GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> Paul, please tell me how I can make this true for my clients. Many (but not
> all) of my clients are these "big corporations" you've been talking about.
> My client in the trial I'm starting on Wednesday would certainly qualify. I
> suppose I've been wasting all the work I've done over this holdiay weekend,
> since our victory is assured .
Assured? Never once said it was assured. However, when you take into account all
case law throughout the 20th century, I'd be very surprised to learn that the
larger and more well financed legal team is not the victor in the majority of
cases - *especially if the corporation is the plaintiff.* The most obvious
exceptions are ones involving corporations as defendants in liability cases. In
those cases the potential payoff to the plaintiff lawyers could be substantial,
thereby increasing the chances of the little guy gaining the support of an equally
sizable legal team. Sounds to me like you are representing the corporation as a
defendant in this case, yes?
I don't know the facts of your particular case, but I do wish you the best of luck
with your trial either way Greg. :-)
> FYI, the plaintiffs in this case haven't paid a dime for the two top-ranked
> lawyers who have been busting their butts to win this case for months. Not a
> dime. Their payday only comes with a plaintiff's verdict, and then after an
> appeal (which I guarantee they'll have to go through, if we don't like the
> outcome at trial).
>
> So what am I missing?
Ok, so your case does involves corporate liability? Then what your missing is
when the tables are turned, and the corporation is the plaintiff. What chances
does the little guy have then? Unless that person is also an 800lb gorilla, or
the lawsuit is clearly frivolous, that little guy will have no choice but to fold
in fear of an expensive lawsuit they cannot afford, or get lucky enough to gain
the support of an expensive legal team due to any potential landmark precedents it
might set. The most recent and poignant case is Eric Corley of 2600 who is
getting the support of the EFF because of its landmark implications on the First
Amendment. I can tell you right now, if it wasn't for the support of the EFF,
Eric Corley would be probably br history regardless of the intrinsic justice in
the case. And that is the injustice of the system - those who can't afford the
money for a defense against a corporate plaintiff have little chance at all.
Overwhelmingly when an individual citizen or smaller organization or company
receives a cease and desist letter, they are going to comply regardless of what
might be legal or just, simply because they cannot afford emotionally or
financially the alternative. So where is the justice in that?
Paul Hughes
http://planetp.cc/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:09 MDT