Hacker News Reader

The guy only got $4K. Retaining a lawyer for just that amount wouldn't be worth it, would it? I have no clue how small claims works and how likely it is to have attorney fees be included if you win like you mentioned. The guy had to fly back to Boston again for the second time around. He'd also likely have spent some money in Boston like getting around. None of that was included in the final amount either. I'm not sure if a lawyer or someone more in the know how of how small claims/courts work would have been able to get it. And even if you can, how easy is it to get it.

Agree on the mistake of giving Uber all the info. The guy was trusting Uber not to be as scummy as they ended up being. I'm sure he has learned his lesson and next time regardless of company, especially once lawsuit stuff has come into play, will do what you said:

> What he should have done was say "we can discuss this in court, or you can make me whole now and avoid that," and NOTHING else.

> The guy only got $4K. Retaining a lawyer for just that amount wouldn't be worth it, would it? I have no clue how small claims works and how likely it is to have attorney fees be included if you win like you mentioned. The guy had to fly back to Boston again for the second time around. He'd also likely have spent some money in Boston like getting around. None of that was included in the final amount either. I'm not sure if a lawyer or someone more in the know how of how small claims/courts work would have been able to get it. And even if you can, how easy is it to get it.

It can be worth it, especially if - as OP mentioned - part of his goal was to prove his case to Uber, not so much to specifically recover the money. He didn't necessarily need an incredible A++ 10/10 lawyer, just somebody decent who could devote a couple hours to advising him and act as a go-between for settlement negotiations.

Having a lawyer levels you up in the eyes of court systems and corporations both. Is it perfectly worth it? Not necessarily. Is it very good advice for people considering any kind of legal action? I think so.

I agree that representation would be better, but in reality, a D- 4/10 lawyer would still be too expensive to be worth it here.

A lawyer could probably get him the:

-compensation for valuables in the bag

-compensation for software/files/etc

-compensation for time wasted

-compensation for di-stress caused

-compensation for tickets & hotel (if I get this right, the "victim" had to fly in for the court)

The Uber may had to cough-up 6-8-10k, the lawyer would get 2-4k for 2 hours worth of work and all would be happy

Unfortunately, there is a limit to the damages that can be claimed in small claims court. It differs from state to state. In Massachusetts, it is $7000 (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-ho...) .

He could go to regular court to claim a larger amount, but that's a more involved and lengthy process.

If you hire a lawyer, your going to regular court. As far as I know, most states if not all, don't allow attorneys in small claims.

For representation, no. But no small claims court would prohibit the plaintiff to take an advice from a lawyer - i.e. what documents to get, what to say, how to behave, how to formulate one's claims correctly etc. It may help, though not always worth it.

As I've mentioned in other replies on this chain, that's not true. Most states allow attorneys, and Massachusetts definitely does. It's just not usually considered necessary.

In California, it (being represented by a lawyer in small claims court) is explicitly not allowed. I guess each state is different.

Small claim process is really simple - you fill out the form, where you can detail your claims, supply the documentation and then present it to the judge. You can have a lawyer advising you, but not represent you, and you can include the expenses into the full sum of the claim, but there are limits on how much you can get - $10K in California right now - and you are not guaranteed to be awarded the full sum. Given the outcome - $4k payment - I'd say not retaining the lawyer was the right thing to do. Maybe talking to the lawyer for an hour or so to get advice may be better, but I kinda doubt it would have resulted in substantially more payoff. Or maybe a letter from a lawyer on official letterhead (that is usually not very expensive) may have made the process a bit faster as Uber would realize the plaintiff is not going to be scared off easily.

Can you adjust the amount? First he undervalued the backpack content. Then he had to trave back a second time because Uber lied to the police. If he can't adjust the amount, that's pretty lame and what I was wondering.

So this is my story. I didn't have the money for an attorney. Also I tried to deal with this out of court and that is expected in small claims. They only hear your side if you try and resolve it first, and that includes sharing evidence.

First of all, glad you were able to do this and keep Uber accountable - and thanks for putting in the effort where others would have given up.

It's expected that you'll try to resolve things before filing a suit, and it's expected to try to settle if possible once suit has been filed, but it's not my understanding that those negotiations necessarily involve giving info to the other party that isn't to your advantage except as part of actual discovery. Were you told at some point by the magistrate or court otherwise that you had to do that?

