[nickff]

Selecting a lawyer with a proven record, and expressing confidence in them are not "hinting in the direction that they think the case should be decided on quality of lawyer". They're smart strategies, whether you decide to take the case to court, or seek a settlement (on either side).

[swores]

I agree that it is of course smart to choose a lawyer you think can win, it's the public statement about the lawyer's track record that seems crazy to me, not the hiring decision.

[nickff]

Expressing confidence publicly just seems like a ‘stronger’ way of expressing it (as compared to doing so privately). Perhaps Automattic is trying to get WP Engine stakeholders to press for a settlement?

What about this “seems crazy”?

[swores]

It makes no difference in their battle against WP Engine, who would very quickly discover which lawyers they're going up against with or without this blog post.

That line in the blog post is aimed at public perception, not WP Engine's perception, and from a PR point of view there's not really any benefit to it only downside - I guess their thinking is that some members of public might think "the winning lawyer wouldn't join the losing team so Automattic must be in the right here", but it actually makes them look like their legal defence is weak enough that they need to resort to trying to win through legal skills rather than business facts.

When I call it "crazy" I'm talking from the point of view of someone who has drafted a couple of announcements quite similar to this one, and many others that weren't related to defending legal cases but were still walking tricking lines in PR/comms, and I just can't imagine a line like that being suggested by anyone I've worked with and can't imagine letting it slip into a release I was involved in.

[finnthehuman]

A sentiment that a lawyer is so good they will overcome this challenge rather than conveying that the lawyer will prove the questions of law and fact resolve it in their favor... it just... well... seems like the kind of shit that's for a TV show where it's not about contesting facts and law.

[nickff]

Lawyering is not just about knowing the law and proving facts, for an example of this, I recommend the book about Theranos: “Bad Blood”.

[finnthehuman]

Yeah, ofc, the lawyer skill gradient exists and causes slam-dunk cases to be decided in the "wrong" [0] direction. It's just odd to say you will win because the lawyer is that good, makes it sound like you might be wrong but are going to win simply because you have better council.

[0] There's gotta be a fancy latin-sounding lawyer word for this, right?

[singleshot_]

No one is going to “win.” They’re going to settle. The quality of your lawyer will absolutely, positively influence your pleasure in the settlement. There are facts and law bad enough to overwhelm any lawyer, but usually there’s garbage on either side of the case and each lawyer will be able to use his or her skill to handle the garbage.

> There's gotta be a fancy latin-sounding lawyer word for this, right?

“America”