Lawyers who nixed Happy Birthday copyright will get $4.6M in fees

One-third of the $14 million settlement fund will go to plaintiffs' counsel.

Read the whole story

 

[QuidNYC]

"Happy payday, to you..."

 

[SixDegrees]

Seems reasonable.

 

[Renzatic]

It's a crying shame I'm burdened with an overabundance of conscience. I could be making so much more money right now.

 

[ceb]

I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

ceb[/url]":2e4kr0ib]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

 

[Llampshade]

In some ways, this seems like it's ridiculously too high. But as the judge said, they took on this case as a contingency case, meaning they would not have received a dime if they lost. They didn't lose, and they made the world a better place. Although there are plenty of people that arguably do more for the world that make significantly less money (teachers, for one), there are far more people who make much more than what they give back. I'm fine with this outcome.

 

[vassago]

So these lawyers are like the opposite of a copyright troll? Copyleft trolls?

 

[BadSuperblock]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":2xfrkfxi]

ceb[/url]":2xfrkfxi]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

Correct. I gained more appreciation of this recently during legal issues I was involved in. The reason we won is not just because we were right, but because the attorney knew a long list of things to look out and either defend against or use as ammunition, not just from a strictly factual point of view, but from knowing the ins and outs of how the legal system works. He was able to steer us through all kinds of potential complications and avoid enemy fire. The subtlety of strategy and tactics was impressive and obviously a level that never would occur to those of us untrained in law.

I would liken it to when a friend comes over with a computer problem and I, and many Ars readers, can probably think of exactly the right troubleshooting approach and the right solution or workaround that would never occur to a basic user. The way basic users regard the deep knowledge of techies is sort of the way that I can appreciate why "the little guy" needs good lawyers too. Except that the stakes are much higher in law, because you're often dealing with very large amounts of money and sometimes life and death.

 

[theJonTech]

Someone once said

"Every lawyer lies, except mine...."

 

[ITawAPuttyTat]

Yay! Thanks to these attorneys, "Happy Birthday" is now in the public domain, free to use, no longer putatively in the hands of predatory copyright trolls!
What?
They got paid to do that?
Let's all crap on these greedy attorneys who fight copyright trolls!

 

[Mad Man]

Judges are lawyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbs_3lePAjE

Bias! The Case Against Lawyers and Judges
Uploaded on Jan 27, 2011

"Is the law biased in favor of judges and lawyers? Does the legal system give the legal profession special privileges? Do lawyers have liberties that other do not? Find out as Benjamin H. Barton, author of 'The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System' joins Glenn to talk about his book."

EDITED TO ADD :

This Article answers this question with the following jurisprudential hypothesis. Many legal outcomes can be explained, and future cases predicted, by asking a very simple question: is there a plausible result in this case that will significantly affect the interests of the legal profession (positively or negatively)? If so, the case will be decided in the way that offers the best result for the legal profession.

- Benjamin Barton. "Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession?" October 2007. SSRN 976478. Emphasis added.

 

[Deleted member 440187]

ceb[/url]":3cw9zqhc]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

It may not be the case here, but it often seems to me that lawyers are paid from the settlement and that it appears that they defend a harmed party in court, and the harmed party comes away with very little and the lawyers a whole lot. If you take the view that it isn't just punishment for the offender but also reparations for those ripped off, it doesn't sit right. The motivations for the lawyer often is seen as very selfish and not the noble defender of the little guy.

In this case it is a separate payment I think ("$4.62 million in fees, according to a judge's fee order (PDF) published Tuesday. The amount, which equals one-third of a $14 million settlement fund, was granted over objections by the defendant, Warner/Chappell.") so that is less of an issue.

A law degree is a three-year degree. Many folks have spent more years gaining "highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills" and don't make nearly that amount of money. Often they are researchers who are simply just interested in something really really cool and make obvious positive contribution to our society. And certainly there are lawyers working as public defenders or on immigration law who are doing it for good reasons. But the perception (perhaps justified) is that the motivation for lawyers, including many of the copyright and patent trolls holding back innovation is simply money. Their attitude is the same as that of the Wall Street day traders and hedge fund managers.

