Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   "How many law firms does it take to sue an egg company? 34, apparently"   (forbes.com) divider line 52
    More: Asinine, law firms  
•       •       •

7889 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Sep 2012 at 4:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 12:52:24 PM  
i385.photobucket.com

YOU BETTER RUN, EGG!
 
2012-09-12 01:14:31 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.google.com

I didn't even know he had that many brothers.
 
2012-09-12 01:34:50 PM  
farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-12 01:37:07 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

Egg.
 
2012-09-12 01:44:58 PM  
Actually isn't all that surprising they have so many firms in a class action case, especially if its national and they may need local counsel in the various state jurisdictions as well. I participated as an attorney in a class action during the mortgage meltdown regarding mortgage inducement fraud against a big bank(you can guess which one). You had one or two main firms at the national level that did basically all the hard work. However, they contracted out to various individual small firms at the state level in order to handle direct client communication, get signatures for representation and explain how things worked, and acquire copies of the documents needed and send it in one formatted bundle. There was a little more but those were the biggies and we were paid a flat fee per client. Luckily we didn't have to wait till settlement and were paid upfront by the national firm for the work completed.

Also, 20% of the total in legal fees is a bargain as well where most contingency cases garner 28-40% on average (40% if trial obviously) so not sure why the reporter acts shocked at that number.
 
2012-09-12 02:46:37 PM  
I've warned you all about lawyers and been pretty much snubbed. Now, vindication is starting to appear, 20 years after I started yelling myself silly.

Lawyers generated the need for lawyers. It's a self perpetuating field. Pretty much like bank charge cards, including the ability to charge whatever they want.

I recently had some documents drawn up and I went to a paralegal, who charged me about $50. Had I gone to a lawyer, the fee's started at $350.00. My last lawyer charged me $2500 to handle an estate. He actually never did much of the work himself -- aside from freezing and confiscating the deceased's bank accounts for 'expenses', but spread the work out among his employees.

Legal shiat has become increasingly complicated because the lawyers have made it so, which means they generate more work for themselves because the average person has no idea just what in the f**k they're talking about.
 
2012-09-12 04:11:40 PM  

Rik01: Lawyers generated the need for lawyers.


False. Dishonesty and incompetence generated "the need for lawyers."

Rik01: My last lawyer charged me $2500 to handle an estate. He actually never did much of the work himself -- aside from freezing and confiscating the deceased's bank accounts for 'expenses', but spread the work out among his employees.


And how do you think he pays those employees? Look, $2500 is a bargain to handle an estate. Do you know how to deal with that shiat? Do you have the time for it?
 
2012-09-12 04:13:16 PM  

Jubeebee: [encrypted-tbn0.google.com image 275x183]

I didn't even know he had that many brothers.


We're done here.
 
2012-09-12 04:16:48 PM  
How about adding two more and making it an even three dozen?
 
2012-09-12 04:19:27 PM  
i40.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-12 04:20:24 PM  
34 is nearly three dozen law firms. And that's terrible.
 
2012-09-12 04:23:53 PM  
I'm trying to figure out who all the egg companys are that are in this lawsuit and what its about.
 
2012-09-12 04:24:22 PM  

Rik01: . My last lawyer charged me $2500 to handle an estate. He actually never did much of the work himself -- aside from freezing and confiscating the deceased's bank accounts for 'expenses', but spread the work out among his employees.


So, basically, he gave you a great deal. I had my dad's estate where I was the executor and sole heir. I could have done it myself, technically. After reading through the process, I got a lawyer. I would have paid her twice what I did just because I didn't have to push paper through the courthouse and could sic her on people playing silly buggers. The ability to say "I want X done" - and then not have to worry about it until she reported back that X got done was soooooo worth the money.
 
2012-09-12 04:26:07 PM  
AH I found the deatails of the case.
 
2012-09-12 04:26:42 PM  
Probably for Land o' Lakes, they had to get a lawyer for the first Indian on the package, and then another lawyer for the second Indian in the picture they're holding, and then another lawyer for the picture of the picture of the Indian that that Indian's holding. And then another lawyer for the Indian in the picture of the picture of the picture that they're holding, and then, well, it goes on...
 
