the Supreme Court, they would have listened to you. Thing is: Gawker didn't know that and thought they were on firm legal ground. If they knew this would happen they wouldn't have done it. This is the problem: You don't find out if you're right or wrong until you've paid lawyers millions of dollars. Shouldn't be like that.
The courts are a crapshoot. With a different judge and jury, Hogan and Thiel could have lost.
Also "Two Harvard undergraduates" This is why everyone hates Harvard.
Rate_of_return = f( sum(legal_and_tech _buzzwords) x (networth(judge) - lifetimeincome(judge)) x sum(networth(plaintiffs)) )
I recall reading a science fiction story in Analog (I think in the 1980s) about judges being profiled as a way to win court cases. Items such as arguments used based on their history, delivery of arguments and review of previous cases and their judgements. The one particular case highlighted that the one judge preferred short, direct arguments, and this was used to help win the case. If I recall, the lawyers etc had earpieces (or maybe briefcases) with a wireless link to a van outside the court which had a data connection back to the office where the computer gave real time updates. I am not sure what the story was called .....
Since AI could soon outpace many human lawyers...we'd need "Judge" alg to combat these AI and then probably some more Jury AIs with random seeds as well?
4wdloop
This is nothing like Thiel's lawsuit. He wanted to hurt Gawker. This is about automating the existing field of bankrolling civil litigation for a cut of the settlement. It happens now, but has human beings estimating the payouts. I mean, the obvious example is attorneys who get 25%-33% of the settlement, but there are also investment groups that do this.
It tends to be a good thing, as they (wanting to make money) only back non-frivolous cases, and help the little guy stand up to the juggernauts. How else can one person sue a billion dollar firm?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This algorithm requires that case to already be assigned to a docket. This behavior happens now, but it's lawyer to applies to the investor group, and their lawyers who evaluate it.
It sounds like several lawyers already rejected your case. That is prima facia evidence to an algorithm it has no merit.
Keep in mind, this isn't "how worthy is this case" but "of my limited funds, where should I invest?"
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Lawsuits as a business. The last time I heard about that, I saw it in this video on software patents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you haven't seen it, you should, because it could very well be about you. And this startup may make this even more likely to be the case.
We used to invest in businesses, who then provided goods and services to customers. That's a thing of the past, simply because the number of people who actually have money left to buy crap isn't enough to make this investment viable.
So the logical next step is to invest in lawsuits. Here you needn't provide a service someone wants, you can actually force him to pay.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... an illegal agreement in which a person with no previous interest in a lawsuit finances it with a view to sharing the disputed property if the suit succeeds.
This scheme is by "Harvard Undegraduates". Please tell me they are not from the Harvard Law School. BAHAHAHAHAH!
Payday Lawsuits? "Come on down, and let's sue somebody!"
The loss of a month's rent once ruined an entire goddamn year and nearly left me homeless. I'm not in quite such dire straights myself anymore, but I still can't afford to risk that much fucking money; and more to the general point, the vast majority of Americans definitely can't.
False: 83% of American households have some form of subscription television service. 3-4 months of that would cover at least enough of a mid market law firms time to assess the merits of case. What you really mean is most Americas don't believe strongly enough in their own cases to do without the boob tube for a quarter.
Sorry life is about choices and the truth is here in the US most people actually do have them. Almost all US household statistics greatly under report the income of the poor. They don't take into account things like the EIT for example. I am not say there are not many people in the US who are struggling, but we are actually talking about a very tiny minority when you want talk about the those who can't scrape $300-$500 together to have someone evaluate a case where they have a legitimate grievance.
We also have these things called public libraries were ordinary citizens like you or I could get access to either online resources or request the reference books needed to get an idea if our case was worth having a professional spend an hour looking at, and we could not afford to chance it based on a guess.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Now every billionaire can attack that pesky media. You really need to understand this is a "fund my hitjob." It has nothing to do with helping anyone but these fellows to line their pockets as the rich have a simple way to invest and stifle those pesky peasants. Fricken Harvard should have a flash flood and wash all thier shit into the street so you can see what those people are doing.
If you have a slam-dunk case, couldn't the lawyer call another lawyer and ask them to represent you on contingency?
"That's the kind of thing we're staying away from here." The company will supposedly be focusing on commercial and small-business lawsuits, and will not be backing lawsuits by individuals.
Because patent trolls and the like are better???
Someone is still paying. Either the law firm is footing the bill itself, or it has insurance to cover the cost of losing (which will become very expensive if they lose too often). An individual lawyer will still be paid if he loses, but he won't keep his job for long if he keeps taking no-win-no-free cases and losing them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Wait what now?
