Judge reprimanded for ordering that a lawyer be paid in the same currency everyone else gets
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
Seems only fair that he gets paid the same way.
Before we get the flashlv bawwww... the lawyer fronted the money for court reporters, depositions, filing fees, staff, overhead, expert witness, etc. None of this stuff is cheap. The lawyer stood a chance of losing and being out all that money. The lawyer probably invested about $50k into the case.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
tarrant84: Before we get the flashlv bawwww... the lawyer fronted the money for court reporters, depositions, filing fees, staff, overhead, expert witness, etc. None of this stuff is cheap. The lawyer stood a chance of losing and being out all that money. The lawyer probably invested about $50k into the case.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
I'm not going to go full flashlv, but gift cards to the store that ripped you off is not just compensation.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
I'm not going to go full flashlv, but gift cards to the store that ripped you off is not just compensation.
tarrant84: Before we get the flashlv bawwww... the lawyer fronted the money for court reporters, depositions, filing fees, staff, overhead, expert witness, etc. None of this stuff is cheap. The lawyer stood a chance of losing and being out all that money. The lawyer probably invested about $50k into the case.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
That's wonderful and all, but if "winning" for your client means essentially forcing them to pay more money to the person that dicked them over in the first place, maybe that particular lolyer needs a swift kick in the nads.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
That's wonderful and all, but if "winning" for your client means essentially forcing them to pay more money to the person that dicked them over in the first place, maybe that particular lolyer needs a swift kick in the nads.
quick1: Seems only fair that he gets paid the same way.
This is the problem. I'm not sure people understand class actions and their purpose. It's not to compensate individual consumers -- it's to prevent corporations from screwing people in small amounts that would be otherwise too expensive to litigate. (i.e., if you screw every consumer out of $5, and a court filing fee is $500, there is nothing anyone can do about it.)
The cases are profitable for lawyers so they take them on.
This is the problem. I'm not sure people understand class actions and their purpose. It's not to compensate individual consumers -- it's to prevent corporations from screwing people in small amounts that would be otherwise too expensive to litigate. (i.e., if you screw every consumer out of $5, and a court filing fee is $500, there is nothing anyone can do about it.)
The cases are profitable for lawyers so they take them on.
mtman900: That's wonderful and all, but if "winning" for your client means essentially forcing them to pay more money to the person that dicked them over in the first place, maybe that particular lolyer needs a swift kick in the nads.
Something tells me that the store in question doesn't have many $10 items.
Something tells me that the store in question doesn't have many $10 items.
tarrant84: This is the problem. I'm not sure people understand class actions and their purpose. It's not to compensate individual consumers -- it's to prevent corporations from screwing people in small amounts that would be otherwise too expensive to litigate. (i.e., if you screw every consumer out of $5, and a court filing fee is $500, there is nothing anyone can do about it.)
The cases are profitable for lawyers so they take them on.
Yes, but by giving out gift cards to everyone, the company doesn't really have to pay the full penalty. Many of those gift cards would sit unused. Whereas if they mailed a $10 check to everyone, many more of those would be cashed.
I understand the risks, and I don't mind that the lawyer takes a good cut of the result. My problem is that I want a gift card from a lawsuit even less than I want one in a Christmas card.
The cases are profitable for lawyers so they take them on.
Yes, but by giving out gift cards to everyone, the company doesn't really have to pay the full penalty. Many of those gift cards would sit unused. Whereas if they mailed a $10 check to everyone, many more of those would be cashed.
I understand the risks, and I don't mind that the lawyer takes a good cut of the result. My problem is that I want a gift card from a lawsuit even less than I want one in a Christmas card.
quick1: I'm not going to go full flashlv, but gift cards to the store that ripped you off is not just compensation.
It usually isn't even a gift card. The last class action I was a part of would have scored me $5 off my next purchase or some shit. I opted out of the entire deal.