*edit for clarity, also replace "moral code" with "attitude" in last sentence.

 

[mexaly]

Next thing you know, they'll be going for that song that goes, um, ...
'Da dum da dum, dum da dum da dum dum dum...'

 

[TechnicaNoir]

Perhaps a good incentive and example that lawyer powers can indeed be used for good? I'm looking at you Oracle! ...Oh wait, you're at it again... Forget it.

 

[ztechrdr]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":mgmo1nex]

ceb[/url]":mgmo1nex]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

I had assumed that the high hourly rate reflected not just the work of the lawyer in question but also included recompense for the cost of the team doing the research and support duties back at the lawyer’s office.

 

[zbeeblebrox]

Given the fact that they did change the world for the better, it makes sense that they get a payday out of it. That said, it probably sucks for the (I assume?) countless defendants who may be getting back less than they anticipated of money they already lost to the late copyright holders.

 

[SixDegrees]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":19ok5fyv]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":19ok5fyv]

ceb[/url]":19ok5fyv]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

And astronauts, aircraft pilots, nuclear power plant operators, and other highly skilled professionals don't deserve the same wages? In many cases they have more specialized skills and more knowledge than even the top 10% of lawyers. Lawyers are in it for the money and the thrill of the game, not truth or justice.

Lawyers are grossly-overpaid scum, each and every one of them.

Edit: added sentence about justice. (or the lack thereof)

Yeah, how dare those filthy fuckers walk away with $9.4 million dollars in their pockets?

Oh, wait - that was what their clients walked away with...

 

[joemullin]

ceb[/url]":7qezv0tc]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make?

I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for, but personally I can say my reasons for reporting something like this include:

1) it's interesting. It's rare to find out how much a case costs, usually legal costs are hidden from view.
2) part of debate on an important policy issue. If we agree the issue itself is important—potential copyfraud controlling pieces of art/culture—then it's worthwhile to learn about the costs related to the problem.
3) completeness. This is a case we covered start to finish and so from a story-telling perspective this is a kind of "epilogue."

I wasn't really trying to start a debate about "did so-and-so get paid too much/ too little" ... but it's understandable, and fine, that people would want to discuss that too...

 

[SixDegrees]

zbeeblebrox[/url]":rhme5ajg]Given the fact that they did change the world for the better, it makes sense that they get a payday out of it. That said, it probably sucks for the (I assume?) countless defendants who may be getting back less than they anticipated of money they already lost to the late copyright holders.

I'm pretty sure most everyone knows that lawyers charge for their services. If I were ever to sue for damages, an early conversation with my attorney would probably start out something like, "This is how much I want to wind up with in my pocket when everything's said and done. Feel free to do better if you can, and add whatever you think you need on top to make it happen."

 

[RRob]

ceb[/url]":3hd6ap6d]I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

It shows us just how expensive the legal system is, and how far out of reach it is for the average person.

 

[techIbanez]

vassago[/url]":2hsebscu]So these lawyers are like the opposite of a copyright troll? Copyleft trolls?

Copyright busters.

 

[SixDegrees]

RRob[/url]":1j89ev3h]

ceb[/url]":1j89ev3h]I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

It shows us just how expensive the legal system is, and how far out of reach it is for the average person.

The attorneys in this case took it on a contingency basis; had they lost, they would have made nothing, and their clients would have owed nothing.

 

[ip_what]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":f3li46ad]

ceb[/url]":f3li46ad]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

You forgot mountains of student debt. There's a chicken and egg question there, but it's undeniably a major factor, perhaps the major factor.

 

[Fatesrider]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":32kjhe8d]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":32kjhe8d]

ceb[/url]":32kjhe8d]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

And astronauts, aircraft pilots, nuclear power plant operators, and other highly skilled professionals don't deserve the same wages? In many cases they have more specialized skills and more knowledge than even the top 10% of lawyers. Lawyers are in it for the money and the thrill of the game, not truth or justice.

Lawyers are grossly-overpaid scum, each and every one of them.

Edit: added sentence about justice. (or the lack thereof)

You seem to have a skewed perception of what a highly skilled professional actually is.