You know the law has become meaningless when lawsuits become an income stream rather than a mode of redress.
Isn't it bad enough we have rich people influencing our politics, now we have to worry about rich people influencing our justice system (more than they already do)?
Peter Thiel intentionally bankrupted Gawker. He didn't probably didn't make money from the deal. The founder explained this is completely different.
This start up helps you beat the game that a big company that gets sued plays in which it drags out the lawsuit causing the litigant to drop the case, even if their lawsuit is rightful. Nothing about the strategy is to bankrupt companies.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Presuming you mean the earned income tax credit, that's like ~$200 a year for an individual. Not significant.
I don't see income being misrepresented. What I see is a bunch of middle class and wealthy people who manage to live paycheck to paycheck despite their hefty incomes, because they can't comprehend making their own food or exercising without equipment or living without netflix or getting around without a taxi. That's just a cultural issue.
This space intentionally left blank
So you want to make it entirely impossible for poor people to ever sue? Even if you know you're right, you're not going to take the no money down option knowing that some random technicality could bankrupt you. Also, law firms wouldn't be willing to offer the "no money down" option since the people who would take it would be the people who are impossible to collect from if they lose because they don't have money.
This space intentionally left blank
In the future, please do not respond to Score:0 anonymous posts. Slashdot has been infected by severe trolls from 4chan and they post regularly. They feed off responses, so don't give them any. The best revenge to a stupidly inflammatory response is silence. That's what trolls hate most of all.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's not always a matter of not being able to manage one's own money as much as not having a way to earn enough money to manage in the first place.
because they can't comprehend making their own food
That or they can comprehend being threatened with imprisonment when city codes ban gardens.
or exercising without equipment
That depends on weather and on how strict the local police are about giving children priority on public playgrounds.
or getting around without a taxi.
What should they do instead? Ride the bus? Buses in my home town don't operate at night, on Sundays, or on major holidays. Under the "employment at will" principle widespread in the United States, employers can and do exercise their rights to fire employees for notifying them that they aren't available at those times. Many, such as Walmart, also have a "must be available on weekends" policy of refusing to hire applicants who mark down that they aren't available on Sunday.
Not only that, 1.40 on 1 is somehow equal to 1,000,000 on 75,000!
This is wrong. Dangerously wrong.
If a judge gives a bad order that will hurt you, you file for a stay of that order pending appeal. Ignoring the order leads to punishment, as happened here! The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, they are simply going to ignore almost all of the petitions for a writ of certiorari sent to them. And it you will still get punished for just ignoring the order even if you were right! You can't just wait for orders from a higher court to comply. If the judge refuses to stay their order while you appeal it, you have to comply. Period. If they were wrong, well, you'll have to convince the courts of that on appeal. You don't get to just ignore everyone but the Supreme Court because you don't like an adverse ruling, it simply does not and hasn't ever worked that way.
I can't believe people modded this up, because it displays utter ignorance of legal process. Seriously, at least a few of you should have read Groklaw. You can go back and find that even SCO knew better than to flat-out ignore a court order like that. You can find many times where they asked for stays, plenty of times where they sent surreplies and dug in their heels at every opportunity to avoid complying, but not so much where they simply ignored the order.
So let that sink in for a moment: Gawker sunk below SCO's level here.
I tend to blame the client here, because I have to believe anyone could have made it through law school if they were giving advice that bad. If not, they're free to explore a legal malpractice claim against their own lawyers. Because what they did is so mind-bendingly stupid that you have to be willfully ignorant of legal process to think it makes any kind of sense that you can ignore anyone lower than the Supreme Court.
And they pay negative dollars per month for this service. Many local cable companies charge less for a bundle of Internet access and the lowest tier of subscription television service
Citation please! I have never seen a case where the bottom tier internet only subscription is priced above that plus bottom tier TV bundle. Sometimes the spread is so small I will admit it might not really make sense to not take the TV subscription if you purchasing Internet access otherwise but not the point. There is no reason at all one needs home Internet service either unless they work from home. Again if you are that close to the edge you can't cough up $300-$500 for something unexpected but important you should be uses the library and other public resources.
$50+ monthly so you can facebook in your underwear on the sofa probably isn't an appropriate allocation for you.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Citation please! I have never seen a case where the bottom tier internet only subscription is priced above that plus bottom tier TV bundle.