It usually isn't even a gift card. The last class action I was a part of would have scored me $5 off my next purchase or some shit. I opted out of the entire deal.
mtman900: That's wonderful and all, but if "winning" for your client means essentially forcing them to pay more money to the person that dicked them over in the first place, maybe that particular lolyer needs a swift kick in the nads.
The lead class members signed off on the settlement. Typically the lead class members also get a large payout for having taken their time to testify, and then the remainder of the class gets the gift card.
The lead class members signed off on the settlement. Typically the lead class members also get a large payout for having taken their time to testify, and then the remainder of the class gets the gift card.
Gift cards are quite a scam. About 1/3 of the people who get them never actually use them, and nearly all of those who use them buy something more expensive than the amount on the card.
tarrant84: This is the problem. I'm not sure people understand class actions and their purpose. It's not to compensate individual consumers -- it's to prevent corporations from screwing people in small amounts that would be otherwise too expensive to litigate. (i.e., if you screw every consumer out of $5, and a court filing fee is $500, there is nothing anyone can do about it.)
The cases are profitable for lawyers so they take them on.
But still, are "coupon settlements" really ethical?
The cases are profitable for lawyers so they take them on.
But still, are "coupon settlements" really ethical?
tarrant84: The lead class members signed off on the settlement. Typically the lead class members also get a large payout for having taken their time to testify, and then the remainder of the class gets the gift card.
Great, give them $15 gift cards. This is bogus.
The settlement is bad and they should feel bad.
Great, give them $15 gift cards. This is bogus.
The settlement is bad and they should feel bad.
some anonymous troll: But still, are "coupon settlements" really ethical?
And that's my point. Many of those cards will go unused, and thus will cost the company nothing. Still others will be used by people to buy things that are more expensive, and thus the company recoups some of the cost. That's not a good enough penalty.
And that's my point. Many of those cards will go unused, and thus will cost the company nothing. Still others will be used by people to buy things that are more expensive, and thus the company recoups some of the cost. That's not a good enough penalty.
someone who may or may not be Obama
2010-02-08 11:33:57.0
login to vote
score 1
Is this really a time for profits?
mtman900: Great, give them $15 gift cards. This is bogus.
The settlement is bad and they should feel bad.
Here's a punch to the kidney! And as a result of our lawsuit, you get $5 of a swift kick anywhere on your body!
The settlement is bad and they should feel bad.
Here's a punch to the kidney! And as a result of our lawsuit, you get $5 of a swift kick anywhere on your body!
of = off
someone who may or may not be Obama: Is this really a time for profits?
I can see right through your clever disguise, ARN.
quick1: Here's a punch to the kidney! And as a result of our lawsuit, you get $5 of a swift kick anywhere on your body!
All I wanted was a $30 coupon to Tennis Warehouse :(
I can see right through your clever disguise, ARN.
quick1: Here's a punch to the kidney! And as a result of our lawsuit, you get $5 of a swift kick anywhere on your body!
All I wanted was a $30 coupon to Tennis Warehouse :(
tarrant84: Before we get the flashlv bawwww... the lawyer fronted the money for court reporters, depositions, filing fees, staff, overhead, expert witness, etc. None of this stuff is cheap. The lawyer stood a chance of losing and being out all that money. The lawyer probably invested about $50k into the case.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
I agree with your points but I think the use of gift cards is a sufficiently specific issue to merit some action by the judge. Maybe if the gift cards were for a competitor's store...but probably not.
If judges screw around with lawyers and their pay, lawyers are simply going to say "I'm not taking on this type of work anymore." If lawyers stop taking the cases, corporations will continue to screw people, but just a little bit at a time because they know that the cost of going to court will outweigh any recovery.
I agree with your points but I think the use of gift cards is a sufficiently specific issue to merit some action by the judge. Maybe if the gift cards were for a competitor's store...but probably not.
some anonymous troll: But still, are "coupon settlements" really ethical?
