Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker: Court orders $115M in damages

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think State Farm has someone funding a long-running shadow legal campaign with the specific intention of bankrupting them as a company. I think using the court system to overwhelm an enemy with lawsuits and drive them into bankruptcy over a personal vendetta is what makes it different.

 

They're bankrupt because they did something wrong. You guys keep buying up the whoa is me Gawker bulls***. End of the day, if they didn't do something s***ty to Hogan they wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[illinilaw08]

And really, other than scale, how is his financial backing any different than any other contingency fee case? Lawyers finance lawsuits all the time. Does it really matter if it's a third party doing it instead?

 

Jenks, you are looking at this almost exclusively through the lens of Gawker itself. You and I both know that big companies with vast legal resources can spend smaller companies into settling crappy cases that have just enough to get by a motion to dismiss. You and I also both know that contingency fee arrangements are a way to get lawyers to take smaller dollar suits, and to provide access to lawyers generally in certain types of cases (we can get into an argument generally about access to the legal system, but that doesn't really fit here).

 

I don't see anything wrong with Thiel or other billionaires using their funds to provide access to the legal system generally. I do have a problem with billionaires like Thiel seeking out and bankrolling any claim against a particular entity - regardless of the merits of that claim. Bankrolling any and all litigation to try to drive a particular company out of business is, to me, an abuse of the judicial system, regardless of who employs that method.

[illinilaw08]

They're bankrupt because they did something wrong. You guys keep buying up the whoa is me Gawker bulls***. End of the day, if they didn't do something s***ty to Hogan they wouldn't be in this mess.

 

To me, this literally has nothing to do with Gawker. The Hogan judgment is irrelevant to the conversation of whether billionaires bankrolling any and all litigation against a company they personally dislike (regardless of the basis for that dislike) is something that we, as society, should be ok with.

 

For the record, I also hate - on both sides, plaintiff and debtor - suits brought exclusively in an effort to get a settlement because the settlement is less than the cost of litigating the case. The legal system has legitimate access issues. Using the legal system to further a personal vendetta against a company is bad and wrong.

 

I also think that Gawker's conduct both in outing Thiel, and regarding Hogan, was bad and wrong. Gawker is bankrupt because they did something wrong, but that doesn't make Thiel's conduct right and ok.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, you are looking at this almost exclusively through the lens of Gawker itself. You and I both know that big companies with vast legal resources can spend smaller companies into settling crappy cases that have just enough to get by a motion to dismiss. You and I also both know that contingency fee arrangements are a way to get lawyers to take smaller dollar suits, and to provide access to lawyers generally in certain types of cases (we can get into an argument generally about access to the legal system, but that doesn't really fit here).

 

I don't see anything wrong with Thiel or other billionaires using their funds to provide access to the legal system generally. I do have a problem with billionaires like Thiel seeking out and bankrolling any claim against a particular entity - regardless of the merits of that claim. Bankrolling any and all litigation to try to drive a particular company out of business is, to me, an abuse of the judicial system, regardless of who employs that method.

 

I don't disagree if the claims are truly frivolous. But of the two cases Thiel is bankrolling that I know of, one was absolutely legit (Hogan) and the other is probably not (the inventor of email). I guess i'm not seeing this systematic frivolous lawsuit system that SS and bmags are complaining about.

[StrangeSox]

Read the nyt article I linked.

[Jenksismyhero]

To me, this literally has nothing to do with Gawker. The Hogan judgment is irrelevant to the conversation of whether billionaires bankrolling any and all litigation against a company they personally dislike (regardless of the basis for that dislike) is something that we, as society, should be ok with.

 

For the record, I also hate - on both sides, plaintiff and debtor - suits brought exclusively in an effort to get a settlement because the settlement is less than the cost of litigating the case. The legal system has legitimate access issues. Using the legal system to further a personal vendetta against a company is bad and wrong.

 

I also think that Gawker's conduct both in outing Thiel, and regarding Hogan, was bad and wrong. Gawker is bankrupt because they did something wrong, but that doesn't make Thiel's conduct right and ok.

 

How do you prevent that though? Is it even possible?

[Jenksismyhero]

Read the nyt article I linked.

 

I did, they don't mention specifics. You're assuming every case is frivolous. What if they're not?

[StrangeSox]

How do you prevent that though? Is it even possible?

No this is an argument about ethics.

[illinilaw08]

How do you prevent that though? Is it even possible?

 

In the bankruptcy world (majority of my practice), we have to disclose source of compensation in all cases that we file on behalf of debtors. And if I file a Chapter 11 for someone who gets the funds from a different entity, I have to show that I gave that other person or entity informed consent that they are not the client. I don't see why that's a problem generally - particularly since a lawyer's duty of loyalty is to their client, not the one paying the bills.

[StrangeSox]

I did, they don't mention specifics. You're assuming every case is frivolous. What if they're not?

I'm not saying they are. That's not the issue people have with theil here.

[illinilaw08]

I did, they don't mention specifics. You're assuming every case is frivolous. What if they're not?

 

What if some are and some aren't? Is that still an ok tactic?

[Jenksismyhero]

No this is an argument about ethics.

 

Ok, so if he has a personal vendetta but every case he backs is 100% legit and the victim could not have sued otherwise, ethically isn't he doing a good thing?

 

[StrangeSox]

In the bankruptcy world (majority of my practice), we have to disclose source of compensation in all cases that we file on behalf of debtors. And if I file a Chapter 11 for someone who gets the funds from a different entity, I have to show that I gave that other person or entity informed consent that they are not the client. I don't see why that's a problem generally - particularly since a lawyer's duty of loyalty is to their client, not the one paying the bills.