I've been collecting anecdotal reports from other Slashdot users about cable companies charging less for a bundle of Internet and limited basic TV than for Internet alone:
Anecdote
Anecdote
Anecdote
Anecdote
Anecdote
Anecdote
Anecdote
Anecdote
$50+ monthly so you can facebook in your underwear on the sofa probably isn't an appropriate allocation for you.
It may be cheaper than the lost wages from taking time off work every day so you can get to the public library and check your email before it closes for the night at 6 PM. (Source: front door of Little Turtle branch, Allen County Public Library, Fort Wayne, Indiana)
He did. I asked one of the other lawyers I went to talk to to call that first lawyer (while I was there talking to him) who said he'd send over the information and it should be open and shut and a safe bet for the other lawyer. Other lawyer nominally said "OK do that" while I was there getting my consultation, and said he'd be in touch. When I didn't hear back from the other lawyer I called to ask him if he had received the info and what he thought about the case. He said he thinks the info came in a while before but hadn't looked at it yet because I hadn't paid him yet.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Or even more to the point, it's a matter of unavoidable expenses levied by those with the power to do so (like paying for the right to just exist somewhere) sucking up so much of whatever money someone can make.
A full time minimum wage job could fund quite a luxurious amount of actual consumption, if it weren't for things like rent sucking up so much of that money before it can even be spent on anything.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Like the poor schmuck living in a rented bedroom in someone else's house gets a choice of whether that house has TV or not, or could get a discount off their rent/utilities if they decided to forgo watching it.
Also, $300-$500 would cover the filing fees just to ask the judge a goddamn question pro-bono. Double that to also ask a lawyer whether he would ask the judge that for me in the proper way, to which he still might answer "no". Even if he did say yes, and (on contingency) asked the judge to order the relevant documents produced to settle the question, the judge then might say "no". Even if the judge said yes, and the documents were produced, and the question was answered, the answer might still be "no".
And nothing in a library is going to tell me the odds of that, because that outcome depends entirely on the contents of private documents. Just asking for those documents to be produced, in the afore-described way, which is a best case scenario, is several months' rent. The legal theory behind the case is sound, I'm assured, because I'm only aware of any of this happening because another lawyer brought it to my attention -- he's just not allowed to file the case. I just need someone else to look at his strongly-suggestive evidence, and ask the judge to order the production of definitive evidence. But I can't even get anyone to look at that evidence without paying them a crippling sum, and I can't even ask the judge myself without paying the court a crippling sum.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It sounds like this is designed to extract money out of the legal system by "backing" lawsuits, like as investments. IANAL, but this sounds so wrong on so many levels.
I might have cheered for this sort of thing, had it been offered as a low cost app or service to individuals seeking redress against big powerful companies with armies of lawyers, but instead, its looks like just another weapon for the army of lawyers.
Patent trolls are smiling.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
It doesn't take that much around here to consult a lawyer. However, Pfhorrest said he'd consulted a few, and had been told that he'd have to file suit to find out if he did have a case, because that depended on certain documents he'd only get access to during discovery.. You aren't going to start a lawsuit with $500. Seriously.
You seem to think that the facts were laid out, and it was a matter of checking out the law. That is really bad reading comprehension on your part.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And nothing in a library is going to tell me the odds of that
I think the "library" part comes in when you cancel home Internet and TV for a year, use the Internet at the library in the meantime, and put the money you save toward the two 'crippling sums'.
Apparently you didn't even read the post I was replying to.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I've very seldom met anyone who didn't spend at least some money each month that wasn't necessary to live. Nobody owes you (or Pfhorrest) a nice apartment in a big city. If you want to live in a big city or on a nice island while making minimum wage, get a roommate or three. Either he couldn't live enough within his means to have a rainy-day fund, or he thought his case wasn't worth dipping into that, neither of which tells a lawyer that his case is likely to turn out well.
I think you are overestimating the cable bill and underestimating the rent of most people. 4 months of my cable bill would not pay my monthly mortgage and I have an oddly extensive and expensive cable package and a relatively small mortgage.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
This sounds like an algorithm for champerty kind of like a FICO score for real property mortgages. The rub is that that champerty is unlawful in many states. Champerty is so rare in the U.S. that the term only comes up in legal dictionaries. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=171 Basically, champerty is a term for "investing" in someone else's lawsuit with the expectation of a big payday when they win. A third party taking a fiscal interest in a lawsuit is different from a legal professional contracting for a "contingency fee". Way back when; the ruling class would take a champerty share in a case then pressure the judges to rule to their profit. (You really don't want to know why I know this term.)
NRRPT/RCT