back

by apwheele·1y ago·view on hn ↗
While a favorable ruling for the Data Colada defendants seemed incredibly likely in the end (and of course being dismissed pre-trial before discovery is a good thing). But it still took over a year, and consisted of several pre-trial hearings with multiple back and forths between them. If I ctrl-f https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... I see Pyle (their lawyer) listed 11 times. All the motions and responses are a non-trivial amount of work.

Do folks have a sense of how much the costs would have been just to get dismissed for DC? Seems to be definitely over 10k (50k?) Or am I overestimating.

9 comments
I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't get out of bed for $10k:

https://princelobel.com/professional/jeffrey-j-pyle/

Although given that the New Yorker stated that Pyle "appeared not only professionally but personally incensed by the fact of the lawsuit", perhaps some of the work was pro bono.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-a-scientific-di...

Thankfully, a lot of the filings appear short enough that I doubt he's going to charge very much. I assume the retainer was still $20-30k, but they may get some of it back.

I was hoping that there would be some fee-shifting here, but it's federal court.

I would guess a 20-30k retainer in this occurrence would be a discounted retainer as well. I say this just based upon my personal experience with a few smaller firms.
If you're known to be good for the money, you can often get lower retainer bills from lawyers. That's why Donald Trump has to put up tens of millions for any legal project. Many of my lawyers do not ask for retainers for work at all, even for bigger things.
He's also running out of lawyers willing to commit perjury and risk disbarment on his behalf.
I don't know him or this case, but lawyers tend to often feel that way about the cases they are representing. I wouldn't think that means he's not billing.
Fortunately, they were able to raise quite a bit of money (>$300K) on GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
From the page: At present, Leif, Joe, and Uri do not have pro bono representation. The lawyers they’ve spoken to currently estimate that their defense could cost anywhere between $50,000 and $600,000 (depending on how far the lawsuit progresses).
That's scary, really. Having no money for this means you can't afford to fight these criminal crooks. Is this how this works in europe too?
In Europe, the losing party of a lawsuit generally has to pay for the winner's legal expenses ("English rule"). Never had to go to court so I don't know what you do about the expenses in the meanwhile, but at least there's light at the end of the tunnel when someone sues you just for the heck of it.
Europe may be too wide a categorization, I am pretty sure that different countries have different ways to deal with the matter.

My (thankfully very little) experience in Italy is for civil litigations at least (where it is rare that one of the two parties get 100% reason) expenses are usually compensated (i.e. every party pays their own ones), in the more rare case where all expenses are paid by the succumbing party, what is liquidated is not really what has been paid, but rather what the expenses would be along some sort of tariff.

If your solicitor/lawyer is a famous (presumably very good as you won) one, it is likely that the amount you spend is much higher than what the judge condemned the other party to reimburse you.

In the US, you can ask for fee-shifting if you have been sued frivolously or there has otherwise been some wrongdoing on the part of the other side. These guys may be able to motion for fee-shifting given that the case was dismissed at this early stage.

State defamation cases usually apply anti-SLAPP laws that automatically create fee-shifting in this exact circumstance, but this seems to be a federal case.

No, where I live (Germany) you usually have a legal insurance to cover this. The costs are around 30€ per month in my case.
Corporate liability insurance in the US, which is also a very common thing to get, often does not cover your defense against "intentional torts" such as defamation or fraud. It usually covers things like slips and falls, product-related liability, etc. I would be surprised if your German version covers defamation.
I live next door and have some legal insurance, but you need to pay attention to what coverage you get, because you need to select what categories you want coverage for; vehicles (e.g. if someone who caused an accident refuses to cooperate with you), consumer/housing disputes, work and salary, taxes / stocks, family issues like inheritances, second homes / real estate, etc etc etc. And of course, you can't take out insurance for an ongoing issue, it doesn't cover criminal cases (when you did a bad), business cases, etc.
Germany also regulates legal fees, so self-insurance is quite reasonable. I've now been involved in two cases (once as plaintiff, once as defendant) and it seems the amount I paid is approximately the same as I would have paid in legal insurance.
I was aware of that, but I would still be interested to know the actual costs. I do not think "it is ok to blog about potential fraud in scientific publications because GoFundMe will pay for my lawyers" is a good assumption for most individuals.

