Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit? • Hacker News Board

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#71

Post by 6stringmerc » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:46 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #70

6stringmerc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling. The abuse of the legal system is, from my perspective, extremely tied to the fiscal means of the involved parties. I say this having been called to potentially be on a jury involving a claim of breach of confidentiality over a Rothko painting, asking for more than $3…

I'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling. I'm not certain why, either, seeing as how Citizens United was about core political speech, Federal government censorship of a video about a candidate for federal office, which if the First Amendment, specifically: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom…

I guess I mean in practical outcomes - that money equates to speech, therefore freedom of money in politics has done the exact opposite of campaign finance reform.

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#72

Post by mamon » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:46 PM UTC

TomGullen wrote: post #62

mamon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corruption is, by definition, bribing government officials for personal gain. Therefore corruption can only exist in the areas that are not fully free, but are regulated by a government.

So I set up "toms safety certification" in libertopia and a company that sells children's toys that cause children die from choking on small parts bribe me to let them pass and I accept, this is not corruption? Corruption by definition is not bribing government officials. Show me that definition? Corruption by definition is actually fraudulent activity by those in power, where government is one entity that has power.…

The difference is that if private institution that issues "toms safety certification" takes a bribe it is a very shortsighted strategy - such certificates will be very soon considered untrustworthy and general public will start to ignore them, therefore putting certificate institution out of business. Government-powered institutions can take bribes for years, or even decades without ever being punished for that, or being put out of business.

And yes, limiting government competencies is the best way to limit corruption.As one of Polish politicians put it:

"You don't fight the leeches by catching them by their tails, you fight them by draining the swamp they live in."

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#73

Post by crusso » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:09 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #30

Afforess wrote: post #12

I think the concern with investing in lawsuits should be focused on secondary motives. Lawsuits with lots of investors will have attorneys with secondary motives, such as keeping the case active as long as possible to continue to attract more investors, rather than resolve it. Perpetual cases could bog down courts in never-ending lawsuits and countersuit challenges, a legal version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Do…

Sounds like something the free market would solve, no?

I'm not sure I follow you. The legal system is outside of the free market.

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#74

Post by TomGullen » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:10 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #72

TomGullen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I set up "toms safety certification" in libertopia and a company that sells children's toys that cause children die from choking on small parts bribe me to let them pass and I accept, this is not corruption? Corruption by definition is not bribing government officials. Show me that definition? Corruption by definition is actually fraudulent activity by those in power, where government is one entity that has power.…

The difference is that if private institution that issues "toms safety certification" takes a bribe it is a very shortsighted strategy - such certificates will be very soon considered untrustworthy and general public will start to ignore them, therefore putting certificate institution out of business. Government-powered institutions can take bribes for years, or even decades without ever being punished for that, or b…

I'm glad you understand that corruption is not exclusive to societies with government now.

Safety certification businesses competing with each other will become a function of publicity above all else, who can market and present themselves in the best way over which certificate authority actually is most stringent.

Individuals generally do not have the time or skill to evaluate which safety certification meets their own values (and if in fact their own values are even sensible and rational!).

This is why it's generally better (note: not perfect) to trust this function to a government who probably will do a better job and can be more trusted of it than a for profit institution that has conflict of interest baked into their entire model.

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#75

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #67

rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plaintiffs have zero interest in lengthening cases and neither do litigation funders. Litigation funders are paying the attorney's fees and ending the case more quickly reduces how much they have to invest. Reaching a resolution quickly also reduces how long they have to wait to get a recovery.

Plaintiffs and litigation funders have no interest in lengthening cases once they feel they have a high likelihood of winning. Until that point, lengthen away! Better to string it out and win than finish it up quick and lose.

[deleted]

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#76

Post by Frondo » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #70

6stringmerc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling. The abuse of the legal system is, from my perspective, extremely tied to the fiscal means of the involved parties. I say this having been called to potentially be on a jury involving a claim of breach of confidentiality over a Rothko painting, asking for more than $3…

I'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling. I'm not certain why, either, seeing as how Citizens United was about core political speech, Federal government censorship of a video about a candidate for federal office, which if the First Amendment, specifically: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom…

No freedom is or has ever been absolute, certainly not 1st amendment freedoms (e.g. fraud).

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#77

Post by rayiner » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

dbot wrote: post #69

Afforess wrote: post #12

I think the concern with investing in lawsuits should be focused on secondary motives. Lawsuits with lots of investors will have attorneys with secondary motives, such as keeping the case active as long as possible to continue to attract more investors, rather than resolve it. Perpetual cases could bog down courts in never-ending lawsuits and countersuit challenges, a legal version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Do…

There should not be any communication between the lawyers and investors, and that rule should be enshrined in the ABA Code of Conduct in the same way that ethical walls are a requirement. If the client wants to manage the relationship with investors, set expectations for success, returns, etc...that's one thing. But the lawyer is an advocate for the client, and that relationship is compromised the moment s/he begins…

That is what happens in practice, because communication between lawyers and investors are not protected by attorney-client privilege and neither the lawyers nor the funders want to risk compromising the suit by communicating with each other.

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#78

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:30 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #67

rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plaintiffs have zero interest in lengthening cases and neither do litigation funders. Litigation funders are paying the attorney's fees and ending the case more quickly reduces how much they have to invest. Reaching a resolution quickly also reduces how long they have to wait to get a recovery.

Plaintiffs and litigation funders have no interest in lengthening cases once they feel they have a high likelihood of winning. Until that point, lengthen away! Better to string it out and win than finish it up quick and lose.

[deleted]

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#79

Post by rayiner » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #67

rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plaintiffs have zero interest in lengthening cases and neither do litigation funders. Litigation funders are paying the attorney's fees and ending the case more quickly reduces how much they have to invest. Reaching a resolution quickly also reduces how long they have to wait to get a recovery.

Plaintiffs and litigation funders have no interest in lengthening cases once they feel they have a high likelihood of winning. Until that point, lengthen away! Better to string it out and win than finish it up quick and lose.

> Better to string it out and win than finish it up quick and lose.

In practice, it's the defense that will string out a case hoping that the plaintiff runs out of money before the case reaches judgment on the merits. Plaintiffs want to win quick, or at least lose quick before they invest too much in the case.

Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?

#80

Post by jerf » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #53

marklgr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If this swamps the courts, all the better, because that will force legislators to act, which will then cause a debate, which will be useful to society." Considering the amount of problems that currently exist and that forced nobody to do much, I don't think the "if , then and " idea is a particularly good bet.

It's akin to the originally Marxist notion of "heightening the contradictions". http://acceleratethecontradictions.blogspot.com/2010/04/acce... The theory is that some system is inherently bad or broken but people in general don't quite realize it, so if it gets worse it will be more obviously bad and then they'll then actually deal with it. Although sometimes this kind of behavior does happen (for example, someone c…

"it seems like a risky theory of social change."

It implicitly and falsely assumes that everybody will agree on what the solution is. In the presence of differences brought on not merely by "false consciousness" but by legitimate differences in opinions and desires, it fails the basic Kantian imperative to not do something that breaks society if everybody does it, because it means that everybody who disagrees with some policy, which is always somebody, should try to break things, rather than fix things. In the local vernacular, this "scales poorly".

(I am really tempted to say that Marxists are prone to this, but it would be an over-specific adjective. Truth is, almost everybody "knows" that deep down, everybody else is secretly really like them, and it's just a lack of knowledge or external influence that leads to apparently disagreements. However, the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts this belief. Even in the presence of hostile external actions or lack of knowledge, well, how do you know that you are not the one lacking knowledge or subject to external influence? And many people's value systems legitimately differ.)