You can settle a case for a ham sandwich. Settlement agreements are just that - agreements. They're contracts. The Plaintiff (lead class members and attorneys) and the Defendant seems to think it's a fair settlement, given the risk, the damages involved, strength / weaknesses of the case, etc.
The case might have serious holes in it.
You can settle a case for a ham sandwich. Settlement agreements are just that - agreements. They're contracts. The Plaintiff (lead class members and attorneys) and the Defendant seems to think it's a fair settlement, given the risk, the damages involved, strength / weaknesses of the case, etc.
The case might have serious holes in it.
The issue here is judges are not supposed to be involved with settlements and making sure they're fair -- that's what a trial is for.
Settlements avoid the need for a trial. A judge's only role with settlement should be making sure it was voluntarily agreed to. If you want a judge to decide what's fair, just try the case.
Settlements avoid the need for a trial. A judge's only role with settlement should be making sure it was voluntarily agreed to. If you want a judge to decide what's fair, just try the case.
tarrant84: You can settle a case for a ham sandwich. Settlement agreements are just that - agreements. They're contracts. The Plaintiff (lead class members and attorneys) and the Defendant seems to think it's a fair settlement, given the risk, the damages involved, strength / weaknesses of the case, etc.
The case might have serious holes in it.
Given that the settlement for the little guys was essentially to the benefit of the company being sued, I'd imagine the case was great... against the class members.
The case might have serious holes in it.
Given that the settlement for the little guys was essentially to the benefit of the company being sued, I'd imagine the case was great... against the class members.
If it was just for the plaintiffs' attorney to be paid in gift cards, were the defendants and the defendants' attorney also paid in gift cards?
mtman900: Given that the settlement for the little guys was essentially to the benefit of the company being sued, I'd imagine the case was great... against the class members.
The case was probably weak and/or involved a minimum amount of damages.
I settle a lot of cases where say, Party A gets business from Party B as part of the agreement.
The case was probably weak and/or involved a minimum amount of damages.
I settle a lot of cases where say, Party A gets business from Party B as part of the agreement.
"Neil Fineman sued Windsor Fashions, a women's clothing store, on behalf of a group of consumers who bought from Windsor with a credit card and from whom Windsor got an address, phone number or email address. There was no allegation that anyone was actually harmed by this practice through something like identity theft, but it is a technical violation of a California statute."
That's why everyone was paid in gift cards.
That's why everyone was paid in gift cards.
tarrant84: The lead class members signed off on the settlement. Typically the lead class members also get a large payout for having taken their time to testify, and then the remainder of the class gets the gift card.
Oh, that's not a conflict of interest at all.
Oh, that's not a conflict of interest at all.
Wait, tarrant works for gift cards?
soledsoled: Wait, tarrant works for gift cards?
Well, he is getting a kick out of all these replies..
Well, he is getting a kick out of all these replies..
tarrant84: "Neil Fineman sued Windsor Fashions, a women's clothing store, on behalf of a group of consumers who bought from Windsor with a credit card and from whom Windsor got an address, phone number or email address. There was no allegation that anyone was actually harmed by this practice through something like identity theft, but it is a technical violation of a California statute."
That's why everyone was paid in gift cards.
Except for the people who got real money.
"Sure, the pleebs can get the gift cards, we still get cash!"
Seriously, how is that ethical at all?
That's why everyone was paid in gift cards.
Except for the people who got real money.
"Sure, the pleebs can get the gift cards, we still get cash!"
Seriously, how is that ethical at all?
mtman900: I can see right through your clever disguise, ARN.
Heh, not this time. I never post anonymously.
Heh, not this time. I never post anonymously.
someone who may or may not be ARN
2010-02-08 11:58:44.0
login to vote
score 2
mtman900: I can see right through your clever disguise, ARN.
action replay nick: Heh, not this time. I never post anonymously.
Except for that one time at Band Camp.
action replay nick: Heh, not this time. I never post anonymously.
