RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees 192
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, the RIAA has been directed to pay the defendant $68,685.23 in attorneys fees. This is the first instance of which I am aware of the RIAA being ordered to pay the defendant attorneys fees. The judge in this case has criticized the RIAA's lawyers' motives as 'questionable,' and their legal theories as 'marginal' (PDF). Although the judge had previously ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, today's decision (PDF) made no mention of the amount that the RIAA had spent on its own lawyers."
Objection: misleading the jury (Score:5, Informative)
This is great stuff (Score:4, Informative)
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!! [usedgirlfriend.com]
Re:This is great stuff (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is great stuff (Score:5, Informative)
The Bill [ilrweb.com]
The Justification [ilrweb.com]
Interesting reading.
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!! [usedgirlfriend.com]
Re:This is great stuff (Score:5, Informative)
If you took your company's (assume you work for a company that doesn't manufacture anything for the moment) annual revenue and divided it by the number of employees, it would work out to a staggering hourly rate. Obviously that doesn't all go into your pocket. Same with lawyers. The hourly rate (and the percentage cuts from awards) are a law firm's *sole* source of income. It's not directly comparable to the hourly rate you get paid at your job.
Further, what seems to be a good windfall more often than not ends up covering debt from a pro bono case somewhere else. Lawyers take on massive debts to argue cases with the hope that they'll get paid. It's hardly a guarantee. Chasing down clients for money they still owe is something every lawyer is familiar with. That's why big wins are celebrated--it's what creates the "rich lawyer." Most cases, including this one, are nothing spectacular, but they're enough to encourage lawyers to take the risk, now that this gate is open.
Re:This is great stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Despite my disappointment at the amount awarded, an attorneys fee award against the RIAA for more than $68,000 is a very important precedent, one which
-is being taken very seriously by the RIAA, albeit with a slight sigh of relief, and
-is being noticed by lawyers and litigants across the country, as a sign of encouragement to stand and fight.
Re:a sad day (Score:3, Informative)
However, I do think that the RIAA and the companies which comprise it are being vicious, vindictive and petty in their approach. I think they are going after people who can't afford to defend themselves and trying to bankrupt them, merely to scare others away from "piracy". They don't care whether their victims are actually guilty of any wrongdoing; they're counting on the fact that they can throw expensive lawyers and "expert" witnesses at them, and that the victims can't afford to fight, regardless of their actual liability in the matter.
I don't "steal" music, but I don't buy it anymore, either. I listen to what I already have, or I turn on the radio (I know, that does indirectly support them; but then, I can't remember ever buying anything as the result of a radio ad). I think the music industry as it exists now does not deserve the support of my dollars, and they're not going to get it.
-Mike
Re:This is great stuff (Score:3, Informative)
If the defendant ended up with huge expenses even when winning, could this be used in some form of racketeering lawsuit against the RIAA?
As in "Give us $3000 or we'll sue. Then, even if you win it will cost you ten times more than that."
It's obvious that they're not suing people for money, but to create a public image of it being dangerous to cross them.
Overzealous lawyers? (Score:4, Informative)
Ouch for the defense lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
She asked for over $114,000 but the court only gave her about $68,000, because her lawyers charged too much. For example, the "docket in this case is replete with the defendant's supplemental and corrective filings designed to cure defects in motions and responses that should have been complete and correct when originally filed." (page 8). In other words, her lawyers screwed up, and had to fix their mistakes at her expense. Also, once they learned that she was the winner and their bills would be paid, they started "frenetic activity" which they billed her for. (page 9). Also, they nickel-and-dimed her to the tune of about $1,500 on things like copy and fax costs (they charged $1.50 per fax page, where the court found $0.20 to be "generous"). (page 13).
Ouch.
Re:Noticed (Score:1, Informative)
Similarly, it isn't too uncommon for big consulting houses and their competition at the big corps like IBM and HP to bill average-level engineers at $300/hr to the clients but pay them about a fifth of that as a regular salary. That's one reason this AC went independent, now I bill 10% less than IBM does but take home 90% of that (10% goes to expenses) instead of only 20% of $300.
Re:Pro Bono (Score:1, Informative)
Of course, all the the lawyer's money comes from billing clients. Therefore, if the lawyer is to take on pro bono work, and maintain his standard of living, he must charge his paying clients a higher hourly rate and make a greater marginal profit from those clients.
It's not fraud because his paying clients are told his hourly rate in advance and agree to pay it. A reasonable person understands that the hourly rate is not the lawyer's personal salary, in the same way we understand that a machine or auto shop's hourly rate is not the mechanic's hourly wage, but includes the cost of facilities, administration, and other hard-to-specify costs. Can you imagine how complicated the bill for an oil change would be if they had to detail out depreciation on every tool, lease on the site, time of each employee from the mechanic to the cashier, electricity for the 'complimentary' coffee maker, for the cash register, and for each light bulb?
You can claim that, as a computer consultant, you don't charge your paying customers more for doing charity work, but it's not really true. It's likely that the costs (to you) of setting up computers and networking are relatively small-a few tools, periodic training, maybe even a small storefront. Amortized over the lifetime of the tool or certification, it may even be vanishingly small (eg, a $5000 network analyzer, amortized over a 5 year lifetime costs $0.50/hr). Whether you consider the cost of charity work to be paid by you "at a personal loss" or by your other clients paying a higher rate, the distinction is only at what point in the history of a particular dollar you consider it to be "yours," "the business's," or "the client's."
Surgeon's fees (Score:3, Informative)
As a surgeon, Medicare reimburses a $482.62 "global fee" for a laparoscopic appendectomy in my area (there are no provisions for charging "by the hour.". So it's tough to say how much I make in an hour. But I'd say it is safely below these "reasonable attorney's fees." Not to whine here. I'm not starving.
And FYI, after high school: 4yrs undergrad, 4 yrs med school, 5 yrs surgical residency.
Re:Noticed (Score:1, Informative)
My official rate is $425/hr. That is usually discounted unless a client has gotten themselves in big trouble [typepad.com].
And yea, $billed != $made. Not even close.
Yes (Score:1, Informative)
Re:And the winner in all of this is . . . ME (Score:1, Informative)