patrick.net

I could 100% wrong, but I believe our system is setup to avoid forcing others to pay any legal fees. Basically you pay your own legal fees and will not have an obligation to pay anyone else's. Otherwise it would create a vicious circle of people suing each other over legal fees. It would clog the courts up.

Not legal advice, but I believe I'm correct. For example Amber Heard doesn't have to pay Jonny Depp's legal fees. It's just whatever was determined by the court that he lost financially from her claims. Depp still had to pay his attorneys out of pocket, but won, so it was likely set up as a percentage of the settlement for his attorney. In your scenario it would be like Heard suing Depp for attorney fees on her end even though she lost. I don't think you can do that.

I don't have an understanding of how class action lawsuits work though. That might be a different animal. I've always recalled it's a you win you get paid and the loser has no recourse to cover legal fees. My 2¢ but check with an attorney before Patnet. Smart people here, but get a 2nd opinion from a lawyer.

I would think they'd go after something larger than an individual. Should be plenty of precedence to confirm though, or ask these lawyers(your lawyers?).

Well, yeah, if you don't get indemnification for ALL eventualities and fallouts of the suit (which will mire you down for years on a hope and a wish) including counter suits or legal fee recoveries (which typically bear interest) then I wouldn't get involved in the legal lottery. You're a puppy on their freeway. They'd like to use you as a vehicle for their lawsuit. If you have personal assets that would make you worth going after at end of process and you don't somehow make yourself 'litigation proof' or just remain penurious (the best litigants in these things are the ones who are judgment proof) than don't risk getting mowed down, much less held hostage for the many years this kind of thing will go on.

Have them pay fees for a lawyer of your choice. You agree to communicate ONLY through them. Is this even possible?

I appreciate the comments and feedback. I see the point about being a "tool" or "vehicle for the lawsuit".

The lawyer told me that it would have to be "extraordinary circumstances" as there is case law in regards to this, such as I commit a series of lies and willfully misrepresent to a significant level. In such a matter, then I could be liable for paying the defendants legal fees as a plaintiff, or specifically in this matter, I am a "class representative".

That is why I rather just not be a "class representative" but he is pressing me as he told me he just wants 3 class representatives because the more you have, the more at risk that the $1000 per hour lawyer for the defendant is able to put legal holes in the antitrust case.

I don't have motivation to be in a leader role as a "class representative". I rather just benefit from the class action lawsuit as filing a claim when the law firm wins the case.

And I doubt it is much benefit like "award incentive" from the judge for acting as a "class representative".

And he told me that he wants to limit how much documentation I provide like the specialized engineering reports I supported or created because it is better to minimize how much information it provided going into deposition and trying to "establish a class of victims".

He still didn't mention that if they are counter-sued, you would probably be on your own hook for a lawyer to defend you from the opponents' counter suit. Also, he did not deny that you could be sued for legal fees, which even pro forma, would be enough to ruin your life and cause you enormous legal expense for a while whether recovery were likely or not. You need indemnification at the very least from counter suits and suits for legal fees, or ANYTHING that might cause you to pay a lawyer on your own, much less holding settlements over your head.

If they think the indemnification still makes it worth their while, then it probably is OK for you, too. If they don't then they are playing you. In these big cases, you can probably count on everybody suing everybody for everything under the sun. If you are stuck with your own legal fees for any aspect of the proceedings, you are fucked.

One of the reasons I stopped participating in a professional committee is for years they covered us with complete indemnification insurance. Then, they got the bright idea that they would indemnify only for our legal defense. If the defense didn't work, we on the committee would be liable for any settlements or appeals.

Ceffer says

If they think the indemnification still makes it worth their while, then it probably is OK for you, too. If they don't then they are playing you.

Mister Ceffer and any lawyers here on Patnet, please advise. I also appreciate any feedback from non-lawyers also.

I just got this the below additional section from the lawyer in the revised client agreement. What do you all think of this ?

“As for the defendants’ attorneys’ fees, under the default rule in federal courts each side is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees ‘win or lose.’ Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. 121, 126 (2015). In the unlikely event that any defendant sought their attorneys’ fees or costs from you or any other plaintiff, those fees and costs would be paid by CMST.”

The original retainer does say I am not liable for the plaintiff attorney fees.

I was just concerned about paying the defendant attorney fees, and I posted in post #7 above what the plaintiff attorney just added to the retainer.

Sounds pretty good. Did you look into the case law, or get the opinion of an impartial attorney who knows this area?

NuttBoxer says

Sounds pretty good. Did you look into the case law, or get the opinion of an impartial attorney who knows this area?

I'm checking with a friend who is a lawyer. He is a federal employment lawyer, and represents federal civil servants before the MSPB.