Nuclear plant operators? Go look up the training involved. You don't have to be a physicist. Just someone who's bright enough to push the right buttons. Aircraft pilots? People with no flying skills can be coached and safely land one. Taking off is even easier. Apply throttle and keep the nose pointed toward the end of the runway. It usually takes off on its own once the airspeed is sufficient for lift.

NONE of those are "highly skilled", but a lawyer does actually have to have knowledge and understanding of his/her trade.

The diatribe upon which you seem to want to go is that we have a legal system that is so convoluted, so complicated, so contrived that we MUST have these folks to interact with it with any possibility of achieving a desired outcome.

With that, I'll agree. A legal system should be simple enough for everyone to understand.

But don't trash all of the legal experts out there who are actually highly skilled in their trades. Yes, there are Prenda asshats and ambulance chasers and people with law licenses practicing out there who should have been poster children for retroactive birth control, but there are shitty pilots, and shitty nuclear plant operators and shitty teachers and shitty every other "highly skilled professionals" who don't deserve a dime for their work, either. No trade is populated entirely by perfectly competent, perfectly moral, or perfectly altruistic people.

If lawyers seem like the scum of the earth to you, perhaps you need to hear what they have to do to actually win a case like this. And given that this case was a gamble for them in the first place, hell, they could have lost a lot of time, energy and money of their own (it costs them money to file cases, amendments, and other legal documents with the court, you know).

It's fine that they got paid for their work. It's fine that they got this much because that's what their clients agreed to pay them, should they win. What the hell is the problem, then?

 

[SixDegrees]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":368ch7oh]

ztechrdr[/url]":368ch7oh]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":368ch7oh]

ceb[/url]":368ch7oh]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

I had assumed that the high hourly rate reflected not just the work of the lawyer in question but also included recompense for the cost of the team doing the research and support duties back at the lawyer’s office.

It's much more likely that para-legals and other office staff did 90% of the work and the scumbag lawyers still billed his/her rates for each second plus a little. Been there, had that done to me.

Uh, so what? The fact that a large staff was put to work is the reason the billed hourly rate is high.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

ztechrdr[/url]":x7ma5a56]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":x7ma5a56]

ceb[/url]":x7ma5a56]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

I had assumed that the high hourly rate reflected not just the work of the lawyer in question but also included recompense for the cost of the team doing the research and support duties back at the lawyer’s office.

Well, yeah, I'd assume so too. I was intending to include that, though it was a bit vague.

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":x7ma5a56]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":x7ma5a56]

ceb[/url]":x7ma5a56]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

And astronauts, aircraft pilots, nuclear power plant operators, and other highly skilled professionals don't deserve the same wages? In many cases they have more specialized skills and more knowledge than even the top 10% of lawyers. Lawyers are in it for the money and the thrill of the game, not truth or justice.

Lawyers are grossly-overpaid scum, each and every one of them.

Edit: added sentence about justice. (or the lack thereof)

There is a lot of false equivalency here.

 

[SixDegrees]

They could have been paid an order of magnitude more, and I'd still be happy I don't have to suffer through any more renditions of "Happy, Happy Birthday!" and other bilge-laden substitutes when I'm out at a kids restaurant.

 

[ip_what]

rbtr4bp[/url]":1lutkyny]

ceb[/url]":1lutkyny]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

It may not be the case here, but it often seems to me that lawyers are paid from the settlement and that it appears that they defend a harmed party in court, and the harmed party comes away with very little and the lawyers a whole lot. If you take the view that it isn't just punishment for the offender but also reparations for those ripped off, it doesn't sit right. The motivations for the lawyer often is seen as very selfish and not the noble defender of the little guy.

In this case it is a separate payment I think ("$4.62 million in fees, according to a judge's fee order (PDF) published Tuesday. The amount, which equals one-third of a $14 million settlement fund, was granted over objections by the defendant, Warner/Chappell.") so that is less of an issue.

A law degree is a three-year degree. Many folks have spent more years gaining "highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills" and don't make nearly that amount of money. Often they are researchers who are simply just interested in something really really cool and make obvious positive contribution to our society. And certainly there are lawyers working as public defenders or on immigration law who are doing it for good reasons. But the perception (perhaps justified) is that the motivation for lawyers, including many of the copyright and patent trolls holding back innovation is simply money. Their attitude is the same as that of the Wall Street day traders and hedge fund managers.

