Although, as the New York Times piece points up, there are a bunch of lawsuits springing out of the Occupy Wall Street movement (actually, Colin Moynihan, the Times writer, didn’t use the word “bunch;” he said “myriad”), one lawsuit settled: Occupy Wall Street Wins Suit Over Seizure of Library – NYTimes.com.
Several quotes at the end of the article are significant:
“There are many reasons to settle a case,” said Sheryl Neufeld of the New York City Law Department. “And sometimes that includes avoiding the potential for drawn out litigation that bolsters plaintiff attorney fees.”
Nice, instructive neutral rationalization, Ms. Neufeld, up to the “drawn out litigation” part. After that, you take an utterly unnecessary, yet bitter and telling little swipe at plaintiffs’ attorneys. So here’s the last paragraph, in which a (famous) plaintiffs’ attorney (and here’s the link to something I published about him a while ago, containing another link) states:
“In our opinion people’s constitutional rights were violated,” said Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the protesters. “And our settlement holds the city accountable.”