[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".