The U.S. trade representative, whose sole job is to promote U.S. companies overseas, is complaining because the Australian government is telling Australian companies not to use American companies for a certain service? In other word, a guy whose job it is to complain about trade barriers is complaining about trade barriers? HOW DARE HE?
"The judge would not judge something too defavorable to the lawyer, just to avoid setting bad precedent (better a justice that favor the lawyers than impunity, no?)."
Judges have absolutely no problem knocking down legal fees if they think they're too high. You think a judge who took a huge paycut when he left private practice is going to go out of his way to give a windfall to some lawyer who probably annoyed him during the litigation?
As a lawyer who has worked on large class actions, it's difficult to settle early. First, corporate defendants usually won't even consider settling until the case has gone on long enough for them to realize they did something wrong. Second, it's unethical to even make a settlement offer on the plaintiff's side unless you know how many people were affected, and the approximate damages they suffered, which can take a long time to figure out. Also, to foreclose accusations of thievery and predation, no, they weren't "coupon" cases, I never got rich working on class action cases, and in every single case I was involved many, many class members recovered far more than I made.
"But why should the class action lawyers settle? The longer they drag out the case, the more money they get - regardless of the benefit to the victims."
Not really, if it's a contingency case, which they usually are.
"Nice work if you can get it."
For making $606,192.50 over FIVE YEARS? Consider how many thousands of hours they had to spend on the case, that doesn't sound like nice work at all.
"Well, because it was a class-action suit, the lawyers took nigh to 80% of that money."
Why do I suspect you're exaggerating? 80% contingency fees are per se unethical and would have gotten those lawyers disbarred. If it was pursuant to a settlement agreement there isn't a judge in the country who would approve an 80% fee. If the lawyers really took 80% then report them to the state bar for discipline.
What do you mean "lack of a true plaintiff"? And just fyi, all settlement agreements have to be approved by the court, AND affected class members get to lodge objections and be heard.
According to the story, if you are going to jail they're allowed to make sure you're not hiding anything. Doesn't seem too egregious to me. Ohhh, you believed the incendiary headline, didn't you?
No, the only people who believe that are the people the pro-business far right has managed to trick.
The right answer is it's actually nobody's fault; the simple fact is the US had a booming manufacturing sector for decades because there was very little competition, with possible competitors either communist, third world, or first world but recovering from WW2.
Actually, patent litigation guys can make good money, though very few lawyers make the kind of money slashdotters think they do. You do raise a good point about big judgments, though.
Anglo-American law is built on the theory that there is an actual "right," objectively real answer for every question. The whole adversarial process is meant to get to that answer; the adversarial method is considered the best way to get to that objective truth.
The role of an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") is to assist the Court in finding that "right" answer, in theory. In practice, of course, the vast majority of parties don't want the right answer, they want the answer that benefits them. But the Courts will expect everyone, including amicus curiae filings, to keep up the pretense that they are trying to get to the truth.
You're reading into what I said a distinction I did not make. Whether the amicus brief will ultimately help a third party is not really relevant; the point is, it is meant to set forth the law dispassionately and objectively. If a party can show the third party is filing the brief in order to gain a specific advantage in another case, that goes to the weight the Court may choose to give it.
Amicus curiae briefs are, from a legal philosophy standpoint, meant to assist the court in determining the correct approach, not one of the parties or the filer. In practice it usually doesn't work this way when there's a private party submitting it, but "this guy is using an amicus brief to help him in other cases" is a valid attack.
Because "manipulate" means someone was done that didn't follow the process. Are you saying that the US didn't follow "the process" when they asked that this guy be cracked down on? Where was the "manipulation"?
As it's been the case with every other major power in the history of the world. The point is these pressures aren't done in secret volcano lairs by masked supervillains, it's just the normal push and pull of international relations and the standard, low-level contact between prosecutors and police groups. It goes the other way, too.
The problem is undergrad psychology doesn't give you anywhere near the experience in project or research design that you need for those kinds of things.
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. trade representative, whose sole job is to promote U.S. companies overseas, is complaining because the Australian government is telling Australian companies not to use American companies for a certain service? In other word, a guy whose job it is to complain about trade barriers is complaining about trade barriers? HOW DARE HE?
I doubt the 660k is a contingency fee; more likely it was actual fees ordered paid.
"The judge would not judge something too defavorable to the lawyer, just to avoid setting bad precedent (better a justice that favor the lawyers than impunity, no?)."
Judges have absolutely no problem knocking down legal fees if they think they're too high. You think a judge who took a huge paycut when he left private practice is going to go out of his way to give a windfall to some lawyer who probably annoyed him during the litigation?
"If IT drags out a project for that long we'd get sued for all our bananas and probably end up poorer than if we hadn't worked at all."
If that were true, why do so many IT teams drag out their projects? Most of them don't get sued.
As a lawyer who has worked on large class actions, it's difficult to settle early. First, corporate defendants usually won't even consider settling until the case has gone on long enough for them to realize they did something wrong. Second, it's unethical to even make a settlement offer on the plaintiff's side unless you know how many people were affected, and the approximate damages they suffered, which can take a long time to figure out. Also, to foreclose accusations of thievery and predation, no, they weren't "coupon" cases, I never got rich working on class action cases, and in every single case I was involved many, many class members recovered far more than I made.
"But why should the class action lawyers settle? The longer they drag out the case, the more money they get - regardless of the benefit to the victims."
Not really, if it's a contingency case, which they usually are.
"Nice work if you can get it." For making $606,192.50 over FIVE YEARS? Consider how many thousands of hours they had to spend on the case, that doesn't sound like nice work at all.
"Well, because it was a class-action suit, the lawyers took nigh to 80% of that money."
Why do I suspect you're exaggerating? 80% contingency fees are per se unethical and would have gotten those lawyers disbarred. If it was pursuant to a settlement agreement there isn't a judge in the country who would approve an 80% fee. If the lawyers really took 80% then report them to the state bar for discipline.
What do you mean "lack of a true plaintiff"? And just fyi, all settlement agreements have to be approved by the court, AND affected class members get to lodge objections and be heard.
it could be settled in a matter of weeks or a month or two
Do you have experience litigating complex cases?
"The current system of class action lawsuits is not libertarian. It is an opt out system."
Not necessarily. It depends on the type of class certification.
"only their presentation and form"
Which seems to be what they're suing over.
For 90% of lawyers, the money isn't great. 10% do very well, though.
According to the story, if you are going to jail they're allowed to make sure you're not hiding anything. Doesn't seem too egregious to me. Ohhh, you believed the incendiary headline, didn't you?
No, the only people who believe that are the people the pro-business far right has managed to trick.
The right answer is it's actually nobody's fault; the simple fact is the US had a booming manufacturing sector for decades because there was very little competition, with possible competitors either communist, third world, or first world but recovering from WW2.
Actually, patent litigation guys can make good money, though very few lawyers make the kind of money slashdotters think they do. You do raise a good point about big judgments, though.
I guarantee you the lawyers working on this case are bored with it by now.
"Welcome to England! Would you like some starch with your starch?"
Anglo-American law is built on the theory that there is an actual "right," objectively real answer for every question. The whole adversarial process is meant to get to that answer; the adversarial method is considered the best way to get to that objective truth. The role of an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") is to assist the Court in finding that "right" answer, in theory. In practice, of course, the vast majority of parties don't want the right answer, they want the answer that benefits them. But the Courts will expect everyone, including amicus curiae filings, to keep up the pretense that they are trying to get to the truth.
The original TMNT black and white comics were good. But not great, and not really what I would characterize as classics.
You're reading into what I said a distinction I did not make. Whether the amicus brief will ultimately help a third party is not really relevant; the point is, it is meant to set forth the law dispassionately and objectively. If a party can show the third party is filing the brief in order to gain a specific advantage in another case, that goes to the weight the Court may choose to give it.
Implicit in practice, but not in theory. The theory behind an amicus brief is that it is intended to assist the Court. That's it.
Amicus curiae briefs are, from a legal philosophy standpoint, meant to assist the court in determining the correct approach, not one of the parties or the filer. In practice it usually doesn't work this way when there's a private party submitting it, but "this guy is using an amicus brief to help him in other cases" is a valid attack.
Because "manipulate" means someone was done that didn't follow the process. Are you saying that the US didn't follow "the process" when they asked that this guy be cracked down on? Where was the "manipulation"?
As it's been the case with every other major power in the history of the world. The point is these pressures aren't done in secret volcano lairs by masked supervillains, it's just the normal push and pull of international relations and the standard, low-level contact between prosecutors and police groups. It goes the other way, too.
The problem is undergrad psychology doesn't give you anywhere near the experience in project or research design that you need for those kinds of things.