Civil litigation - how can defendants avoid unfair settlements?

[Kludge]

Feel free to move this to Off Topic.

For those unaware, it's recently become a trend for lawyers to mass-sue file-sharers (a method which sees almost no legal success) and extract settlement payments. I was recently reading an article about a mass p2p prosecutor whose voicemails to defendants was saved and uploaded (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/settle-up-voicemails-show-p2p-porn-law-firms-in-action.ars). The lawyer left messages repeating the defendants would lose significantly more money if they failed to settle even though the amount being sued for, and settled for, is grossly unfair (they won't settle for less than $2.9k). Because it's civil litigation, of course, the defendants are not entitled to lawyer, and because the law is so specific, broken up, and hard to comprehend, a lawyer (with his fees which'd exceed settlement cost) is practically required to fight the bogus demands in court.

For minarchists+, what do you propose to prevent lawyers abusing people unable or unwilling to pay for a defense?

For anarchists, what is an example of a sound practice for private courts to deal with prevent


Or, should the burden be on charitable organizations such as the EFF to provide as much legal support as able?

[TheNcredibleEgg]

For minarchists+, what do you propose to prevent lawyers abusing people unable or unwilling to pay for a defense?



What I would do first is : do nothing - and hope they do nothing also. I doubt they want to go to court either. It'd be time consuming (and expensive) for them to go to court and risk losing.

Now - if they call my bluff - that'd be a problem. Assuming hiring a lawyer for defense is off the table - I'd go to court and try to learn as much as I can about the specific law and fight. Ask for nullification, whatever.

As far as your question - I'd say you'd need to keep laws like this off the books in the first place. But since it exists - I'd say the only solution is to elect people that will repeal bad laws - or laws that are too complicated to understand.

[RonPaulMania]

First thing to do is seek to avoid getting served. The cost of service goes up and not worth fighting. They will seek a default judgment, which is hard to get if it's in the federal courts.

If you are served the thing I would do is consult a paralegal firm and find out about as many motions you can file as possible. When served have them prepare your reply affidavit, also counter-sue for malicious lawsuit, and then file as many motions that apply as possible.

*** Read again... file as many motions as possible that apply.*** This will take you about 40 minutes to make and about $1k-3k for them to respond to and if you file 10-15 motions trust me, no one wants that nightmare and they know not to mess with you. That's what the big guys lawyers do: file every motion possible dragging out costs and will-power, and some paralegals know some tricks to help you.

This will make litigation for them very costly and they will seek to drop the suit.

If you do go to discovery hearings, ask the judge to push them aside as they are not germane until guilt is established.

Also, if this goes to trial ask for a jury trial. Yes, it costs $800 more but your peers will be sympathetic against a lawyer attacking you rather than a judge who will go by the book.

Do not hire an attorney unless you have to, and by that I mean going to trial. If they ask questions during discovery play coy, claim you don't remember what they are talking about, blame drunkenness, falling of a bike, whatever, on your lack of memory.

Lastly, in your reply to their affidavit against you do not argue against every point they raise, they want you to do that. Rather, let's say in paragraph 13 they assert something you contend, so rather than argue against them (which is opening your mouth) just reply "Defendent denies the assertion in paragraph 13" forcing them to prove their point rather than you opening your trap and getting in doo-doo by opening Pandora's Box.

Yes, I've been sued and I hate about 80% of the nation's incompetent attorneys who "practice" law and the judges who were former incompetent attorneys. An attorney BTW will not help you or know the laws better than you about what laws actually apply to the case, but they will know procedural crap better than us, so you don't need them until trial.

Remember trials and cases are not about the law, they are about proving a point (hence "practicing law") right, wrong, or indifferent to justice. Pander the same way with the emotions of the big man attacking the innocent man who was trying to be complaint. The judge won't care, but a jury will.

I learned all this from a Libertarian attorney who helped me out once.

[jmdrake]

They are bluffing. But in case they aren't these victims should go the nearest law school and ask to talk to the director of the legal clinic. Law students do pro bono work all the time for indigent clients in order to get real world experience. It's legal because they are doing it under the direction of a professor who is a member of the bar.

The other option is that if someone can put together a viable class action claim against the harassing law firm you might get a real lawyer to take the case based on contingency.