It's a one minute of fame only and no easy payday because Google will very happily take this all the way to the Supreme Court, and that will take years.

Google does not mind that at all, but Stephen Gorny is probably going to get tired of this in about five years.

Under absolutely no circumstances will Google be willing to settle the case because if they do, there will be an avalanche of similar lawsuits filed.

The whole point of a case like this is for the lawyer to get his name in the news so that when people need legal services and look in the phone book, they will recognize his name, and hopefully think he's a good lawyer.

Stephen Gorny's name is in the news now, and many people won't even remember what it was for. They will only remember that it was an important case.

I doubt very much he's spending his money to do it. It is a virtual certainty that the case is being done on a contingency fee basis.

And I'm sure the lawyers that have taken on the case realize that they will have to invest a significant amount of time with a very small chance of a very large settlement. One third of the amount awarded commonly goes to the lawyers in a contingency fee case. It's a minimum of one fourth, and sometimes it's one half.

Think about that the next time you read about a huge settlement that was awarded by a jury. The contingency fee basis for payment of legal services is illegal in the UK, and as a direct result of that, they don't have a problem with frivolous cases clogging up the courts.

I tend to think that the lawyers involved are not doing it with much hope of a big payday from the case. Instead, they are doing it in order to get their name in the public eye in order to establish a profitable law practice.

But if they do win, in addition to a large payday, they will also possibly get every lawyer's dream come true, which is to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

You know for a fact that Google is going to fight this case as much as possible, has unlimited funds, is very happy to spend them on the case, and won't mind going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Because, Google can't afford to lose.

Illegal?

In a contingent fee arrangement, the attorney only gets paid if they prevail. The plaintiff is still liable for the expenses incurred. Pretty much a disincentive to taking frivolous cases in the first place, much less to trial. No attorney is going to take such a case on a contingency basis, especially versus a well-heeled defendant unless there is a probability of recovering more than the time and costs expended. Hourly plus expenses perhaps, contingency not so much.

By all means, enlighten me...

No recovery, no fee for services to the client. Attorney representing a client typically advances costs, so they're not likely to take frivolous cases due to the significant potential for losing money paid for filing fees, expert witnesses, depostions,etc., etc.

So tell me, why should a procedure that allows someone who otherwise might not be able to underwrite the costs and hourly fee arrangement be declared illegal?

As I posted above: "The contingency fee basis for payment of legal services is illegal in the UK, and as a direct result of that, they don't have a problem with frivolous cases clogging up the courts."

This isn't even worth discussing.

Sorry, I was commenting solely with respect to your 9:08 post on illegality. I didn't read the one you mentioned above.

Nevertheless, the primary reason British courts aren't clogged up as you state is due to the so-called "British Rule" wherein the loser of the litigation pays the costs of both parties. That is what deters frivolous law suits, not the absence of contingency fee arrangements. Eliminating contingency fee arrangements would only inhibit the ability of someone unable to pay a large retainer and ongoing hourly fees and expenses. Again, no lawyer in his right mind is going to take a loser case and invest a lot of time and money into it just to have the matter dismissed or be a certain loser if it goes to trial. It can also be considered an ethical violation by the attorney filing the case.

American jurisprudence determined the absence of such fee agreements would have an undue chilling effect preventing certain worthy plaintiffs from otherwise pursuing their legal remedies. When a plaintiff files a frivolous lawsuit or Motion, regardless of the fee arrangement the offending party can still be subject to Court ordered monetary sanctions. I've seen it so ordered.

No, I have never been involved in a lawsuit except for,,, well,,, once over my student loans, and one time I was an interpreter for a woman when there was a bit of worry about whether her lawyer would clearly understand what she was telling him while meeting with him over a case that I thought was rather frivolous.

She was being sued for $75,000, and the case ended up with a $10,000 settlement. It was my opinion that if they had put up a vigorous defense, the plaintiff would have been awarded nothing, but it would have cost her insurance company so much money for legal defense that it was cheaper to just settle it for that. I'm sure that's quite common.

And, I spend an enormous amount of time reading all kinds of news from all over the world.