*edit for clarity, also replace "moral code" with "attitude" in last sentence.

Generally speaking, if the lawyers are being paid out of the settlement (contigency fee arrangements) it means two things (1) the wronged party doesn't have the funds to seek redress and (2) if the lawyers lose they don't get anything.

People love to bitch about lawyers walking away with big paydays in class action suits, but they fail to understand that class action suits really aren't about making sure the plaintiff class gets a bunch of money, it's about making sure the defendant gets punished when they do a lot of little harms. Paying the lawyers is the way we make sure that a company can't get away with anything that costs more to litigate than the damage that was done.

PS very few people spend as much money gaining highly specialized training over a three year period than lawyers. Honestly, it would be better if legal education were cheeper, but there are market failures on top of market failures at play there.

 

[perrosdelaguerra]

Fatesrider[/url]":3divqoqa]What the hell is the problem, then?

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quote ... ll-lawyers

"Cade alleges that all lawyers do is shuffle parchments back and forth in a systematic attempt to ruin the common people. His demagoguery is simply a calculated appeal to simple folks' longing to be left alone. Yet one may recognize Cade's moral failings and still sympathize with Dick."

Basically, people have always hated lawyers...until they've needed one. And then, sometimes after they received the bill ;-)

 

[nitePhyyre]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":20hhj2xw]

ceb[/url]":20hhj2xw]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

That's... oddly backwards?

Lawyers and judges command high pay because of the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills required to practice law. Why does practicing the law require such highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills? I don't know*, however, I do know that the people who write the rules about how the legal system functions -- and therefore what kind of highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills are needed -- are the lawyers and judges...

*

Spoiler

But it really shouldn't. We have voluntary mediation systems that manage just fine without that complexity.

 

[taswyn]

vassago[/url]":3nd56zse]So these lawyers are like the opposite of a copyright troll? Copyleft trolls?

*looks left* *looks right* Wellllll… I'm not sure you could call them trolls. More like avenging warriors? Fighting on the side of, ahem… social justice?


…

Yes, I did.

Anyway, one thing I feel like I need to point out is that while the hourly rates seem exorbitantly high, when a lawyer bills their hourly it's not the same as, for example, a technician or developer's (/etc) own wage, who is working for a larger firm with clients.

Rather, it's the rate structure the firm charges. Which is usually quadruple or higher than what the firm pays the individual technician as a salary. Lawyers do usually have to employ other staff who won't be getting billable hours on a case, but will still be getting paid. And will need health insurance and other benefits. They also have to pay for their place of business.

I wouldn't disagree that frequently the legal profession gets to charge more than it should. But as in many things, there are more angles than just one, and some of the amount that gets charged that might seem to be beyond a reasonable individual salary is very valid and necessary to running a business with overhead beyond just the lawyer's own direct work, and to support that business they are required to charge more than just their own "wage" portion.

How much more and what their take home "wage" should be for the work they do are all debatable, but I just feel the need to point out that generally speaking, the hourly billable is not the lawyer's individual wages. It's the firm's client fee. Even when discussing sole practitioner offices, this is true. Even if you assume the sole practitioner in question wouldn't have other staff (hah) to handle billing, records, mailing, filing, court records searches, etc, etc, etc… you have to realize that all of those things take a LOT of time, time which then is not billable to a client directly. So there'd still be a need for an offset in what is charged.

 

[heartburnkid]

Renzatic[/url]":jyamgjtp]It's a crying shame I'm burdened with an overabundance of conscience. I could be making so much more money right now.

You know what, I'm fine with these lawyers making tons of money shattering invalid copyrights. That's a public service, IMHO. Certainly beats patent trolling.

 

[Ronin007]

rbtr4bp[/url]":171iu2j7]
A law degree is a three-year degree. Many folks have spent more years gaining "highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills" and don't make nearly that amount of money.

What most aren't aware of about lawyers is that their expertise is typically regional (province/state, municipality, etc). Where you study tends to limit you for where you want to operate.

