[As happens in more than 99% of all civil cases, the one I was taking to
trial last week settled - unlike most, though, at the last minute. So, I'm
playing catch-up.]
In a message dated 9/4/00 10:06:28 PM Central Daylight Time, paul@planetp.cc
writes:
> 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?
Yes - right on the latter count, and right in large part on the former. As
I've commented before, one of the things my increasingly libertarian
political philosophy has done is transform me from an opponent of contingency
fees to a proponent of them, precisely as a protection for "the little guy".
> [snip] . . . 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?
There isn't, which is why support for "public interest law firms" is so
important. Pioneered by Thurgood Marshall's NAACP "Inc. Fund" group and
carried on by the ACLU, there are dozens of such entities. Check out this
directory:
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Law/Attorneys_and_Law_Firms/Public_Interest/North_
America/United_States/
One I support now with contributions is the Institute for Justice:
I'm also a less-often-than-I-should-be supporter of the Southern Poverty Law
Center:
mainly because of their leadership in litigation against hate groups like the
Aryan Nation and the Klan. See:
http://www.splcenter.org/cgi-bin/goframe.pl?dirname=/whatsnew&pagename=index.h
tml
regarding the SPLC's victory last week over the Aryan Nation.
As part of a vital justice system that is truly bound by the rule of law and
which protects the rights of individuals, such institutions are at least as
important as an independent judiciary. Are public interest law firms a
panacea to the problem you identify, Paul? No, almost certainly not. At
least as important is general civic education that gives people the knowledge
that just receiving a cease-and-desist letter isn't the end of the game.
Unfortunately, the presence of a "nanny state" tends to lull people into
complacency about their legal rights, with the refrain that "there ought to
be a law" really meaning that "my interest should be preferred by the state".
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:36 MDT