Whoopee!!! I'm rich

[Ben Rafael]

Just got a check in the mail for $8.33 from a class action lawsuit. Lots of people got similar amounts. It was a result of a telecomm company overcharging a few pennies on each bill. I wonder how much the lawyers got?
What's the point of these lawsuits if the only ones getting rich are the lawyers?

[Greg Peterson]

Well, I imagine the lawyers probably did alright on this case. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Who is the guilty party? The lawyers that took the opportunity to make a buck and get the teleco to stop cheating their customers, or the teleco that instigated the whole mess.

The point of this is that some people and companies require negative consequences to inform their decisions. Lawsuits are not about getting rich. They are about extracting justice. Though there are countless examples of frivolous lawsuits and unreal payouts, these are the only cases we hear about. Would people prefer to not have any recourse to persons or companies that acted dishonestly or carelessly?

That said, your check means little to you. But the teleco will definitely be thinking twice about any future overcharges. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

[Tom Godley]

The point is the second half of your last sentence.

[Ben Rafael]

I dont know if the telecomm was actually wrongfully collecting money. The case never went to court, it was settled. Lawyers often try to shake down deep pocket companies for something.
There are lawyers who do nothing but create class action suits for the purpose of making money only, not pursuing justice. It is extortion.

I had an attorney I had done business with want his money back, he said I "neglected to disclose pertinent facts". He just wanted something for nothing. I told him to go pound sand, he said he would take it to small claims court and it would be his word against mine. My attorney advised me to offer him something because in court anything could happen. It was nothing but legal extortion. I dont do business with lawyers anymore as a result.

[Chris Padilla]

Yep, fully agree, in class actions, it isn't about getting any decent money out of the deal, it is making sure your complaints are heard and paid for by the deceivors. :)

[Ben Rafael]

Who are the deceivers?
The defendants or the attorneys shaking down honest businesses? It's not always what people think it is.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Bashing an entire profession on the sole thesis of one bad (or poorly understood) experience or some popular material that can't ever be verified is not a good way to go.

While it is true that lawyers are just as likely to possess any of the human frailties that plague the rest of the population there is no substance in the popular myths that they are somehow worse or bad or more greedy.


I know a rather large number of lawyers. The vast majority are entirely honorable. I've known a few rat's but only a few.

[Ben Rafael]

I'm not bashing all lawyers. I know a few good ones and a few that wouldn't hesitate to make a dishonest dollar.
A greedy lawyer is different than the average greedy person. The greedy lawyer has the ability to do wrong with little to no risk to himself.
For me or you to file suit even if we have been wronged can be a risky and costly affair.
With the ability to use the justice system comes a responsibility to use it responsibly.

[Greg Peterson]

I judge a man by his actions, not his profession.

There does seem to be a trend over recent years to cut our nose off in spite of our face. Sure there are some bad apples in any profession. And the bad ones know how to leverage the system to their selfish wants. Look at the guys on Wall Street. It would be easy to say they're all a bunch of crooks. But many of them are hard working and honest. Should we do away with the stock market simply because someone always finds a way to game the system? This year it is oils futures, last year it was sub prime loans. Before that it was the Internet bubble. Before that it was insider trading. Wall Street is seemingly always suffering some scandal. Yet we don't throw that baby out with the bath water, do we?

I find it almost laughable that a lawyer or a legal firm would be able to shake down a teleco that was operating honestly. They know how to protect their turf.

[Jim Becker]

This is actually a bright spot in the class-action world...so many of them only provide a coupon for you to spend more money with the offending party... ;) YOU, however...got cash. Enjoy a latté and a couple muffins with the proceeds! LOL

[Jeffrey Makiel]

I anticipate that your bill will go up at least $8.33 to pay for the legal defense.

In my experience, the legal profession in my state needs to be cleaned up. If doctors routinely performed frivolous surgeries like attorneys leading frivolous lawsuits, most of my organs would be gone by now.

-Jeff :)

[Ben Rafael]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I anticipate that your bill will go up at least $8.33 to pay for the legal defense
-Jeff :)

I dont use that telco anymore, but my current one is prolly being sued by somebody. When it comes down to it we all pay for frivolous lawsuits.
The bigger problem is that people who knowingly commit some wrong dont care because they dont have to pay, the company/stockholder pays, if this stuff had some personal liability attached then you would see a lot less of it.

And Jim, you hit the nail on the head, I bought a new coffeemaker today. The $8.33 should buy about 3/4 lb of good coffee.