2012-09-12 04:28:06 PM  

Rik01: Lawyers generated the need for lawyers. It's a self perpetuating field.


Quit voting for lawyers. (not you personally, pretty sure you don't)
 
2012-09-12 04:28:26 PM  
Which came first, the la[w]yer or the egg?
 
2012-09-12 04:32:50 PM  
i129.photobucket.com

Laws are a human invention. I've always thought about that phrase, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. So, what human can name all the laws they live under? Zero. Therefore, I propose...20 laws we must abide by. No more, no less. if we have to abide by a new law, an old one is removed. Always 20, an amount any human can remember. Litigious personnel have the same future ahead of them as those who deal with finances and marketing; namely, no future. Oh sure for the time being there's work, but when all of humanity's needs are met, there will be no more need for them. I won't live to see that day, mores the pity. Though the real pity I feel is for those engaged in such work and what they think of themselves. I'm sure they go home, look in the mirror, and say to their reflection "Today I did absolutely nothing to further the progress of humankind, and probably hindered it in my own special way".
 
2012-09-12 04:38:50 PM  
The incredible actionable egg.
 
2012-09-12 04:39:19 PM  

indylaw: Rik01: Lawyers generated the need for lawyers.

False. Dishonesty and incompetence generated "the need for lawyers."

Rik01: My last lawyer charged me $2500 to handle an estate. He actually never did much of the work himself -- aside from freezing and confiscating the deceased's bank accounts for 'expenses', but spread the work out among his employees.

And how do you think he pays those employees? Look, $2500 is a bargain to handle an estate. Do you know how to deal with that shiat? Do you have the time for it?


Not only that, there are huge liabilities for the mismanagement of the estate. I doubt Rik01 would have been willing to assume those liabilities - liabilities to the federal government, state government, creditors, the estate itself, and benificiaries.
 
2012-09-12 04:40:22 PM  
I use to work for LoL, and the one thing that irk'd me was in the beginning they didn't if they wanted to be corporation of a co-op. They chose co-op thus making the farmers have a huge say in the products that their milk goes in, which is fine, but then they sell off their label to other companies like Dean Foods. People would ask me why LoL's cottage cheese sucks, and I would say, we don't make it, and it does suck.
 
2012-09-12 04:48:51 PM  

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 752x497]

Laws are a human invention. I've always thought about that phrase, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. So, what human can name all the laws they live under? Zero. Therefore, I propose...20 laws we must abide by. No more, no less. if we have to abide by a new law, an old one is removed. Always 20, an amount any human can remember. Litigious personnel have the same future ahead of them as those who deal with finances and marketing; namely, no future. Oh sure for the time being there's work, but when all of humanity's needs are met, there will be no more need for them. I won't live to see that day, mores the pity. Though the real pity I feel is for those engaged in such work and what they think of themselves. I'm sure they go home, look in the mirror, and say to their reflection "Today I did absolutely nothing to further the progress of humankind, and probably hindered it in my own special way".


You are truly one of the great sages of our time.
 
2012-09-12 04:51:29 PM  
Dewey, Cheadham and Howe.
 
2012-09-12 04:53:37 PM  
34? Really?

I would have guessed 50.
 
2012-09-12 04:56:19 PM  
This is a good first start.

Disclosure: I don't have anything against lawyers. Without them we wouldn't have John Grisham novels.
 
2012-09-12 05:02:04 PM  
Considering that the lawyers are only asking for a 20% contingency, and $487k in disbursements, the plaintiffs actually got it pretty well off. Most class-actions will result in a third taken off in fees, and another good chunk in disbursements. The number of law firms that are getting paid might seem ridiculous, but it only means that the principal firms that worked on that settlement have to share their, NOT the successful plaintiff's, earnings with others.
 
2012-09-12 05:09:09 PM  
And this is why I actually don't care about the "binding arbitration" clauses and class-action waivers. Sure, it removes a punitive tool from the customers, but that's a small price to pay to tell the lawyers to fark off.
 
2012-09-12 05:11:33 PM  

Rik01: I've warned you all about lawyers and been pretty much snubbed. Now, vindication is starting to appear, 20 years after I started yelling myself silly.

Lawyers generated the need for lawyers. It's a self perpetuating field. Pretty much like bank charge cards, including the ability to charge whatever they want.

I recently had some documents drawn up and I went to a paralegal, who charged me about $50. Had I gone to a lawyer, the fee's started at $350.00. My last lawyer charged me $2500 to handle an estate. He actually never did much of the work himself -- aside from freezing and confiscating the deceased's bank accounts for 'expenses', but spread the work out among his employees.

Legal shiat has become increasingly complicated because the lawyers have made it so, which means they generate more work for themselves because the average person has no idea just what in the f**k they're talking about.


To be fair. You are not the lone siren that everyone should have heeded. Since the beginnings of lawyers there has been discontent with them.

But you are right. It is a system that was forged by those who benefit the most. But that is the way of everything.

The only way to change, is to enact change.
 
2012-09-12 05:23:39 PM  

ProfessorOhki: And this is why I actually don't care about the "binding arbitration" clauses and class-action waivers. Sure, it removes a punitive tool from the customers, but that's a small price to pay to tell the lawyers to fark off.


That is all well and good, as long as you are aware you are a) encouraging the corporate counsel who invented and implemented those tools and b) fine to let large corporations use yet another technique to avoid accountability.

/lawyers are like guns - arguing that getting rid of either will prevent people from doing bad things ignores the distinction between a tool and the person who uses it.
 
2012-09-12 05:24:12 PM  

ProfessorOhki: And this is why I actually don't care about the "binding arbitration" clauses and class-action waivers. Sure, it removes a punitive tool from the customers, but that's a small price to pay to tell the lawyers to fark off.


well... that's like telling the heart surgeon to fark off weeks before your heart attack. those clauses give you power.
 
2012-09-12 05:27:29 PM  

pute kisses like a man: ProfessorOhki: And this is why I actually don't care about the "binding arbitration" clauses and class-action waivers. Sure, it removes a punitive tool from the customers, but that's a small price to pay to tell the lawyers to fark off.

well... that's like telling the heart surgeon to fark off weeks before your heart attack. those clauses give you power.


But this way he gets to say screw you to those smug doctors . . .
 
2012-09-12 05:52:47 PM  

pute kisses like a man: ProfessorOhki: And this is why I actually don't care about the "binding arbitration" clauses and class-action waivers. Sure, it removes a punitive tool from the customers, but that's a small price to pay to tell the lawyers to fark off.

well... that's like telling the heart surgeon to fark off weeks before your heart attack. those clauses give you power.


Being part of a class gets me $1.50, gets some lawyers $10m, and ends up reflected in the price of goods one way or the other. I understand and can appreciate the intended use, but I find it hard to believe the majority of them serve the average guy's best interests in the long run.

pute kisses like a man: ProfessorOhki: And this is why I actually don't care about the "binding arbitration" clauses and class-action waivers. Sure, it removes a punitive tool from the customers, but that's a small price to pay to tell the lawyers to fark off.

well... that's like telling the heart surgeon to fark off weeks before your heart attack. those clauses give you power.


This analogy would require heart surgeons to go around trying to perform surgeries on people for-profit regardless of if they're actually needed. Which... actually, probably does happen, but I digress. Teiritzamna's gun analogy is decent and every tool has it's use, but "by using this you agree not to shoot us," aren't exactly the most offensive terms I've read, you know? Well, and if we follow that analogy a bit further you end up with things like "hey, maybe a gun isn't the right tool for the job" and "maybe various industries would be better if it wasn't a constant shootout."
 
2012-09-12 05:54:15 PM  

Rik01: Lawyers generated the need for lawyers.


One lawyer in a town will starve. Two will both make a comfortable living.

/don't know to whom to attribute the quote. Surely some Farker somewhere does. Thanks
 
2012-09-12 05:57:19 PM  

Mr. Right: Rik01: Lawyers generated the need for lawyers.

One lawyer in a town will starve. Two will both make a comfortable living.

/don't know to whom to attribute the quote. Surely some Farker somewhere does. Thanks


Never heard it. It's idiotic.
 
2012-09-12 05:58:36 PM  
At those rates you are better of getting a bunch of hookers. If your going to get screwed you might as well enjoy it.
 
