You clearly did not.
Is it your contention that that all (or at least the vast majority of)lawyers who become involved in (small individual damage) class actions are honorable, altruistic officers of the court who purely by happenstance become aware of some behavior by a corporation that causes relatively minor damage to a large number of people?
You persist in begrudging class action attorneys and their fees without any substance or evidence whatsoever. Nothing in your article indicates (a) that you've read the links; (b) have an understanding of class action as a positive agent of social litigation; (c) understand the legal process and practice of class action, including but not limited to its provisions for class exemptions; (d) have a shred of evidence of wrong doing. What part of your article is privvy to the details of a settlement, much less its honest appraisal? The part about you preferring $20 over a coupon??? The part about lawyers doing dick all to deserve their fees??? Is that what justice comes down to then -- an ignorant rant???
What does all this add up to? Yep, you're ignorant of class action. Moreover, having not bothered to make the effort of following the rather informative links I provided for your personal edification, you've compounded your ignorance with an intransigent show of stupidity. Why did you reply? There's no defense for wilful ignorance.
If so, how do you explain the rather large legal fees they receive in the settlement (once again, settlement, not the judge's (or jury's) decision)
How do you explain your annoying tendency to generalize an ignorance for the details of even *one* specific example of complex litigation into a blanket indictment of complex litigation? Nota bene: "I disagree with a settlement" or "I disagree with a judgement" are short sentence fragments not unlike "I ate green eggs and ham".
Why do you think settlements are necessarily bad? They are preferred in the theory of any court and, arguably, depending on a variety of factors that cannot be understood without regard to the specific circumstances of individual cases, can serve the class' interests better than a decision. The simple fact of the matter is that decisions are informed by laws whose tenor or letter may or
may not have caught up with a particular class injustice.
You have an interesting theory of dispute settlement, matched only by an ability to gainsay class action lawyers and their understanding of legal issues.
More importantly, and you miss this point with a vengeance, class action settlements must be reviewed and approved by the court. There are rules of civil procedure requiring elements for certification.
[i]t is, ultimately, in the settlement terms that the class representatives' judgment and the adequacy of their representation is either vindicated or found wanting. If the terms themselves are fair, reasonable, and adequate, the district court may fairly assume that they were negotiated by competent and adequate counsel; in such cases, whether another team of negotiators might have accomplished a better settlement is a matter equally comprised of conjecture and irrelevance.
There's much, much more where that came from had you bothered to follow the informative links I gave you. In short, there are standards for reviewing settlements that go beyond your inattention to detail and your inability to measure justice except according to the visible presence of an extra $20 in your wallet.
The simple fact of the matter is that,
without putting corporate america out of business, class action is considerably more effective than an insignificant dribble of small claims action.
Do mistakes happen? Certainly they happen; and despite the lack of any justification in your article and comments, there's an element in humanity that warrants your criticism.
There is also means and precedent for litigating unfair settlements whenever a corporate presence feels it is in their best interests to be punished twice.
But how about losing the personal attacks?
What personal attack? I've doing nothing more than point out a rather evident weakness in your ad hominem attacks on lawyers as a group. The weakness is this: winpimp2k may have demonstrated an ignorant foolishness, but surely that doesnt mean all geeks are idiots as a rule, does it?
Again, your unfair categorization of class action on the basis of a coupon outrage that is uninformed by any detail or knowledge is an indefensible J O K E.
[ Parent ]