I see people saying it is a win for open science, and I just look at that Court Listener page and it still fills me with angst.

You are probably not overestimating.

Generally, I would guess conferring with the client on the facts, briefing, preparing for a hearing, and arguing a hearing would be north of, at least, 25k, assuming a lower-end rate estimate in the $800+ range and a lower-end work estimate of 30+ hours. If I had to bet, I'd go higher than the low-end estimate: both the rate and hours could be close to double. That said, the attorney / firm could be donating the time on this one.

It's not just the money. When you're the target of litigation, particularly irregular specialist domain stuff that it can really take over your life.

You might recover some of your legal costs from your opponent, but the disruption to your life will not be compensated.

Not to mention the time it takes. So not only are you losing money, losing time, and it's emotionally taxing, but you often aren't even making money during that time.
...it's also an almost perfectly calibrated torture.

You have the prospect of the thing hanging over you, like an iceberg moving your way that you can't avoid, unable to make long term plans because you have little idea what your schedule will be like after the next scheduled event. Maybe in 6 months it'll be over, maybe you'll be in the middle of a trial, or depositions, or who knows what.

There are huge delays where you can do little productive, waiting out a court decision or for your oppositions filing clock to run out. It's easy to fall into a trap of spending your time worrying if there is something you missed. And it can be difficult to adopt other activities to take your mind off it since you don't control your future schedule, and those activities might end up as evidence in the case particularly if the lawsuit is over something that is your profession or your passion[1].

Then you have sudden panics as unexpected things come up with short deadlines. Then back to the wait.

Third parties often don't get why being personally targeted by litigation, particularly frivolous litigation, is such an imposition. Sure the specific hours spent handling things are easily understood, but the inability to make plans and the psychic cost of living under threat are less easily understood by someone who hasn't been there themselves.

People are prone to discount the impact proportional to the frivolity of the case, but the legal system is adversarial-- you must fully and competently defend even a fairly frivolous case or you will lose. I think the case being entirely without merit in some sense makes the pressure worse, since your opposition can make moves to strategically impose on you as they had little to no prospect of winning unless you screw up, even if those moves ultimately make them more likely to fail.

A well founded case can be clean with few distractions, you set out the fact-- the court rules. Or doesn't even rule because once the facts are established you can reach a fair settlement. With a bullshit case, potentially anything could happen.

Perhaps some people have dispositions that handle having their neck on a chopping block for years without trouble. But I know people who have thrown cases they were as close to guaranteed to win as any simply because they couldn't handle the stress of it and would rather lose and have it be over.

[1] To give a concrete example, I was being sued for several billion dollars in relation to a volunteer open source project that I hadn't contributed to for a couple years. I made a pull request to an unrelated piece of open source software in an unrelated field (a driver for a telescope focuser motor) only to have that show up in my opponents filings as "evidence" that I was still contributing to the project at issue. This is a stupid claim, but it's a question of fact, and potentially enough to keep me from being dropped from the case on a summary basis.

As someone with extensive experience paying legal bills, I would guess the bill was well over $40,000 unless the lawyer did it pro bono.

Our legal system is badly broken in favor of lawyers making more money.

I’m not familiar with civil court in the US, but wouldn’t the plaintiff have to cover the legal expenses of the defendant, if the defendant is cleared? Or similar rulings.
No, both sides of a lawsuit are generally responsible for their own costs regardless of what the outcome is. There are some caveats to this, like anti-SLAPP laws, but that's how it generally goes. This is basically in contrast to every other western democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...

Even if it is, it happens months or years later, with today's interest rates you would still end up with a debt unless you have the capital. I'm not even talking about the emotional toll and stress, especially when you're the good guy, just have to prove it..
Have you seen Harvard's endowment?

I'm sure there's counterdamages and he can take a percentage

You are underestimating...
I would agree. I'm the defendant in a (frivolous) trademark infringement case and my firm (which does work for the EFF) averages about 2 hours per (substantial) page, at a rate of $500/hour. I do wonder in the back of my mind if I'm being taken to the cleaners...
I have a limited experience, only having been involved in one trademark case professionally and am not a lawyer, but this was a case that very quickly settled and fees were still close to $30,000.
> Or am I overestimating.

Ahh, sweet summer child who has never seen these kind of legal fees.

I do hope Gino gets socked with their legal fees.

This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws.