Oddly enough, lawsuits cost money. Usually lots and lots of money, and for many people it may be difficult, if not impossible to cover the expenses of litigation so you can see it to its conclusion. As a result, an entire industry has formed around this need, providing litigation funding to clients who want to keep their lawsuits going. Any Lawsuits is one of the newer loan services offering funding for various types of lawsuits, and is the subject of this review.

A division of Alpine Funding, AnyLawsuits.com is currently in the process of a redesign, but so far their site has been easy to read and navigate, complete with a FAQ section that offers more details on how their funding service works. They also accurately explain that “lawsuit loans” aren’t actually loans, but are really cash advances, so the terms of agreement for this type of funding will be different from what you would expect from a typical bank loan.

Unfortunately, it was hard to garner how good the reputation of this lending company was. The site offers no testimonials from previous clients, and a search inquiry at the Better Business Bureau was unable to turn up any more information. In addition, there was little information as to what the terms of their cash advances might be, other than that you would be required to pay some type of flat fee once you receive a settlement. While this fee is sure to vary from case to case, it would help to give the visitor some general idea of how much he or she might be expected to pay in order to receive litigation funding, and outline what the typical conditions of their contract would be. Such disclosure should go far in establishing trust with current and potentially new clients.

A word to the wise though: litigation funding as a whole is not cheap, and according to financials experts should only be seen as a last recourse. How much you will pay back for such cash advances will depend on the provider, but usually there is either a recurring interest fee you will pay per month, based on the amount of the cash advance, or you will pay a flat fee once the lawsuit is settled. The interest rates can often be high, and since this type of lending is not subject to usury laws, the propensity for abuse is enormous. Say you were to receive $10,000 in funding, with a recurring fee of 10% per month. That’s a $1,000 you’ll pay out of pocket every month until your lawsuit is concluded. And if a lender is particularly shady, you may get hit with all types of unexpected fees while your lawsuit is ongoing.

Not all it’s cracked up to be is it?

As always, exercise due diligence and research before commiting to any one funding service. For more helpful information, check out these articles:

• 10 Rules of Lawsuits Loans
• Lawsuit Loans - Caveat Emptor
• Questions For Your Lawsuit Financing Company

There’s been some discussion going around about the recent AutoAdmit lawsuit that was recently filed, and since I previously read about some of the details on Feministe a few months back, I thought I’d share my own take on it here.

You know, let’s face it: The Internet is not a safe place. There are some whacked out loonies on this box that would give even steely Chuck Norris the creeps (…ok maybe not Chuck Norris, but you get my point). Yet the women involved here (whether they were parties to the suit or not) had an unfortunate tendency to post their real names and upload pictures of themselves online, whether in galleries like Flickr or other settings, and sometimes these photos could be a bit, uhh… alluring.

They certainly had a right to do so if they wanted to, and to say that their actions meant they were automatically “asking for trouble” is plainly sexist to me. The problem though is that their behavior also exhibited a sense of naivete as to the dangers of posting personal information about yourself online, especially if you’re an attractive looking woman. I can understand their grievance here however, that if a guy can post details about himself and not get any flak for it, then the same should hold true for a girl.

But that’s not reality. Hell even I’ve been threatened to be sued, stalked, my server hacked and God only knows what else, and I’m a GUY. That’s partly why I don’t reveal too much about myself and use a pseudonym for blogging.

Even more, nothing superbly made the point as to the dangers of exposure on the Internet, than the recent hoopla over a certain high school pole vaulter who had suddenly become a Google trend and the topic of many rude and coarse discussions, all because of ONE professional photograph that had been taken of her (and no I’m not giving the name or posting a photo, so sod off horndogs). It all underscores the sad reality that the more info you post about yourself online, the more you leave yourself open for tremendous attack (or unwanted attention), no matter what gender you are. So as much as it might pain some proud feminists to do so, please, for your sake, be wise when posting content of a personal nature on the Internet.

Now let’s examine the other side of the equation, how some of the commentators at AutoAdmit treated the female law students in question…

I think here I’ll simply reiterate what I said on Ann Althouse’s blog (edited for clarity):

No offense Ms. Althouse, but you (and other law professors like Reynolds) basically flipped off the female law students in question and dismissed their initial fears out of hand, while completely glossing over the stalking elements of the AutoAdmit threads. If you showed any true sympathy for their plight as you claim, it must have been in passing, because that certainly wasn’t the impression I had when reading your thoughts on the subject.

The threads didn’t merely contain off the wall comments, but disturbing material that encouraged criminal behavior and put the targeted law students in legitimate fear for their safety. You had much to say about the students’ fear of being able to find work as a result of this mess, but to THIS you offer few, if any words of genuine sympathy.

While I personally do think a degree of it is hyperbole, including the issue of whether these threads could dramatically affect their career goals (it may or may not), there are other issues to consider, and even if the cause of action to bring suit lacks merit, it may be because the plaintiffs in question saw no other recourse. They asked that the threads be taken down, and as far as I know the administrators flipped them off (even now). The refusal to remove threads that discussed rape fantasies, listed addresses of the victims, encouraged quasi-paparazzi behavior (and God only knows what else) may be an exercise in free speech in your view, but it also showed a gross and utter lack of common decency. Yet for all this talk about copyright issues and damage to career prospects, etc., little has been said about the more disturbing (and yes violent) elements of the AutoAdmit threads here. Ciolli not only lost his job offer over it (as it appears), but he may have also inadvertently opened the door to the introduction of new case law (presuming this lawsuit actually has wheels) that could potentially assign some degree of culpability and liability to the administrators of Internet message boards for the future, all because this asshat refused to do the right thing in the first place. Insane laws always get started like this too. Because one jerkwad couldn’t be bothered to do the right thing, the rest of us have to pay for it.

In regards to free speech, some may remember the pressing issue of whether simply posting a list of home addresses to abortionist doctors on an anti-abortion website (and nothing else) constituted legitimate free speech. Yet to what purpose would this serve? That it might come up on Jeopardy one night? Compare this to posting the addresses of the female students on AutoAdmit and then making rather umm, rude suggestions on what to do with that information. Is this still protected free speech?

Such issues of free speech is a grave subject not to be taken lightly. But what some of the AutoAdmit members did was incredibly atrocious, and if we can agree on that, what then should have been the proper recourse, if not this lawsuit? From this side of the valley the answers collectively seem to be: just ignore it.

Are you kidding me? If candid snapshots of me were posted on an hostile forum complete with my home address and healthy discussions on what Big Bruno would like to do to me once he gets his hands on me, I’m supposed to IGNORE this? I think I can understand now why some feminists might not like conservatives very much.

It’s also surprising to see law professors who are charged with teaching proper legal analysis to their students, analysis that requires a careful evaluation of ALL sides, would resort to making treatises that would be so obnoxious and embarrassingly one dimensional in tone here.

Law professors. Ugh. The scummiest kind of lawyers indeed.

You know, it does seem to me that some of the blogging law professors’ reaction to the law students’ complaints have been obnoxious to say the least, and it’s unfortunate to see them have an overbearingly overexposed presence in the blogosphere. But then again what other occupation pays you a 6 digit salary with a work week of only 8-10 hours and the possibility of tenure, (which curiously enough leaves you all the time in the world to blog?)

It was quiet yesterday at work. My boss hadn’t said a thing, and nobody came to clean up the mouse poo either. I’m assuming this means the men upstairs haven’t spoken to my boss yet about anything. Guess they don’t want show they can be bossed around by a lowly civilian, so they’re dragging their heels. Oh well, if the mice continue to use our area as their own personal restrooms for another few days, and upstairs still doesn’t do anything about it, I may have to call OSHA. If it comes to that, I can probably expect some real fireworks then.

Like a good possible-future-but-not-likely attorney, I realized if I was going to make a solid case for discrimination, I needed to give my boss and upstairs enough rope for which they could hang themselves. As of now nothing really happened that was actionable. One of the elements needed to make a successful cause of action is show that there had been harm. So I asked myself, “Where’s the harm here?” The only thing I received thus far was an idle threat, but my hours hadn’t been changed, I hadn’t lost any pay, and I hadn’t been disciplined. So rather than be a good boy and inform these lovely folks what rights I’m entitled to under the ADA, I think it’s best to stay quiet and see just how far they’ll take their threats.

I also realized with some sadness that as long as there would be this much turmoil in our division, I’d never be able to attend law school. All the added stress would make me flunk out my first semester for sure. I needed some stability at my job before I could take such a risk, and with them jerking me around about changing my schedule and creating other needless chaos, who’s to say that even if they agreed to a schedule change, that they wouldn’t pull the rug right out from under me the minute I started school?

Oh well. It ain’t over till it’s over. For now I just have to keep rolling with the punches.