Hacker News Reader

Seeing that there is a website/lawfirm[1] threatening legal action, I can bet Heroku/Salesforce lawyers jumped on that ASAP and let all their employees that are allowed to talk publicly not to comment on the issue anymore.

The US legal system is setup that if a company admits fault in something like this, it makes defending yourself much more difficult. Meaning if a lawsuit is brought about, it's not about proving innocence anymore, it's about mitigating the damages you will have to pay. Your lawyer is going to want to have as many options available to him/her to deal with your case during it's lifespan, and admitting fault before the lawsuit even begins will limit the lawyers options when it comes to negotiations and what tactics they can use in the courtroom.

[1] http://herokuclassaction.com/

In the grand scheme of things, this is why it's always better to defect in the simplified idea game of the prisoner's dilemma. Collaboration is rarely rewarded once lawyers get anywhere near an issue and opting to collaborate (i.e.: admit fault and try to fix it) more or less wins you no points in court, in the U.S.

Given that each possible liability is its own case and stands on its own merits, it pretty much matches the simplest case of the prisoner's dilemma perfectly, IMHO... and so here we are. Sadly.

Collaboration is rarely rewarded once lawyers get anywhere near an issue and opting to collaborate (i.e.: admit fault and try to fix it) more or less wins you no points in court, in the U.S.

Might, in part, have to do with how lawyers get compensated. A short case or a quick settlement will result in very little compensation for them. Over the course of years and decades that matters so we see everything analyzed to death. At $500+ an hour. Per lawyer.

The careful decomposition of problem domain into solution domain followed by recursive search of the solution domain is the lawyer's job. If they don't analyse to death, they are breaching their fiduciary duty.

Don't like the legal method? Don't hire a lawyer. Try doing it yourself. See how far you get when the other guy's lawyers have done the exhaustive analysis and found the deciding element buried in a logical node on a distant subgraph you didn't even know was there to be explored.

Yeah, other developed countries are all going downhill for not being overlawyered up like in US.

It's a system set by lawyers for lawyers so of course you need a lawyer more than in many other countries. "Everyone" sues over everything

The overlawyered US is the richest and most powerful country on Earth by a country mile.

"The overlawyered US is the richest and most powerful country on Earth by a country mile."

Thanks to the lawyers, no doubt. I am sure you didn't meant to say that if we pass some tort reform and limit some nonsense lawsuits (IP, malpractice etc) the country will lose it's wealth /power rank.

The rule of law is a key part of the mix of institutions, geography, culture and luck that have made the USA the richest country that has ever been.

And with the rule of law comes lawyers. I know it's fashionable to hate lawyers, but they're a necessary profession.

Law is a field in which small details can have very large consequences once the full line of reasoning is unfolded. Because of the importance of exhaustively covering all lines of argument to the maximal possible depth, lawyers are required to do so.

They don't do it to bill you more. It is their legal duty.

If you don't like that lawyers are required on pain of loss of income, loss of profession and potentially loss of personal liberty to give you the fullest and most complete service that they are able to give you, then you are entitled to represent yourself.

Not all that is a part of the US is a reason for its success. Whilst the US does a lot of things well, there is always room for improvement, and some of the aspects of its legal framework is one of the areas that could benefit. The US spends 2-3 times as much on tort as other developed economies; this is clearly a problem, not an advantage.

For more examples, see: http://www.economist.com/node/21541423 - on attempts to reform tort law

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571141-cheaper-legal... - on how US legal education can be reformed to reduce the cost of legal counsel

http://www.economist.com/node/18389167 - on problems with the US' patent laws

Sure, there's room for improvement. But torts law reform is no the original point I was arguing. The root of this thread is a suggestion that lawyers deliberately complicate the law in order to maximise their bill.

I was explaining why lawyers spend so much time minutely examining every tiny bit of a case for their clients. They have to. A lawyer who doesn't could find themselves in breach of fiduciary duty.