2012-09-12 06:06:37 PM  

Mr. Right: Rik01: Lawyers generated the need for lawyers.

One lawyer in a town will starve. Two will both make a comfortable living.

/don't know to whom to attribute the quote. Surely some Farker somewhere does. Thanks


Actually, the quote I heard was "If you have one lawyer in a town, he'll make a living and not much more. Let another one move in and damned if the don't both get rich."
 
2012-09-12 06:09:35 PM  

indylaw: Mr. Right: Rik01: Lawyers generated the need for lawyers.

One lawyer in a town will starve. Two will both make a comfortable living.

/don't know to whom to attribute the quote. Surely some Farker somewhere does. Thanks

Never heard it. It's idiotic.


It has been sometime attributed to Mark Twain http://lawmrh.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/overrated-sleep-book-reading-an d-lawyers-in-a-one-horse-town/
 
2012-09-12 06:10:30 PM  
It's the rule of 34.
 
2012-09-12 06:25:17 PM  

ProfessorOhki: This analogy would require heart surgeons to go around trying to perform surgeries on people for-profit regardless of if they're actually needed. Which... actually, probably does happen, but I digress. Teiritzamna's gun analogy is decent and every tool has it's use, but "by using this you agree not to shoot us," aren't exactly the most offensive terms I've read, you know? Well, and if we follow that analogy a bit further you end up with things like "hey, maybe a gun isn't the right tool for the job" and "maybe various industries would be better if it wasn't a constant shootout."


See now this is an even headed and well reasoned response, which is much less fun as i am now honor bound to reply in kind. My feelings w/r/t class actions is that there are four states we can have:

1) All wrongful acts of companies can be regulated by a government
The problem with this framework is that it is very very costly, and the costs get borne by all taxpayers. This could be fixed by having all government enforcement paid by the companies enforced. This system (call it 1a) is already getting pretty close to a class action system, as we shall see, but there is a flaw, in that investigation and the front end of enforcement still cost money, and it would be unconstitutional to make a company pay for the costs of investigating it if it turns out the company did no wrong.

2) The government regulates some activity, but allows citizens to seek redress, but only individually
Under system 2, the government can focus (theoretically) on certain regulatory acts, hopefully those that most impact taxpayers or that require a large stable framework, such as licensing of drugs, and leave enforcement of harms that affect a smaller subset to those actually affected. The problem here is one of collective action. A company can screw over hundreds of thousands of people, as long as they screw 'em over just a little. This may not sound like much, but to give an example: let us imagine a rental car company overcharges you for gas. You took a long vacation and the overages = $150. The contract between you and the company clearly states that this overcharge is improper. The filing fees alone for a suit would likely cost $150 - let alone the cost of the time you would need to spend seeking redress (time off work, hours spent studying contract law, etc). So you say - meh and lodge a complaint with a better business bureau and move on. If the company did this to 100,000 customers, they would be illegally earning $15 mil and would know they would face almost no threat of enforcement.

3) The government regulates some activity, but establishes a bounty system such that parties can seek redress for all harms done at once
This is the present class action system more or less. It is a statutorily sanctioned bounty system, where the bounty hunters (plaintiffs' attorneys) are incentivized to go out and punish companies causing large amounts of small individual harms. Thus the point is less about recompense to individual plaintiffs and more about building a system where the rental agency of the above example will think twice about screwing people over, because they know they will have to pay for it. The other benefit is that this is done at relatively little government cost, the company that sucks is in effect paying its own bounty - if they were wrongdores they pay for enforcement, not taxpayers. If the class action lawyers are wrong in the suit, they get nothing, and eat the cost.

You mentioned passing costs on to consumers, but in a market economy, the rental car agency that screws over its customers and gets sued and passes on the cost of its wrongdoing to its customers will lose out to the company that isnt acting wrongfully and thus has no need of increasing costs to customers.

4) No one regulates anything
Its unlikely we would ever have this Randian paradise, but i added it for completeness.

In the end, class actions serve a serious purpose in regulating a modern economy with large corporate actors who can and will fark you - but just the tip - if they can get away with it.
 
