how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to DataDoc
Re: Huh? ..and just how much money did YOU put up in this case? ..even for that $16 that a user could get even if they never once touched P2P?
The attorney in the case takes ALL the risk of going up against the multi billion dollar company and their deep pockets.
Just like the story and the law says... if you don't like the case, opt out. You're well within your rights to put up a retainer and hire your own attorney.. but for what? .. what damages will one actually get if their P2P was throttled? You're not going to get, at most, more than what you paid for the monthly service anyway. Is it worth going alone and spending thousands potentially and MAY or MAY NOT wind up with anything but thousands down the drain?
These attorneys are not public servants.. they don't HAVE to file these cases, and quite honestly, these cases sometimes benefit the public greatly.. they shape policy, open up investigations, and bring out the lazy congress to actually do something many times over. I think the attorneys deserve what they get..
Afterall, why should they front the money (and it's a lot) in order to sue on behalf of a bad situation and walk away with cost?
The reason injured parties don't get more compensation is because you're part of a class.. like I said.. is it worth the expense to do it yourself? nope...
Like any other class action.. you are MORE than welcome to opt-out of any of the ones you're involved in out of protest. | |
| man, you know nothing.
attorneys can't help but scramble as fast as people in a class action - if they're supporting it, they know they're getting money.
attorney takes no risk. The attorney gets paid win or lose. When they win, it's even more money. So say a 150k/yr salary, plus a 50 million bonus for the firm if they win. Not only that, but they aren't forced to take a case.
you're full of it, fiberguy | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by dfxmatt:man, you know nothing. attorneys can't help but scramble as fast as people in a class action - if they're supporting it, they know they're getting money. attorney takes no risk. The attorney gets paid win or lose. When they win, it's even more money. So say a 150k/yr salary, plus a 50 million bonus for the firm if they win. Not only that, but they aren't forced to take a case. you're full of it, fiberguy Think what you want, but what I said was reality. You clearly know nothing about class actions and how they work if you say I'm full of it and know nothing. lol
Google class actions.. look it up on Wiki.. ask other users here.. NOTHING I said was factually incorrect.. not a single word.
And please, tell me and everyone else, how do they get paid "win or lose"...? If the case or settlement is a "lose" then that means the "plaintiff" got NOTHING.. so who pays that attorney? Huh?
Also, who's paying for the cost of deposition? Who's paying the attorney's time? who's paying all the fees and research that they have to do in order to get the case put together? Who pays to file? who pays ALL the expenses.. the attorney, that's who. That's the "investment" they make into the case, so you know.
The attorney takes ALL the risk. The attorney doesn't get paid ANYTHING if they don't win their case or settle it. (And not all classes wind up with a win, sorry.. they don't)
So tell me.. who are these attorney's that make a "salary"..? They get paid either by a retainer and all costs paid by their client, or they get paid based on the case and a percentage of it based on a contingency agreement, which too, is also taking all the risk on their own.
By the way, in one of my two businesses that I run, one of them serves attorneys.. I know very well how they operate and how they get paid. I also have two attorneys in my family...
Where are you getting your knowledge from on this matter?
The one thing and ONLY one thing you actually did get correct is that they aren't forced to take the case.. you get credit for that one, however, it has no bearing on what's being discussed.. not one bit. | | |
|
| are you crazy? do you think a lawyer doesn't get paid just because a plaintiff loses? there's an entire legal system designed around ensuring a lawyer will get paid. As commonly referred to as billable hours.
Class actions always have someone leading it - that is the person that gets the majority and also is paying the class action lawyer in contract, unless they're being represented pro bono. Trust me, if this was pro bono, it'd have been indicated.
Also, of course there is always a retainer cost - therefore, are you going to tell me that they are paid nothing when a retainer is paid at the same time? Think about what you're saying here.
The money from if they were successful as a plaintiff is a bonus, not simply their pay. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by dfxmatt:are you crazy? do you think a lawyer doesn't get paid just because a plaintiff loses? there's an entire legal system designed around ensuring a lawyer will get paid. As commonly referred to as billable hours. How does the attorney of a "class action" get paid on "billable hours" when the attorney has collected NOTHING from the plaintiff?