Also, read what I've said again. Nowhere have I said that the USA is rich and powerful because of lawyering. But neither has it stopped the USA from being so.

Let's be honest, it isn't this firm's legal duty to set up a marketing website to try to find a plaintiff to launch a lucrative lawsuit. Law firms seek to offer the level of service that maximises their returns, just like any other corporation.

No, but once they have a client for a lawsuit, they're still bound by fiduciary duty.

The US legal system isn't really set up any particular way with regard to first party admissions. It's just a statement that can be introduced into evidence like any other. Indeed, usually when they are treated specially it's to make them non-admissible. E.g. in an accident, your offer to pay the injured party's medical bills can't be introduced as evidence of fault.

The reason lawyers tell people to clam up is because jurors put great weight on what people say about their own actions. It's precisely the other edge of the sword of what you're talking about--a positive public statement can have a great effect on customers, but one that comes out wrong can have a very bad effect on jurors when the plaintiff brings it up in court.

Agree. Admitting liability in public before the trial started is very detrimental. After you admit liability, the only dispute left is how much you need to compensate the plaintiffs.

Just imagine being arrested. If you tell the police you are sorry- you are going to be found guilty. That is why all lawyers would tell you to remain silent until he arrives to the police station. The risk of admitting liability when talking is too big.

What makes this proposed class action suit possible is that Heroku did admit[0] that their service didn't match up with what their documentation and website claimed, that they messed up, and would be fixing it. And it wasn't something like "our documentation and site could have been misinterpreted", they actually admitted the website and documentation were inaccurate with metrics which were incorrect. It's like a class action lawyer's wet dream of culpability on the part of the defendant.

[0] https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2013/2/16/routing_performan...

Sadly, the US legal system does not reward heartfelt, honest statements, particularly in these situations.

Which is why fine print almost always makes even the nicest company sound like a jerk.

There's a middle ground; it is better to fess up and try to square things with your customers in a situation where you've done wrong, but at the same time you don't want to be exploited by unscrupulous plaintiffs in turn. Most of those customers just want what they paid for or to recover their actual losses (what are called economic damages in law) but a few may see a lawsuit as an opportunity to enrich themselves. The court system is supposed to prevent that, and overall it works moderately well, but once papers are filed it's better for the arguments to take place in court rather than outside.

They have made public statements on their blog, and hopefully that will continue. In this situation, I think it is the right move to avoid getting involved with this shameless law firm trying to incite drama for their own gain.

This seems like precisely the type of situation class action lawsuits are intended to deal with: a company defrauded a lot of its customers in the same way. It makes more sense for all parties that the case be tried as one than to hear each claimant individually.

> Yes, admitting wrongdoing may open you up to legal liability. But it seems to me that, in the long run, it's far better to take your licks and own up to your mistakes than to hide behind the shield of pending litigation.

This is an admirable, well-intentioned perspective, but it is one that won't net you much benefit, not even in the long run.

Filing legal papers -- or, in this case, raising the banner for a class-action -- is serious business. By the time it happens, the time for defusing the situation and calling a truce is long past. The only opinion that matters is that of the judge and/or jury. And let's face it, being the loser in court is going to have far more impact on the public's opinion of the defendant than any honest-from-the-heart statement or outreach.

So with that said, there is nothing of substance that the defendant can say that will help them in court. The opposing attorney is not going to say, "Well, I was going to grill you, but I've had a change of heart ever since reading that impassioned, honest, salt-of-the-earth statement you released pre-trial". The judge won't care either. And the jurors aren't supposed to even be aware of it.

I think a civil trial is not much different than the situation portrayed in the famous "Don't talk to police" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

The people you're facing in court don't care that you've made an effort, post-lawsuit-filing, to be upfront and friendly. Anything you say will not help you, it can only hurt you. In this case, Heroku's reticence in speaking their mind outside of court is the right one.

This is normal, once legal threats are issued "we can't comment on legal issues...but customers are #1...blah blah" is the standard answer.

A mea culpa right now might haunt you in the long term.