[Jeffrey Makiel]

The bigger problem is that people who knowingly commit some wrong dont care because they dont have to pay, the company/stockholder pays, if this stuff had some personal liability attached then you would see a lot less of it.

Ben...personal liability can be attached as demonstrated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which puts criminal liability directly on the person within an organization responsible for the improper storage, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous waste.

I often wish that the RCRA philosophy be expanded to other business operations including civil service government. If a RCRA philosophy was implemented, can you imagine a health care insurer denying a client's treatment hoping that some percentage would not appeal?

-Jeff :)

[David G Baker]

Cliff,
Guess you haven't experienced the California legal system. The state could use the Pied Piper to thin out the rats.

[Jim King]

At least in the States you can assume for the most part that the Judge is trying to comply with a law beit right or wrong. Here in Peru they comply with who has the most money.

Side note: Lawyers here in the Amazon are unable to get credit of any kind. Plus a nice little story, the other day my lawyer who does our land transactions etc. got stopped on his motorcycle by a policewoman for not having his papers on him and she wrote a ticket. He said but I am a lawyer, she said I don´t care when handing him the ticket.

[John Shuk]

As written by Cliff Rohrbacher in a similar thread some time ago. Very well put I think:

Well before you damn the lawyers:

Class actions are not intended to pot the individual right because the harm to the individual isn't adequate to justify them undertaking their own expensive litigation. And where it is adequate the individual is not required to remain a class member but can opt out and seek their own solution.

Class actions are intended to punish a bad actor who has committed a small harm but has benefited by it because of scale of the victim pool.

Think of Master Charge getting an extra tenth of a penny from you each month that they should not have by miscalculating your interest. To the individual the harm is numerically insignificant to the Charge Card company the benefit is enormous.

The act of taking that tenth of a penny is wrong no matter the size of the harm.

So a class action stands to punish the bad actor.

That said class actions are very hard to prosecute and cost a lot of money. The Class representative ( some guy who stood up and said "HEY THAT'S NOT FAIR~!!") must pay for all the experts and costs it can be staggering.

The firm takes their money as a contingency unless there is a statute that provides for attorney fees.
The company's reps have to be deposed, mountains of documents have to be sifted through read and analyzed, experts must be retained and paid to both examine all sorts of things from financial records to physical items and then others to do the testifying.

It's a journey. The sole purpose is to prevent bad actors from wrongly harming great masses of people.

Class actions arise when the harms are substantial too. In such cases my suggestion is that the individuals who experiences the great harms take their cases individually. When they kill your spouse or cripple you you stand a better chance of being "made right" (as far as a court can make you right that is) by going direct.

And bear in mind that the evil lawyers are right there vindicating your rights.

The line that we often hear "First kill all lawyers" is a horrible misquote. The actual quote is taken from a play (Shakespear: Henry IV) where a horrible evil person wants to take over and reign tyranny upon the land. His advisers tell him" first kill the lawyers" because of course they will ruin his plans on tyranny by vindicating the rights of the people.
Here:
JACK CADE.
[...] I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be,- [...]
there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
(to which Dick the adviser pipes up)
DICK.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Don't hate lawyers. Lawyers enforce your contract rights, defend your civil rights and, help people navigate the insanely complex thing that is law.

Law is complex because humans in all their crazy diversity of thought and motive and conduct are - complex.

[Greg Peterson]

Ah heck, it's just easier to blame the lawyers. :D If we got rid of all the lawyers we'd have rainbows, cotton candy and everyone would get along like long lost best friends.

Those bad ol' lawyers going after those benevolent teleco's ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Jeffrey Makiel]

Ah heck, it's just easier to blame the lawyers. :D If we got rid of all the lawyers we'd have rainbows, cotton candy and everyone would get along like long lost best friends.

Those bad ol' lawyers going after those benevolent teleco's ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Actually, it's the lack of federal oversight on this and many other utilities these days is the problem. Anyone else performing this inherent watchdog function is simply in it for the money. Very inefficient. Very parasitic.

-Jeff :)

[Craig Summers]

Tort reform is a good idea, as long as the lawyers don't control the reform

my $.02: Make the lawyer financially responsible if they lose the suit. That is, if a lawyer takes a case and sues for $10 million and loses, the lawyer must pay the plaintiff $10 million. This would curtail the frivolous lawsuits that plague the system. :cool: