I need legal help in virginia court on motion for Default Judgement.

[INVIGOR]

Good decision! He's working on three deals for me right now in excess of $500,000.00 USD. I trust him to say the least!

WmLoz

[David G]

Wow! $350-hr could easily cost more than the domain is worth.

That is amazing compensation which equals $728,000 a year based on a 40-hr work week!

Thanks Mr. John.

Steven Lieberman require me to pay expensive money.

But He is reliable i think.

He works on an hourly basis of $350 per hour.

Anyway thanks for all posted people.

[fab]

Wow! $350-hr could easily cost more than the domain is worth.

That is amazing compensation which equals $728,000 a year based on a 40-hr work week!

While, I'm definitely the wrong person to go and defend lawyers, but your taking very little into account, like secretaries, equipment, taxes, office space, extension courses, etc.

But yes, good lawyers do make a good income especially in US and Western countries.

[INVIGOR]

WOW, that's a boat load of money...Hmmmm....minus office say easy 200K per year, staff, 150K per year, expenses, 200K per year, equipment 10K per year, communicatons 25K per year. OH!!! No wonder they work one hour and bill 2!!!

[Dave Zan]

He looks kind and handsome.

Uh oh...

Just kidding. Good luck.

[jberryhill]

That is amazing compensation which equals $728,000 a year based on a 40-hr work week!

...as if all of those 40 hours were either billed or billable... For every one hour of billed work, there is easily two hours that aren't billed. Imagine spending each day spending at least 10 to 20 minutes a day with 10 different people just conducting an initial conversation to try to figure out what their problem is. That's a couple of hours a day, by phone and email.

minus office say easy 200K per year, staff, 150K per year, expenses, 200K per year, equipment 10K per year, communicatons 25K per year. OH!!!

No insurance? Continuing legal ed requirements? Student loan payments?

No wonder they work one hour and bill 2!!!

That's at the big firms where associates have minimum annual billing quotas. I don't think you'll ever find a client of Steve's or mine that has been billed for even all of the actual time spent on their work.

[jaydub]

For every one hour of billed work, there is easily two hours that aren't billed. Imagine spending each day spending at least 10 to 20 minutes a day with 10 different people just conducting an initial conversation to try to figure out what their problem is. That's a couple of hours a day, by phone and email.

I think it is easy to see the time you do without billed compensation John....just by looking at all of the time and advice you do here "pro bono".
I know you have heard it before but I will say it again John....your contributions here and other domain forums are really appreciated...

j

[INVIGOR]

...as if all of those 40 hours were either billed or billable... For every one hour of billed work, there is easily two hours that aren't billed. Imagine spending each day spending at least 10 to 20 minutes a day with 10 different people just conducting an initial conversation to try to figure out what their problem is. That's a couple of hours a day, by phone and email.



No insurance? Continuing legal ed requirements? Student loan payments?



That's at the big firms where associates have minimum annual billing quotas. I don't think you'll ever find a client of Steve's or mine that has been billed for even all of the actual time spent on their work.

Easy Tiger! I was defending you guys! The last bit was a joke! I consulted with you before (for free I might add), but as far as Steve goes, you're right, he does NOT charge the time he spends.

By the way John, you're the "seller's" rep and escrow agent on one of the deals Stevan is handling for me!

WmLoz

[socalboy]

Sounds like Steve is going to help you out.

His billable rate is dirt cheap. Decent lawyers in LA now charge $400-$800 per hour. But remember, most lawyers bill in 1/10 of an hour (6 minute) increments.

Default judgments are routinely set aside. Especially in a case like this, where it sounds like there are precedural due process issues.

Good luck!

[Banned: domain newbie]

Thank all of you for helping me.

I chose Steven.

He looks kind and handsome.

hey do you have his sexy pic?? i cant find any

[David G]

WOW, that's a boat load of money...Hmmmm....minus office say easy 200K per year, staff, 150K per year, expenses, 200K per year, equipment 10K per year, communicatons 25K per year. OH!!! No wonder they work one hour and bill 2!!!

I am sure it is exteremly rare for an attorney to have that kind of high expense which sounds like the costs of a large multi-lawyer law firm in the high rent district, and not a typical attorney.

I know 2 successful lawyers who live nearby with very low expenses (but they still charge about $300-hr):

A. Have no office except a home office.
B. Meets clients in-person typically at clients home or places like Starbucks.
C. Wife acts as his secretary and makes appointments.
D. Has a low cost 2nd phone line installed on home number.
E. Equipment he would own even if not an attorney, such as computers and fax machine.
F. Insurance, maybe has a low cost liability business rider on house policy.
G. Do not have websites and spend maybe $60-month for local media ads.

[fab]

I am sure it is exteremly rare for an attorney to have that kind of high expense which sounds like the costs of a large multi-lawyer law firm in the high rent district, and not a typical attorney.

I know 2 successful lawyers who live nearby with very low expenses (but they still charge about $300-hr):

A. Have no office except a home office.
B. Meets clients in-person typically at clients home or places like Starbucks.
C. Wife acts as his secretary and makes appointments.
D. Has a low cost 2nd phone line installed on home number.
E. Equipment he would own even if not an attorney, such as computers and fax machine.
F. Insurance, maybe has a low cost liability business rider on house policy.
G. Do not have websites and spend maybe $60-month for local media ads.

