CNN sued for $275 Million in the 16 year old Catholic HS student case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

Source for either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

No, pro bono means the firm is paying for the costs and providing labor for free with no expectation of reimbursement. Contingency means the firm is fronting the costs of the action and not charging an hourly rate, but will take a percentage of an eventual judgment/settlement (if there is one) as compensation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

No, pro bono means the firm is paying for the costs and providing labor for free with no expectation of reimbursement. Contingency means the firm is fronting the costs of the action and not charging an hourly rate, but will take a percentage of an eventual judgment/settlement (if there is one) as compensation.

Either one means that the lawyer/firm is not being paid by some currently-unknown backer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

No, pro bono means the firm is paying for the costs and providing labor for free with no expectation of reimbursement. Contingency means the firm is fronting the costs of the action and not charging an hourly rate, but will take a percentage of an eventual judgment/settlement (if there is one) as compensation.

Either one means that the lawyer/firm is not being paid by some currently-unknown backer.

But neither has been confirmed.

Are law firms ever given special privileges or rewards for taking certain pro-bono cases? It’d be interesting to go back and look at the path of some of the recently-appointed federal judges who didn’t seem to have the experience. Quid pro quo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

No, pro bono means the firm is paying for the costs and providing labor for free with no expectation of reimbursement. Contingency means the firm is fronting the costs of the action and not charging an hourly rate, but will take a percentage of an eventual judgment/settlement (if there is one) as compensation.

Either one means that the lawyer/firm is not being paid by some currently-unknown backer.

But neither has been confirmed.

Are law firms ever given special privileges or rewards for taking certain pro-bono cases? It’d be interesting to go back and look at the path of some of the recently-appointed federal judges who didn’t seem to have the experience. Quid pro quo?

Not the way you mean, no.

[Anonymous]

The whole point of the lawsuits is not the money - it’s to force these media giants to apologize for their gross lack of journalistic integrity. As they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Associated Press and television networks NBC and HBO could be the next three entities sued over their handling of the viral video featuring Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, his co-counsel told Fox News on Tuesday.

Todd McMurtry revealed the potential upcoming legal targets during an interview with Fox News just one day after a massive $275 million suit was filed against CNN due to its coverage of the January confrontation between Sandmann -- wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat -- and Native American activist, Nathan Phillips.

“Our plan is to come out with an additional lawsuit every few weeks or months. We have to issue opportunities for these news organizations to provide retractions,” McMurtry told the "Todd Starnes Radio Show." "But right now we're looking very carefully at NBC, AP, HBO. And again, HBO is primarily because they carry Bill Maher's disgusting comments about Nicholas Sandmann. So those probably are the next three defendants."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/ap-hbo-nbc-could-be-next-outlets-sued-over-coverage-of-covington-catholic-student-co-counsel.amp

They should ask Trump what happens when you try to sue Bill Maher for his comments. It doesn’t work out well.

[Anonymous]

I read (most of) the 38 page complaint against WaPo and a couple excerpts of the 60 page complaint against CNN. Wood had better hope that he wins these suits. If he's doing these more for the publicity, or for some other reason, then he could be in trouble himself for defamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

No, pro bono means the firm is paying for the costs and providing labor for free with no expectation of reimbursement. Contingency means the firm is fronting the costs of the action and not charging an hourly rate, but will take a percentage of an eventual judgment/settlement (if there is one) as compensation.

Either one means that the lawyer/firm is not being paid by some currently-unknown backer.

But neither has been confirmed.

Are law firms ever given special privileges or rewards for taking certain pro-bono cases? It’d be interesting to go back and look at the path of some of the recently-appointed federal judges who didn’t seem to have the experience. Quid pro quo?

No, they’re not. If he’s doing this pro bono, it’s probably for the publicity, to build his national profile so he can become the go-to lawyer for right-wingers who want to file media claims (which is his area of specialty), maybe get a gig with Fox News as a guest commentator, etc. That’s also why he’s doing all of these media appearances for the case, because otherwise they’re a gamble. All he has to do is say one wrong thing that a defendant can later point to in court, and then not only has he sunk the case but he’s also opened himself up to potential malpractice liability and ethics investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read (most of) the 38 page complaint against WaPo and a couple excerpts of the 60 page complaint against CNN. Wood had better hope that he wins these suits. If he's doing these more for the publicity, or for some other reason, then he could be in trouble himself for defamation.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Who's paying for this kid's bills? Really irresponsible attorneys to pursue this knowing its frivolous on multiple fronts. This kid's going to be googleable to his grandkid's girlfriends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro bono.

Source? My guess would have been contingency,

Either of those two means nobody is “paying for it.”

No, pro bono means the firm is paying for the costs and providing labor for free with no expectation of reimbursement. Contingency means the firm is fronting the costs of the action and not charging an hourly rate, but will take a percentage of an eventual judgment/settlement (if there is one) as compensation.

Either one means that the lawyer/firm is not being paid by some currently-unknown backer.

But neither has been confirmed.

Are law firms ever given special privileges or rewards for taking certain pro-bono cases? It’d be interesting to go back and look at the path of some of the recently-appointed federal judges who didn’t seem to have the experience. Quid pro quo?

No, they’re not. If he’s doing this pro bono, it’s probably for the publicity, to build his national profile so he can become the go-to lawyer for right-wingers who want to file media claims (which is his area of specialty), maybe get a gig with Fox News as a guest commentator, etc. That’s also why he’s doing all of these media appearances for the case, because otherwise they’re a gamble. All he has to do is say one wrong thing that a defendant can later point to in court, and then not only has he sunk the case but he’s also opened himself up to potential malpractice liability and ethics investigation.

+1. The Republican Avenatti.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes has shifted further to the Left since 2016. They used to be to the Right of WaPo, but not anymore.

AP and Reuters are among the few remaining examples of quality journalism that are not skewed Left or Right.

+1

I had to cancel my print NYT subscription because it became unbearable.

Ironically the anti-Trump obsession is working very well for them financially. They need him