[somenomadicguy]

Legalist just makes me sad, but I guess there's nothing more American than suing for absolutely anything. It's like the founders were looking for a business model that was even more parasitic than patent squatting.

As a nomad, airfordable is the best of the bunch to me. It almost balances out the karma of Legalist.

[3pt14159]

You think their parasites because you don't trust the American judicial system. That is fair, but the fundamental nature of what Legalist does is actually quite good. Justice shouldn't be denied to someone just because they can't afford to afford the legal fees. Sure, lawyers can take clients on contingency, but they are often cash-poor because law school is expensive, so the rate of return needs to be much higher to justify the risk and delayed payment. Investors, on the other hand, lack the information necessary to judge whether or not a case has merits because they usually don't have the right background knowledge about the law or the domain of the case.

If Legalist were launching from, say, Canada or the EU I'm not so sure it would be so negatively received; and I would certainly want it to exist if I were a poor person with mercury poisoning.

[somenomadicguy]

Perhaps I'm just too cynical in my old age, this feels like at best it is about turning the legal system into a market opportunity, not seeking justice. At worst it can be a tool, as with the Thiel case, to profit off of exacting revenge. There is no market opportunity for investors to join in on a defense.

The timing seems to be an opportunistic response to the Gawker lawsuit. Thiel has validated this sort of a marketplace, and being who he is, it's caught the attention of our opportunistic, objectivist start-up community.Of course the next step is to make this sort of market opportunity accessible to less wealthy investors. Version 2 will be crowdsourced for-profit lawsuits. 5,000 people each invest $2k in a lawsuit against Facebook and see a 1400% return in two years.

I feel that this is a direct result of Thiel validating this marketplace, so let me respond to your "If" argument with my own.

If Peter Thiel weren't a cult of personality type associated with our community, but rather he were the CEO of Fox News, Donald Trump, or Martin Shkreli, he would have been absolutely demonized in the HN! community.

We are going down a slippery slope that can use "might is right" to destroy competition, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. You should see what this same mentality has done to the business world and to the press here in Türkiye.

Class-action lawsuits are already the protection of the poor against mercury poisoning, done on contingency by lawyers who stand to reap huge profits. Now this takes the risk away from the lawyers and turns that risk into a high profit opportunity for a smaller subset of investors.

[endswapper]

Unless we decouple the market-based economy from society, in general, everything is a market opportunity, and technology (not Theil) is currently the best test of this point.

So, we can work together with a diverse array of stakeholders (even the ones we deem less 'x') to effect societal change, or we can focus on myopic, circular debates that defend our comfort level. Our choice.

Shrkeli was defending the economic justification for the EpiPen price increase. He is probably the last person you want to align yourself with unless you concede to being nothing more than a market vulture - not sensible for the maker of the EpiPen. Yesterday/today, the maker is proposing greater efforts to ease the financial burden for those who can't afford it.

Greater access to resources within the legal system, i.e. SimpleCitizen.com, or Legalist, is better for society. If you think of society as an algorithm, it is beneficial to test the variety of available perspectives to determine which provides the greatest societal benefit (not just profit). I think this should be a priority as individuals and enterprises.

[3pt14159]

This is fair, and I agree with your characterization of the American judicial system, but I don't think I'd have any of your concerns here in Canada. Justice needs an overhaul in the USA. As for Gawker, they should have suffered for what they did, but they shouldn't have gone completely bankrupt. The amount was way too high for what they did.

[will_brown]

I knew someone would take the dim view of this startup. Though it is very easy to look at the other side of the coin, or $40B of liability that just washes under the bride because the damaged parties don't have access/can't afford a lawyer.

What if you had a parent, sibling, spouse suffer a serious injury, would you not help them financially if you could and they needed it? Would you refuse to be paid back out of their settlement, because that would be parasitic? You do realize it is against Legalist's, Thiel's or anyone else interest to support bad or worse false claims, because they can and will actually lose money right? I think for whatever reason, people like to believe the legal system is a a lot more dysfunctional than it truly is, example, that Thiel conjured up Hogan's lawsuit, that but for Thiel's money being involved there would be no damages, when the truth is Thiel provided financing and likely got an economic interest in the final judgment/settlement but he still had zero influence on the case itself.

It is on par with taking an extremist approach to doctors and medicine..."nothing more American than saving a life, as long as you have good insurance or can pay cash up front."

[somenomadicguy]

"when the truth is Thiel provided financing and likely got an economic interest in the final judgment/settlement but he still had zero influence on the case itself"

Zero influence? Wasn't his $10m incredibly influential?

[will_brown]

No, at any point "Hogan" could have settled his case instead of take it to trial. Thiel did not have any influence over litigation decisions (accept settlement vs go to trial), just as Legalist would have zero influence over litigation decisions.

Alternatively, besides speculation Thiel had influence, in the face of Rules of Professional Responsibility that would result in the disbarrment of "Hogan's" lawyers, explain the exact influence Thiel had that interfered with "Hogan's" attorney-client relationship. Specifically, how would the case have been any different if Thiel did not finance some or part of the litigation and how would it have been different if a bank, with no history with Gawker, financed some or all of the litigation?

[somenomadicguy]

Quite simply, a bank would have done a risk analysis and quickly pushed for a settlement, whereas Thiel was motivate by hatred, and the kind of entitlement which comes from power and wealth. He was to happy to carry all the risk and let Hogan reap the rewards give the reward to Hulk out of pure hatred for Nick Denton. Decision makers at banks always report to somebody. Thiel knows that being a billionaire means that he doesn't have to justify his actions to anybody.

[will_brown]

>a bank would have done a risk analysis and quickly pushed for a settlement

That is exactly what is wrong with this whole line of thinking. Whether an unbiased bank or likely biased Thiel (in that case) neither would legally be allowed to dictate any of this, it is all between the litigant (Hogan) and his lawyer. Further, there would be no incentive to listen to either Thiel or a bank before ones own lawyer, $10M financing or not, one will not cut their nose of despite their face. In fact this is a fine example, if Hogan were to have accepted a quick settlement, instead of listening to his lawyers, it would have been the wrong choice as he received more at trial.

[somenomadicguy]

Perhaps Thiel offered a minimum return on investment to Hogan? "If you win, you get 100% of a 9+ figure reward. If you lose, I give you $25m, either way we exact our revenge".

[kchoudhu]

"We're definitely not Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan."

You are. Why not own it? Not all businesses need to smell like a bed of roses.

[koolba]

> You are. Why not own it? Not all businesses need to smell like a bed of roses.

Exactly. I know a guy that literally runs a business that smells like shit. They pump septic tanks and he's doing great. There's a natural apprehension for competitors to enter a market like that, must be similar for things that figuratively smell like shit too (like this).

[somenomadicguy]

Sanitation work like Septic is far more important than any cute software start-up, that's for sure. I think my last honest job was cleaning out chicken-stalls on a farm when I was 12.