Class actions always have someone leading it - that is the person that gets the majority and also is paying the class action lawyer in contract, unless they're being represented pro bono. Trust me, if this was pro bono, it'd have been indicated.
Also, of course there is always a retainer cost - therefore, are you going to tell me that they are paid nothing when a retainer is paid at the same time? Think about what you're saying here.
From:
»www.web-access.net/~aclark/profit.htm
Before you say "I can't afford thousands or even millions of dollars in attorney fees" know that almost all class actions which have merit are taken on a contingency basis. Your attorney, or attorneys, are going to pick up and incur some very heavy expenses. Just a few of these costly expenses are the costs of depositions, travel, mailings, filing fees, and so forth.
While you like to speak of what MAY be the case, in SOME class actions, the overwhelming amount of class actions cases with merit, much like injury cases, those involving insurance companies, etc etc, are taken on contingency. Should I quote the definition of what contingency means?
There is no "entire legal system designed" to "ensure" that an attorney gets paid. I can tell you from EXPERIENCE that not every contingency case taken is always in the favor of the plaintiff. However, most of them are if the attorney is good and knows the case they are looking at taking the risk on. Most attorneys understand the law and know if a case has value to it or not and if it's worth their investment in time to take the case on "for free upfront" to the plaintiff.
The money from if they were successful as a plaintiff is a bonus, not simply their pay. The information is out there on the web... go look it up, but you're 100% wrong... wrong wrong wrong.
And no, for the record, I'm not crazy.. I just understand the law in many areas as I have 12 attorney law firms as clients. ITs my job to understand their business.
So, I'm sorry.. I won't "trust" you.
I'll leave it at that. | |
| yeah, for what? as their IT consultant? you're not a lawyer or a paralegal, and that part is easily clear.
You think a contingency isn't going to include hours automatically being paid?
no competent lawyer would accept such a gamble for a class action. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | dfx and fiber,
Both types of class-actions are possible -- fee for service and contingency.
When it is contingency-based, the lead plaintiff doesn't pay any money for lawyer's time, for filings or other expenses. The law firm is taking a gamble, but the potential payoff to the firm has to be big enough to make it worth their while.
When it is fee-for-service based, the lead plaintiff pays for the time and expenses and the law firm takes nothing extra for winning and loses nothing if the plaintiff loses the case.
Contingency suits are more common than some might think because the financial power of the company being sued is daunting to the individual consumer or investor who is interested in suing.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit |
I laid out the facts.. and stated my experience (which isn't IT based by the way, but what ever) and he continues to flame. Yet, interestingly enough, he continues to flail his arms and act like the authority on the matter and has yet to take one moment of time to post anything to back up his "facts" or anything other than (beats on chest) "I'm right!!! you're an idiot!"
Problem is.. I was and am right.
Funchords, you're absolutely correct about that it can be contingency or retainer... however, the cases we see today have all been contingency based. Like I said above, the law firms look to see what their chance of recovery is and they'll take the risk.. the problem is, there usually is "no risk" in any sense as the climate of class action is all too political and it's become an industry on it's own.
TECHNICALLY, dfx is correct on those cases in classes that are retainer based.. but in this case, he's factually wrong, and he's showing his lack of REAL WORLD knowledge in this matter. He reminds me of my cousin that constantly shows me is CCNA certification because he demonstrated he could read books and answer some questions, but you apply him to the real world situations, he's dumb as a box of rocks. Its one thing to know what them pages on the webz say, but it's another when you apply REAL WORLD experience to it. (to which he isn't)
What is POSSIBLE and what is actually being done are two different things.
I'd like him, in all his skillz, start producing any of these major cases that are class action where the lead plaintiff put up a retainer... then we have a conversation... until then, my point and points all stand.
DFX - just a little hint for you... Don't try to find one fact and technicality and apply it as broad and all inclusive. While technically SOME cases are as you state, the fact remains, it's not the rule these days, it's the RAREST of exception.
Read up on the history of class action in the Unites States.. and actually read the link I sent you.. it's well written and puts class action case into easy to read terms. Maybe you'll understand why in this case I am 100% right, and you're wrong.
| |
|