Except for that one time at Band Camp.
tarrant84: You can settle a case for a ham sandwich. Settlement agreements are just that - agreements. They're contracts. The Plaintiff (lead class members and attorneys) and the Defendant seems to think it's a fair settlement, given the risk, the damages involved, strength / weaknesses of the case, etc.
The case might have serious holes in it.
Much as I agree that the lawyers need to be paid, they also have a moral obligation to achieve a fair settlement for the plaintiffs.
I'd like more details on how this went down, but if the lawyers decided that they had a weak case and felt the gift card settlement was the best way they could recoup their own costs then i'd say they deserve this.
The case might have serious holes in it.
Much as I agree that the lawyers need to be paid, they also have a moral obligation to achieve a fair settlement for the plaintiffs.
I'd like more details on how this went down, but if the lawyers decided that they had a weak case and felt the gift card settlement was the best way they could recoup their own costs then i'd say they deserve this.
I consider it unethical for attorneys to make settlements that benefit their own financial position at the expense of their clients'.
oftenrong: You hear the one about the lawyer with a sense of humor?
...
Me neither.
What do you call a lawyer that doesn't practice law? A gentleman.
...
Me neither.
What do you call a lawyer that doesn't practice law? A gentleman.
mtman900: What do you call a lawyer that doesn't practice law? A gentleman.
What do you call a prostitute who refuses to take payment?
I think you know the answer.
What do you call a prostitute who refuses to take payment?
I think you know the answer.
comicbookguy: What do you call a prostitute who refuses to take payment?
I think you know the answer.
Your mom.
I think you know the answer.
Your mom.
ludditemike: Your mom.
In such circumstances (with an emphasis on cumstances) the maternal instinct is correct.
In such circumstances (with an emphasis on cumstances) the maternal instinct is correct.
sabine: I consider it unethical for attorneys to make settlements that benefit their own financial position at the expense of their clients'.
That IS unethical. The problem here is the plaintiffs have no actual damages.
That IS unethical. The problem here is the plaintiffs have no actual damages.
tarrant84: That IS unethical. The problem here is the plaintiffs have no actual damages.
California Civic Code 1747.08: "Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty [...] payable [...] to the person paying with a credit card".
California Civic Code 1747.08: "Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty [...] payable [...] to the person paying with a credit card".
sabine: California Civic Code 1747.08: "Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty [...] payable [...] to the person paying with a credit card".
"However, no civil penalty shall be assessed for a violation of this section if the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error made notwithstanding the defendant's maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid that error."
That was probably the issue -- it came out that it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate "intended" for the breach.
Look, I don't agree with gift card settlements. I don't think they're ethical at all. However, sometimes when your case is sucking wind, all you can do is take anything. I'm guessing that was the case here.
"However, no civil penalty shall be assessed for a violation of this section if the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error made notwithstanding the defendant's maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid that error."
That was probably the issue -- it came out that it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate "intended" for the breach.
Look, I don't agree with gift card settlements. I don't think they're ethical at all. However, sometimes when your case is sucking wind, all you can do is take anything. I'm guessing that was the case here.
tarrant84: That was probably the issue -- it came out that it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate "intended" for the breach. Look, I don't agree with gift card settlements. I don't think they're ethical at all. However, sometimes when your case is sucking wind, all you can do is take anything. I'm guessing that was the case here.
And I'm guessing that the lawyer sold out his clients and saved himself the expense and risk of going to trial because he got paid in cash money.
And I'm guessing that the lawyer sold out his clients and saved himself the expense and risk of going to trial because he got paid in cash money.
sabine: And I'm guessing that the lawyer sold out his clients and saved himself the expense and risk of going to trial because he got paid in cash money.
The catch 22 is he would have taken it to trial and gotten a big fat goose egg. 0. nada.
That's also a unique issue with class action lawsuits. In 99% of them, the Plaintiffs aren't vested in the case. If a Plaintiff is in an accident, and has serious injuries, they clearly are vested in it.