That's another part of it. The legal choices in some of the cases seem to favor damaging gawker over maximizing the outcome for the client

[bmags]

mm, k. You're talking about the ethics of the move. Money doesn't really matter. The same financial backing is being done on different scales in other cases.

 

That's an obtuse argument. If there are lawyers who find it profitable to specifically target libel cases against online publications because they win them, congrats to them.

 

Thiel is in a priveleged position of being one of the richest men in the United States and is using that influence to specifically injure a free media outlet he does not like. He';s not on a crusade to get justice, he rarely even knows the cases, he just funds every case made against gawker to financially punish them.

 

Powerful people using their power to take down antagonistic press outlets is something I'm commenting on. Back in the day Thiel would just buy his own paper. Now he's just litigating one to death. With how fragmented journalism is, that's scary. They can't handle more than one problem, and would be especially concerned about any stories challenging powerful people.

[Jenksismyhero]

What if some are and some aren't? Is that still an ok tactic?

 

I think if he's doing more good than bad, yes. His reasons for backing the cases are immaterial to me.

 

If this were a billionaire backing plaintiffs in claims against companies like BP over an oil spill, me thinks none of you would have a big issue with it, even if some of the claims were bulls***.

[bmags]

Ok, so if he has a personal vendetta but every case he backs is 100% legit and the victim could not have sued otherwise, ethically isn't he doing a good thing?

 

If he was doing something other than he is doing than I would comment on what he was doing. But he's not doing that, as has been discussed.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's another part of it. The legal choices in some of the cases seem to favor damaging gawker over maximizing the outcome for the client

 

That's a huge assumption you're making. You only know of "specifics" in one case, not multiple cases, and as I explained there could be legitimate reasons for doing what they did. You simply don't know one way or the other.

[bmags]

I think if he's doing more good than bad, yes. His reasons for backing the cases are immaterial to me.

 

If this were a billionaire backing plaintiffs in claims against companies like BP over an oil spill, me thinks none of you would have a big issue with it, even if some of the claims were bulls***.

 

Actually, that is such an unbelievably stupid strategy for, presumably, helping the environment vs. other methods I would criticize them.

[illinilaw08]

Ok, so if he has a personal vendetta but every case he backs is 100% legit and the victim could not have sued otherwise, ethically isn't he doing a good thing?

 

It depends. If he's directing the litigation behind the scenes and taking control of the case out of the plaintiffs' hands, then no, he isn't.

 

Hence, disclosing the source of funds for litigation generally.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's an obtuse argument. If there are lawyers who find it profitable to specifically target libel cases against online publications because they win them, congrats to them.

 

Thiel is in a priveleged position of being one of the richest men in the United States and is using that influence to specifically injure a free media outlet he does not like. He';s not on a crusade to get justice, he rarely even knows the cases, he just funds every case made against gawker to financially punish them.

 

So he's got money, that's the problem.

 

Link to the bolded?

 

Powerful people using their power to take down antagonistic press outlets is something I'm commenting on. Back in the day Thiel would just buy his own paper. Now he's just litigating one to death. With how fragmented journalism is, that's scary. They can't handle more than one problem, and would be especially concerned about any stories challenging powerful people.

 

The reverse of that is a powerful antagonistic press outlet that attacks and bullies people who may not have the means to fight them is equally dangerous. So there's good and bad with all of this.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It depends. If he's directing the litigation behind the scenes and taking control of the case out of the plaintiffs' hands, then no, he isn't.

 

Hence, disclosing the source of funds for litigation generally.

 

To who though? Jurors? That's unfairly prejudicial for the same reason we can't talk about insurance to jurors. End of the day who finances the lawsuit is irrelevant. Only facts matter.

Edited June 15, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[illinilaw08]

To who though? Jurors? That's unfairly prejudicial for the same reason we can't tlak about insurance to jurors. End of the day who finances the lawsuit is irrelevant. Only facts matter.

 

To the Court at the onset of the case. I'm not saying that this is something that should go in front of a jury, but at a deposition, it's certainly something that has a bearing on whether the lawyer is ethically pursuing the case, and whether the financial backer has a disproportionate level of influence on the case. Certainly doesn't get to the merits of the case, but is still relevant to whether the case is being pursued ethically.*

 

* Note that this is getting away from the meat of this topic.

[bmags]

So he's got money, that's the problem.

 

Link to the bolded?

 

 

 

The reverse of that is a powerful antagonistic press outlet that attacks and bullies people who may not have the means to fight them is equally dangerous. So there's good and bad with all of this.

 

We have a legal system in place for specific people to charge libel or slander against such an outlet. And, as you've said, plenty of enterprising law firms to take a case that has legs.

 

Gawker is aggressive but largely punches up. I'd worry more about power going unchecked than your scenario which doesn't really exist, and if it does has plenty of ways to get justice for unfair practices.

[Jenksismyhero]

We have a legal system in place for specific people to charge libel or slander against such an outlet. And, as you've said, plenty of enterprising law firms to take a case that has legs.

 

Not to the tune of 10 million on a 50/50 case. That's going to take some work by a Plaintiff to find a firm to take a case like that.

 

Gawker is aggressive but largely punches up.

 

The CPD largely does a good job but they also kill innocent black kids!

 

I'd worry more about power going unchecked than your scenario which doesn't really exist, and if it does has plenty of ways to get justice for unfair practices.

 

They may, they may not.

Edited June 15, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[knightni]

I thoroughly enjoy Deadspin, but their editor is a piece of trash.