I just wonder what sort of clientèle he has. I mean does he get 40 hours a week of work.

[jberryhill]

Default judgments are routinely set aside. Especially in a case like this, where it sounds like there are precedural due process issues.

I doubt it. If it's an in rem ACPA suit in the EDVA, its going forward whether there is a suit in Korea or not.

The circumstances here are virtually identical to the Globalsantafe.com case.

GlobalSantafe Corporation v. GlobalSantafe.com
250 F.Supp.2d 610 (E.D. Va., Feb. 5, 2003)

[cyberlaw]

...as if all of those 40 hours were either billed or billable... For every one hour of billed work, there is easily two hours that aren't billed. Imagine spending each day spending at least 10 to 20 minutes a day with 10 different people just conducting an initial conversation to try to figure out what their problem is. That's a couple of hours a day, by phone and email.

That's at the big firms where associates have minimum annual billing quotas. I don't think you'll ever find a client of Steve's or mine that has been billed for even all of the actual time spent on their work.

Just agreeing wholeheartedly with all of the above. Also, where larger firms generally tend to look for any way to bill a client, I agree that smaller practices tend to help their clients save money wherever possible, even though it's contrary to the attorney's interests in having that work!

[fab]

I doubt it. If it's an in rem ACPA suit in the EDVA, its going forward whether there is a suit in Korea or not.

The circumstances here are virtually identical to the Globalsantafe.com case.

GlobalSantafe Corporation v. GlobalSantafe.com
250 F.Supp.2d 610 (E.D. Va., Feb. 5, 2003)

Here's a link:
http://www.finnegan.com/publications...type=trademark

[David G]

I just wonder what sort of clientèle he has. I mean does he get 40 hours a week of work.

That is a good point. You are right, he may be lucky to be able to bill-out much beyond 5-10 hrs a week so they bill several hundred percent more per hour than is justified for most any occupation to make up for the fact they do not have many clients willing to pay full time billable hrs and only has sufficiant clients for basically a part time job hrs.

[socalboy]

Agreed, a court would definitely look closely at GlobalSantaFe. Not only the law, but also involved a Korean who defended in Korean court. I couldn't pull up the full case from this computer to see who counsel were, but since it's the Eastern District of PA, I'll assume you either were involved or are quite familiar. I also noted that it is a default case.

However, I didn't see anything indicating an attempt by the Korean defendant in Global to set aside the default. Instead, they rested on the Korean court's decision. Here, Mr. Kim wants to fight the action in U.S. court, and has hired a US attorney to do so. We don't know how much notice he got of the default hearing; his initial post here was on 3/19 for a 3/21 hearing. His attorney just needs some time to prepare.

Also, we have no indication about the merits of Mr. Kim's case. In Global, the defendant was a bad actor. He registered the domain 1 day after hearing the news of the corporate merger of GlobalSantaFe. The court also found in Global that the Korean defendant did not have any legitimate business use for the domain. Mr. Kim's case could be completely different.

Given the strong judicial preference for deciding cases on the merits, and disfavoring defaults, do you not think that this court would entertain a motion to set aside the default and allow Mr. Kim to defend? Granted, it's never good to ignore a case and allow a default to be entered, but I think a court's going to look at the facts and circumstances in deciding how to rule.

[jberryhill]

since it's the Eastern District of PA

No. It was EDVA. You can't bring an in rem ACPA suit in the EDPA when there is a foreign registrar.

In Global, the defendant was a bad actor. He registered the domain 1 day after hearing the news of the corporate merger of GlobalSantaFe.

That's not relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction.

Given the strong judicial preference for deciding cases on the merits, and disfavoring defaults, do you not think that this court would entertain a motion to set aside the default and allow Mr. Kim to defend? Granted, it's never good to ignore a case and allow a default to be entered, but I think a court's going to look at the facts and circumstances in deciding how to rule.

Perhaps. But if you go into PACER for the EDVA, check back on cases filed under case code 840 (trademark) for the last couple of months, and then look at cases in which a domain name is the defendant - i.e. an ACPA in rem case - you'll get a pretty clear idea of how this is likely to go down.

(i.e. since the specific docket at issue here is readily identifiable on the information given so far)

I'll assume you either were involved or are quite familiar.

To be clear - I was not involved in that case. Since I've worked pretty much exclusively on domain matters since the late 1990's, I can remember most of the key cases off the top of my head.

We don't know how much notice he got of the default hearing

Yes, well, the other screw job of this particular statute is that adequate notice is expressly defined in the statute itself.

(aa)
sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and
(bb)
publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.

(B)
The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.

[socalboy]

You're right, EDVA, read that fast. Where Verisign maintains the registry.

Re jurisdiction: it doesn't sound like Mr. Kim is contesting that. He has an English problem, so tried to defend in his native land. Faced with default judgment, now willing to spend the money to defend here.

Re notice: again, he only states that he got emails, no letters. If he has given the proper postal address to the registrar, then the notice requirements of the statute may not have been satisfied.

Obviously there's a lot that needs to be fleshed out here. I would be interested to learn how it turns out.