Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brendan2012 who wrote (48501)	2/22/1998 12:27:00 AM
From: Lurker	Respond to of 58324

<<There's a big difference between the Iomega case and that one, though. Negligence does happen, and I don't think anyone here wants to eliminate lawyers. There are legitimate cases out there, and that one of Ron's sounds like it may be one of them (from what he said). I don't think you should be calling Ron lawyer sleaze without any evidence--you don't know what % he took on that case anyway.>> There have been 2 complaints about lawyers about their handling of cases vs. iomega. 1. They take too much of the money, such as 90,000 time the money as any of the plaintiffs. 2. Their suits go against Iomega shareholders by hurting Iomega share value and Iomega's ability to conduct future business. Ron, defended these 2 practices as normal and cited a case of his. I believe him when he says that the cases are comparable. But, indeed, perhaps I was wrong. I assumed that taking 90,000 times the money of the plaintiffs was what he was refering to. In the case he cited this would amount to $22 for each of the poor plaintiffs and the rest of the $2 million for him. However, perhaps he was refering to item #2. In this case the lawyers sue Iomega for a bunch of money even if it handicaps the business. Or, in his case, his client and he want a bunch of money even if the hospital has to shut down and others have to go without medical care. This is even worse than item #1. This would make him a truely pathetic human being. So, Ron, if you were defending point #2, your right to be a total pathetic person, grabbing money know matter how many people had to go without medical service instead of being merely greedy, then I sincerely apologize for underestimating your self-centeredness and desire to hurt other people.

To: Brendan2012 who wrote (48501)	2/22/1998 1:57:00 AM
From: slipnsip	Respond to of 58324

" I don't think you should be calling Ron lawyer sleaze without any evidence--you don't know what % he took on that case anyway." I believe at one time in MI that there was a law that would not allow an attorney to get more than 33% of the award plus expenses. I think that law has been abolished now. Why do you think that happened? If I am wrong, which is a strong possibility, please correct me. Just out of curiosity Ron, could you just confirm that you got at least your 33% plus expenses?