Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyrra | 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/

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com