There's a clerk (think apprentice lawyer) who had his own practice in the US, but has to start at the bottom & work up because he moved to a different area for a girl. He has the skills, but not the legal knowledge.

 

[Lonyo]

SixDegrees[/url]":217a4em3]They could have been paid an order of magnitude more, and I'd still be happy I don't have to suffer through any more renditions of "Happy, Happy Birthday!" and other bilge-laden substitutes when I'm out at a kids restaurant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKIxxRA270

Happy Happy Hardcore.

(Please note, song still under copyright)

 

[LuDux]

I don't generally say this about lawyers or fees like this, but - they fucking earned it.

 

[kmart]

I wonder how many Ars readers that are so willing to slam attorneys here for the work they do feel about the equally inane refrain around offices about how worthless IT, InfoSec, or systems folks are and how they shouldn't get paid for the "work" they do?

 

[balefire]

Fatesrider[/url]":2soxjcko]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":2soxjcko]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":2soxjcko]

ceb[/url]":2soxjcko]I really wish the following question would get honest answers instead of snark and downvotes, but I really, honestly wonder why we should care about how much the lawyers make? The company "at fault" (or whatever terminology is appropriate) is still paying a total amount of damages that they'd rather not pay.

People tend to think that lawyers are only in it for the occasional, rare huge payday like this. They neglect to mention the highly specialized training, domain knowledge, and other skills that are the reasons lawyers command such high rates.

And astronauts, aircraft pilots, nuclear power plant operators, and other highly skilled professionals don't deserve the same wages? In many cases they have more specialized skills and more knowledge than even the top 10% of lawyers. Lawyers are in it for the money and the thrill of the game, not truth or justice.

Lawyers are grossly-overpaid scum, each and every one of them.

Edit: added sentence about justice. (or the lack thereof)

You seem to have a skewed perception of what a highly skilled professional actually is.

Nuclear plant operators? Go look up the training involved. You don't have to be a physicist. Just someone who's bright enough to push the right buttons. Aircraft pilots? People with no flying skills can be coached and safely land one. Taking off is even easier. Apply throttle and keep the nose pointed toward the end of the runway. It usually takes off on its own once the airspeed is sufficient for lift.

NONE of those are "highly skilled", but a lawyer does actually have to have knowledge and understanding of his/her trade.

The diatribe upon which you seem to want to go is that we have a legal system that is so convoluted, so complicated, so contrived that we MUST have these folks to interact with it with any possibility of achieving a desired outcome.

With that, I'll agree. A legal system should be simple enough for everyone to understand.

But don't trash all of the legal experts out there who are actually highly skilled in their trades. Yes, there are Prenda asshats and ambulance chasers and people with law licenses practicing out there who should have been poster children for retroactive birth control, but there are shitty pilots, and shitty nuclear plant operators and shitty teachers and shitty every other "highly skilled professionals" who don't deserve a dime for their work, either. No trade is populated entirely by perfectly competent, perfectly moral, or perfectly altruistic people.

If lawyers seem like the scum of the earth to you, perhaps you need to hear what they have to do to actually win a case like this. And given that this case was a gamble for them in the first place, hell, they could have lost a lot of time, energy and money of their own (it costs them money to file cases, amendments, and other legal documents with the court, you know).

It's fine that they got paid for their work. It's fine that they got this much because that's what their clients agreed to pay them, should they win. What the hell is the problem, then?

The OP has a stronger grasp on what "Skilled trade" is than you do. While you make a very good point about the skills a lawyer posses, your oversimplification of what a airline pilot and nuclear plant operator do are quite insulting. Airline pilots put in thousands of hours of training on a aircraft and have to be medically certified at least every other year, not to mention their specialized knowledge on a large chunk of federal regulations, deep technical knowledge of their aircraft, and understanding of the physics (and the math hat goes along with it) of flying. Even a Truck Driver is now considered skilled work because of the knowledge and skill it takes to do the job.

While these operators make the work look easy, and in many ways it is, they are trained for every single thing that could and will go wrong.

So dial it back, they are just as skilled at their own trade as a lawyer is at theirs (and just as important to our economy, if not more so).