However, these people were out 0 from the get go. They stand to get back a check for $10 if they win. That's why lawyers tend to be more self serving in class action lawsuits. The only one truly invested in it is the lawyer and the defendant.
The catch 22 is he would have taken it to trial and gotten a big fat goose egg. 0. nada.
That's also a unique issue with class action lawsuits. In 99% of them, the Plaintiffs aren't vested in the case. If a Plaintiff is in an accident, and has serious injuries, they clearly are vested in it.
However, these people were out 0 from the get go. They stand to get back a check for $10 if they win. That's why lawyers tend to be more self serving in class action lawsuits. The only one truly invested in it is the lawyer and the defendant.
tarrant84: The catch 22 is he would have taken it to trial and gotten a big fat goose egg. 0. nada.
Maybe. Maybe he would have prevailed.
tarrant84: They stand to get back a check for $10 if they win.
The way I read the statute, everybody should have gotten a check for at least $250, and some for maybe thousands more, depending on how they construe "subsequent". Coincidentally, the lead plaintiff got 25 of those $10 gift cards.
Maybe. Maybe he would have prevailed.
tarrant84: They stand to get back a check for $10 if they win.
The way I read the statute, everybody should have gotten a check for at least $250, and some for maybe thousands more, depending on how they construe "subsequent". Coincidentally, the lead plaintiff got 25 of those $10 gift cards.
sabine: Maybe. Maybe he would have prevailed.
The way I read the statute, everybody should have gotten a check for at least $250, and some for maybe thousands more, depending on how they construe "subsequent". Coincidentally, the lead plaintiff got 25 of those $10 gift cards.
You missed the next sentence:
"However, no civil penalty shall be assessed for a violation of this section if the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error made notwithstanding the defendant's maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid that error."
You have to demonstrate that they "intended" the violation to recover the civil penalty. If the demonstrate it was just an error, they will win at trial, and not intended, they win.
The way I read the statute, everybody should have gotten a check for at least $250, and some for maybe thousands more, depending on how they construe "subsequent". Coincidentally, the lead plaintiff got 25 of those $10 gift cards.
You missed the next sentence:
"However, no civil penalty shall be assessed for a violation of this section if the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error made notwithstanding the defendant's maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid that error."
You have to demonstrate that they "intended" the violation to recover the civil penalty. If the demonstrate it was just an error, they will win at trial, and not intended, they win.
tarrant84: You missed the next sentence
I saw it, and the other time you quoted it too. It's irrelevant here, because you said they stood to get $10 if they won. That sentence comes into play when determining whether they get anything at all, but not as to the amount once we've already assumed they won.
tarrant84: You have to demonstrate that they "intended" the violation to recover the civil penalty. If the demonstrate it was just an error, they will win at trial, and not intended, they win.
It's a moot point, because there wasn't a trial. This is the sort of case that makes people hate lawyers, though. The violator benefits, because nothing costs less than $10 in their store: they get more business. The only person that really gets paid is the attorney. If the attorney had either negotiated a meaningful cash settlement for the plaintiffs, as opposed to at best a coupon for 1/25th the value they should have received, or been forced to go to trial to recover, I would be happy.
I saw it, and the other time you quoted it too. It's irrelevant here, because you said they stood to get $10 if they won. That sentence comes into play when determining whether they get anything at all, but not as to the amount once we've already assumed they won.
tarrant84: You have to demonstrate that they "intended" the violation to recover the civil penalty. If the demonstrate it was just an error, they will win at trial, and not intended, they win.
It's a moot point, because there wasn't a trial. This is the sort of case that makes people hate lawyers, though. The violator benefits, because nothing costs less than $10 in their store: they get more business. The only person that really gets paid is the attorney. If the attorney had either negotiated a meaningful cash settlement for the plaintiffs, as opposed to at best a coupon for 1/25th the value they should have received, or been forced to go to trial to recover, I would be happy.
If you logged in, you could post here.