Comments on: Litigation double standards

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:57:59 +0000

Like I said, if it’s irrelevant (and I agree that it is irrelevant to the merits, though not to the question of class certification), the plaintiffs’ attorneys shouldn’t get to argue to the jury about their supposedly spotless motives. But once they do, they’ve put it at isssue, and it’s only fair to let the jury hear the whole truth.

By: michael walsh

michael walsh — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:53:40 +0000

The intent matters? So let me get this straight. A case with merit by a company who intentionally cheated, defrauded or otherwise screwed its customers should be tossed because the intent was, what? To make money? But if the intent is genuine and sincere, but the case is crap, we should let it go? Motive and merit have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Cases with merit should proceed and succeed. Cases without merit should get flushed.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:31:46 +0000

“There may be some ethical violations on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, but even if there are, that doesn’t mean the plaintiffs should be barred from recovery.”

Yes, it does. The ONLY way to make unethical behaviour unPROFITABLE is make sure that unethical behaviour ALWAYS results in a lost case. That aligns the interests of the lawyer with the interests of the public (ethical behaviour).

In this particular case, “how the plaintiffs bcame plaintiffs” was to do something WITH THE INTENT of suing for it. In most cases, that is at best a non-starter, and in many cases, it is outright fraud.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:43:30 +0000

While I think the main problem with the law today is too many lawyers, certainly we have to fix class action lawsuits. Heck, why fix when you can eliminate them entirely.

At one time it made sense to lump a bunch of identical claims into one case. But the way the law has been perverted, class action attorneys don’t even need a real group of plaintiffs.

And here’s the worse part, without a real plaintiff, the class action attorney’s sole financial duty lies with himself! That’s why those guys make millions while the class receives coupons. There is no legal incentive or duty to protect a class which has no real participation in the litigation.

By: TC

TC — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:44:32 +0000

Break up the Club, and this crap stops!

Civil trials, gets a civilian judge!

Result I’d bet will be close to justice that normal people can recognize!

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:20:46 +0000

The plaintiffs’ attorneys thought it relevant enough to lie to the jury about the plaintiffs. If it’s irrelevant, then keep it out entirely. If it’s relevant, then tell the jury the full story. There’s no circumstances where this result is appropriate.

By: Justinian Lane

Justinian Lane — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:05:47 +0000

Of what relevance is how the plaintiffs came to be plaintiffs? There may be some ethical violations on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, but even if there are, that doesn’t mean the plaintiffs should be barred from recovery.

For the record, I’m a former Microsoft employee and from what little I’ve read about this case, I think it’s bogus. (My employment with MS ended in 2000, and I have no financial interest in the company now whatsoever.)

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:49:08 +0000

Is Mr. Mann seriously arguing that it’s alright to mislead a jury, so long as the opposing party is relatively wealthy?

By: Ted Mann

Ted Mann — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:30:16 +0000

Poor Microsoft! Think how much their attorneys will make rabidly defending even inch of terrotory as they fight a scorched earth “rear-guard” campaign. Don’t regular people have rights too? And how will those rights be effectuated against mega-corporations with unlimited budgets (like Microsoft) unless well-funded plaintiff lawyers are around?