Defendant Says Righthaven Should Pay Legal Fees 83
Hugh Pickens writes "On June 20 District Court Judge Philip Pro found that Kentucky resident Wayne Hoehn was protected by fair use in posting a Las Vegas Review-Journal column on a sports website. Now Hoehn's attorneys have submitted a $34,000 bill and asked that Judge Pro require Righthaven to pay it. The $34,000 could be just the tip of the iceberg for Righthaven, should the Democratic Underground prevail in what likely will be a far larger fee demand."
Re:Bout time (Score:1, Insightful)
I hear this suggestion all the time and I don't see how it solves the problem whatsoever. As it is, people can't afford to defend themselves even against the most simple and obvious cases that should be open and shut in their favor. Requiring the loser to pay accomplishes nothing. Big businesses and organizations can currently afford lawsuits more than individuals or small businesses and they can afford to pay for your and my shitty lawyer in the event that their attempts to intimidate you through the court system were to backfire on them. In both cases, the problem still comes down to the unbelievable expense in anything regarding the legal system and one person always having a financial power - and therefore more leverage and options - period.
Re:Bout time (Score:4, Insightful)
If your case is good but you can't afford or attract a good lawyer, well, sucks to be you.
Yeah, that's awesome. Justice for those that can afford it, for everyone else, oh well, stop being so poor already.
It's reasons like that why companies like Walmart are able to commit labor violations in every state with impunity, because they know no lawyer is going to touch any case against them unless it's egregious (i.e., results in serious injury or death) and/or a slam dunk, and their million dollar lawyers are able to ensure that pretty much no case against them is ever gonna be a slam dunk.
Re:Bout time (Score:5, Insightful)
For every Harry Hardluck with a genuine grievance against Goliath Megacorp, there are dozens, hundreds, of Deborah Dickburgers signing their names on to pro-forma blackmail demands from the firm of Shark, Shyster and Slitpurse. The real solution is for courts and bar associations to sanction the most egregious hustlers, but making Debbie think twice before being party to their antics would be a good first step.
Re:Bout time (Score:3, Insightful)
If your case is good but you can't afford a good lawyer, you might be able to attact one to work for a percentage. If your case is good but you can't afford or attract a good lawyer, well, sucks to be you.
I'd like to tweak that slightly. If your case is good, but you can't attract a good lawyer, it probably wasn't that good.
Re:Bout time (Score:4, Insightful)
That would lead to lousy legal decisions. Except in cases of large corporation versus large corporation you'd wind up with legal cases being argued by Billy the Intern and Asok the Recent Graduate. Here in the US where case law is the real law, poorly represented cases can have devastating consequences to future suits.
Re:Bout time (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but another way to say that is "the real world sucks, and a lot of people and businesses are assholes. Despite this, we want the common recourse to be disassociating from the assholes, and not griping in courts of law. Only egregious or slam-dunk cases should be brought before judges. For everything else, just stop being that person's friend, neighbor, customer, or employee. Our society is litigious enough."
It's a sliding scale. The balance is hard to find because there are no bright lines.
Re:Bout time (Score:3, Insightful)
For everything else, just stop being that person's friend, neighbor, customer, or employee.
But how does that solve the problem of our legal system being used by the big dogs as an impediment to justice instead of facilitating it? There needs to be fairness in the courts. Like anything else having to do with our government anymore, all too often cases are decided not by what is just but instead by who has the most money to throw at the problem. Consider what happens whenever Apple's Lawyer Brigade fires off a Cease and Desist letter; a lot of the time, that in itself is enough to scare someone into submission, because regardless if the person is technically right, the odds of them actually getting justice are slim to none. It goes against the entire spirit of equality in the eyes of the law.
Of course the simple answer will always be a glib "the world sucks, just find another job/friend/partner/whatever", but it does nothing to solve the problems that cause these situations in the first place. What incentive is there for a rich company or person to not break the law? Why should the individual respect a legal system that metes out justice according to the amount of capital the participants have?