Class action attorney allowed to tell Iowa jury that the named plaintiffs are “just regular people who bought software” who volunteered to step forward to sue Microsoft; Microsoft is not allowed to question plaintiffs (who stand to recover a few dollars) about whether they were actually recruited by their attorney friends who stand to make millions if the case succeeds. (David Pitt, AP/Houston Chronicle, Jan. 22). How the class even got certified under these circumstances is also questionable.
Litigation double standards
Class action attorney allowed to tell Iowa jury that the named plaintiffs are “just regular people who bought software” who volunteered to step forward to sue Microsoft; Microsoft is not allowed to question plaintiffs (who stand to recover a few dollars) about whether they were actually recruited by their attorney friends who stand to make […]
9 Comments
Poor Microsoft! Think how much their attorneys will make rabidly defending even inch of terrotory as they fight a scorched earth “rear-guard” campaign. Don’t regular people have rights too? And how will those rights be effectuated against mega-corporations with unlimited budgets (like Microsoft) unless well-funded plaintiff lawyers are around?
Is Mr. Mann seriously arguing that it’s alright to mislead a jury, so long as the opposing party is relatively wealthy?
Of what relevance is how the plaintiffs came to be plaintiffs? There may be some ethical violations on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, but even if there are, that doesn’t mean the plaintiffs should be barred from recovery.
For the record, I’m a former Microsoft employee and from what little I’ve read about this case, I think it’s bogus. (My employment with MS ended in 2000, and I have no financial interest in the company now whatsoever.)
The plaintiffs’ attorneys thought it relevant enough to lie to the jury about the plaintiffs. If it’s irrelevant, then keep it out entirely. If it’s relevant, then tell the jury the full story. There’s no circumstances where this result is appropriate.
Break up the Club, and this crap stops!
Civil trials, gets a civilian judge!
Result I’d bet will be close to justice that normal people can recognize!
While I think the main problem with the law today is too many lawyers, certainly we have to fix class action lawsuits. Heck, why fix when you can eliminate them entirely.
At one time it made sense to lump a bunch of identical claims into one case. But the way the law has been perverted, class action attorneys don’t even need a real group of plaintiffs.
And here’s the worse part, without a real plaintiff, the class action attorney’s sole financial duty lies with himself! That’s why those guys make millions while the class receives coupons. There is no legal incentive or duty to protect a class which has no real participation in the litigation.
“There may be some ethical violations on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, but even if there are, that doesn’t mean the plaintiffs should be barred from recovery.”
Yes, it does. The ONLY way to make unethical behaviour unPROFITABLE is make sure that unethical behaviour ALWAYS results in a lost case. That aligns the interests of the lawyer with the interests of the public (ethical behaviour).
In this particular case, “how the plaintiffs bcame plaintiffs” was to do something WITH THE INTENT of suing for it. In most cases, that is at best a non-starter, and in many cases, it is outright fraud.
The intent matters? So let me get this straight. A case with merit by a company who intentionally cheated, defrauded or otherwise screwed its customers should be tossed because the intent was, what? To make money? But if the intent is genuine and sincere, but the case is crap, we should let it go? Motive and merit have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Cases with merit should proceed and succeed. Cases without merit should get flushed.
Like I said, if it’s irrelevant (and I agree that it is irrelevant to the merits, though not to the question of class certification), the plaintiffs’ attorneys shouldn’t get to argue to the jury about their supposedly spotless motives. But once they do, they’ve put it at isssue, and it’s only fair to let the jury hear the whole truth.