2012-09-12 06:29:05 PM  
LOL @ all of the firms.
 
2012-09-12 06:34:16 PM  
pshaw, 34 is a lawyer's dozen.
 
2012-09-12 06:48:19 PM  
So why is lol being sued?
 
2012-09-12 06:50:27 PM  
We have Big tobacco, Big Oil and now ...Big Ova
 
2012-09-12 06:50:32 PM  

The Muthaship: The incredible actionable egg.


The incredible, litiga-

Dammit. Hour and a half late.
 
2012-09-12 06:51:04 PM  
What happens when companies are allowed to self regulate. http://www.forbes.com/sites/docket/2010/06/08/land-olakes-settles-egg- antitrust-action-for-25m/
 
2012-09-12 07:00:06 PM  

Teiritzamna: See now this is an even headed and well reasoned response, which is much less fun as i am now honor bound to reply in kind. My feelings w/r/t class actions is that there are four states we can have:


I hate it when that happens too. I find myself leaning towards 2. If you establish something like the BBB but more directly tied into the regulatory body, seems like you could make a go of it. If you're too busy to file so much as a complaint, well, I guess you didn't feel like you were being screwed over. It also seems like there would be some sort of implicit bounty system in that where competitors (assuming no collusion) would actively watchdog one another to report to the regulatory body because it would mean an advantage for them. Also, assuming a fairly open flow of information, which we have these days, that rental car company should see a dip in business the more people they screw over. Alright, so it's flawed in that you never get your $150 back, but in warning everyone else about the scam, and assuming they reciprocate, someone else somewhere is going to take a hit at some point in warning you about a different business. So I guess it's a climate where everyone can get screwed over, on average, once or twice before some regulatory mechanism hits. Prioritize the targets of investigation based on reported losses / number of reports and what not.

Teiritzamna: You mentioned passing costs on to consumers, but in a market economy, the rental car agency that screws over its customers and gets sued and passes on the cost of its wrongdoing to its customers will lose out to the company that isnt acting wrongfully and thus has no need of increasing costs to customers.


Not just cost from losing a lawsuit. If you've got a lawsuit target painted on your back, you're going to have to take steps to protect yourself. Now I admit I don't know much about the inner workings of business, but I figure that means more counsel, longer product cycles, more paperwork, and that extra time and money has to be coming from somewhere. Even if you know you're not acting wrongfully, the more litigious the climate, the more prepared to be defensive you have to be.

I just really don't like this idea where guys out for their own profit drum up trouble if there's any or not and have it in their best interest to clog up the courts as long as they possibly can.

/Way more than I intended on writing.
 
2012-09-12 08:55:23 PM  
The judge is balking at the $450-$600 per hour they are charging for an average rate. That is way too much money. All of these people that say they got a good deal i say this, let me come over to your house and do some work. I'll only charge you $200 an hour. That would be a steal compared to their rates.
 
2012-09-12 08:55:28 PM  

mauricecano: Also, 20% of the total in legal fees is a bargain as well where most contingency cases garner 28-40% on average (40% if trial obviously) so not sure why the reporter acts shocked at that number.


Try this on for size: Suppose that you get sent to prison for a year and get butt-raped four times while you're in there by Asian men with small penises. That's horrible right? Well, if you consider that the average prisoner gets butt-raped seven times per year by black men with large penises, you came out ahead of the game.

Obviously that's silly but my point is that just because it's below average doesn't make it ok.
 
2012-09-12 09:35:59 PM  

Scott_Free: The judge is balking at the $450-$600 per hour they are charging for an average rate. That is way too much money. All of these people that say they got a good deal i say this, let me come over to your house and do some work. I'll only charge you $200 an hour. That would be a steal compared to their rates.



"reasonable compensation" is determined by a totality of many factors, none of which is absolutely determinative. Some of the factors are: novelty of the case, difficulty of the case, the standing and expertise of the particular lawyer, the risk involved, time necessary to see the case to completion.

So tell me which of those factors entitles you to 200 bux an hour.
 
2012-09-12 11:46:22 PM  
I'm an attorney and I can tell you that no attorney is worth that kind of money. Unless he's getting your ass out of the electric chair.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report