I called several attorney offices for a small claim court case (max $2k in that particular state iirc) and they laughed at me.

It's true that in small claims you often don't need one to represent you in the actual proceeding - and many lawyers, especially fairly "big" ones, would have no interest. However, retaining one to advise you on how to navigate the process, how to phrase your arguments, how to communicate with the opposing party, etc., is probably valuable even if they aren't running the case for you directly.

In most (maybe all?) small claims courts you are forbidden to have a lawyer present. Companies generally send an administrative assistant or something similar. You are welcome to retain an attorney before and after the hearing, but they can not be present during.

In Massachusetts, you may have an attorney in small claims court. [1] I think most states allow it, but it isn't super common to actually do.

[1] http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-assistan...

Not in California, fwiw. (Mention only because many people here are in CA, although I know the op is in MA).

My company had a fairly expensive lawyer on retainer when we had a $3-4k bill go un-paid and was forced to start a small claims proceeding in order to get paid. Since we had never been through something like that we asked him for help, and he did help us quite a bit, because it became quite a hassle.

I assume that he assumed it would just be a couple letters drafted and they would cough up, but they really dug in their heels and used the dialog between the lawyers to extend hassle, and it took a bit more than a few letters. We didn't settle until the day before the court date.

Needless to say the $500/hour bill for his services pretty much nullified the settlement, and when the process concluded he politely informed us that this was a little below his scope as our retained lawyer and to gladly not bother him again with things quite so trivial and time consuming.

>>he politely informed us that this was a little below his scope as our retained lawyer and to gladly not bother him again with things quite so trivial and time consuming.

Frankly, at $500/hour, I would politely tell him that I will bother him with whatever I need, he's not doing me a favour.

Courts do have their own small-claims advice service (for free too, I think) which serves the same purpose.

> However, retaining one to advise you on how to navigate the process, how to phrase your arguments, how to communicate with the opposing party, etc.

How, exactly does one "retain" a lawyer?

Is that a formal, monthly-fee kind of thing, for the ability to call them up for questions and advice?

Or is it more like an informal, having done business in the past, maybe for a larger lawsuit, getting to be friendly, and knowing a guy who knows a guy, sort of thing?

Retain means pay monthly.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is it simply means you pay a certain amount up front.

That money is held by the firm and Billings are placed against it until time to top it off again.

I wonder if an attorney would have taken this case pro bono for the opportunity to represent a case against a big name company such as Uber.

Yes, but probably not for $4k-worth stolen laptop case. You can't make your name as a lawyer getting compensation for a single stolen laptop. If that were a $400m nationwide class-action lawsuit, that'd be different matter.

I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? "Here is the evidence I have that you're in the wrong" can sometimes hurt you later in court, but it can avoid the entire mess by convincing the party that they will likely lose, or yield a compromise.

> I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums?

Initially, no. By the time you're in a court of law, yes. Once you file suit - small claims or not - discussion time is over. If you make that decision prematurely, that's not great, but there's no taking it back except by dismissing the suit, which would have been a mistake.

>I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums?

Yes it is. Why? Because they won't hesitate to do exactly that to you in the reverse situation. In this (almost literal) prisoners dilemma, the corporation has already defected. You gain nothing by cooperating.

> I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums?

I think when you're facing a large entity and their thousands of dollars per billable hour legal team, it makes sense to leverage any advantage you can.

How would retaining an attorney work in small claims?

Well, an attorney might suggest they not use words like robbery. Robbery is defined, as a legal term. This is just simple theft. Robbery requires force, implied force, or fear.

It's going to suck if this guy gets sued for libel.

Theft is often a misdemeanor where robbery is often a felony. They are pretty different things, legally speaking.

IIRC it's the same as doing it anywhere else. You retain someone to represent you and they do so. In some states, you must appear on your own - but not in MA, I don't think, and you can still have an attorney advising you even if they can't appear with you.

Certainly in California you must represent yourself. But you can consult an attorney. They will point out the counter-arguments that you need to be prepared for, which is a very valuable service.

Any idea of the ball park costs for such consultation?

I'm looking at taking two parties to small claims court, over ~$1,000 USD, and wonder if it's worth the fees to seek legal guidance.

Nope, not worth it. Cheap lawyers are ~$250/hour.

Seems unlikely, at least in Australia it's common for lawyers to be $400+/h; even for a relatively simple case I was looking to have a lawyer review an employment contract.