Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No attorney is going to tell you that you do not have a case. They will happily work on a dead-on-arrival lawsuit and rack up the billable hours.
While true, I do wonder if the lawyer he hired is on a 'I don't get paid unless you do' agreement, as is common in personal injury cases, or if they're paying him upfront in hours and a contract for a given percentage of anything they might win.
If they're paying him upfront, extra lolz to be had.
Originally posted by Robtard
While true, I do wonder if the lawyer he hired is on a 'I don't get paid unless you do' agreement, as is common in personal injury cases, or if they're paying him upfront in hours and a contract for a given percentage of anything they might win.If they're paying him upfront, extra lolz to be had.
Yeah, a personal injury lawyer won't give you more than an hour or two of their time if they aren't 99% certain you're case is winnable. That's why they promise 'No win, no fee'. Least that's how it works over here. If they're using family lawyers though...
Originally posted by samhain
Yeah, a personal injury lawyer won't give you more than an hour or two of their time if they aren't 99% certain you're case is winnable. That's why they promise 'No win, no fee'. Least that's how it works over here. If they're using family lawyers though...
It's the same here, personal injury lawyers know right away if they can earn from your case or not.
Why it's very likely that Adam is correct and this lawyer is racking up hour after hour at $300-$500+ an hour. Lolz.
Originally posted by samhain
Yeah, a personal injury lawyer won't give you more than an hour or two of their time if they aren't 99% certain you're case is winnable. That's why they promise 'No win, no fee'. Least that's how it works over here. If they're using family lawyers though...
Normally.
This is good publicity, so any lawyer might figure the free advertising will pay for itself.
Originally posted by Surtur
So, who thinks those that were dumb as f*ck and reacted to this story blaming the kids and saying they did something wrong...learned a lesson from all this?
I'm still curious about this.
For instance, anyone here who thought the worst of these kids, did you learn a lesson?
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm still curious about this.For instance, anyone here who thought the worst of these kids, did you learn a lesson?
I'll bite. I only really remember making a comment about the kid looking like he had a sh!t-eating grin or something to that effect (not sure if I'd seen the video at that point). I have since voiced my agreement on their right to pursue legal compo, slander/libel laws I'm not fluent enough in to comment on whether their claims have any merit or not but they have a right to sue. I have little to no regard for the news media though and never have so maybe I learned nothing new.
Originally posted by samhain
I'll bite. I only really remember making a comment about the kid looking like he had a sh!t-eating grin or something to that effect (not sure if I'd seen the video at that point). I have since voiced my agreement on their right to pursue legal compo, slander/libel laws I'm not fluent enough in to comment on whether their claims have any merit or not but they have a right to sue. I have little to no regard for the news media though and never have so maybe I learned nothing new.
He had a shit eating grin lol. That's fine, that's not saying he did anything wrong.
I'm curious if the people who legit thought the kids were in the wrong have learned a single thing.
And then I remember Jussie Smollett and realize "nah, probably not".
Originally posted by Robtard
@surt You're really taking shitty Nick Sandmann losing in court on a personal level. I have to ask:
Surtur connected so deeply with Sandman that he has started to believe he is actually Nick.
He feels like just Nick getting jilted and libeled by the media. He is Nick. He has become Sandman himself. This is now Surtur's case. And CVS will pay.