"Typically class action suites are handled for a percentage of the judgement if the case is won."
Typically, a lawyer must do things like make mortgage payments and buy food in the meantime. I am always amazed by the number of inquiries I receive, and no lawyer is an exception to this, from people whose only exposure to lawyers must be from late night television commercials from the guys who do volume settlements with insurance companies. Yes, they can work on a contingency basis because, quite frankly, slip-and-fall and auto accident cases can be done in your sleep. What these lawyers don't tell you is that you'd get the same settlement from the insurance company without a lawyer (and without the lawyer's cut of up to 45 percent), because the insurance companies pay these claims from fixed settlement tables. The only advantage is that these kinds of lawyers know from experience what the numbers in the tables are, and you don't. So, yes, they might get a higher figure than you might be initially offered and accept.
Then there are the folks who say "the only ones who make out in class action cases are the lawyers". Normally, you have a situation where, say, ten million people have been ripped off by a credit card company to the tune of one dollar each, through some kind of systematic billing error. Now, sure, each of the plaintiffs is entitled to a dollar, but what's the point of any one of them suing about it. So, when the settlement is eventually worked out, after a couple of months of full-time work on a purely speculative basis, the plaintiffs might get fifty cents, while the attorney gets a percentage of a five million dollar settlement. Now, nobody would complain about a lawyer getting, say, twenty percent of a five million dollar settlement. But when the settlement is distributed around at 50 cents for each plaintiff, and one million dollars for the attorney (who was the only one gambling with his livelihood for several months), then people scream about how "unfair" it is that the lawyer got one million dollars.
Class action cases can only be taken on by certain kinds of law firms. There are two reasons for this. The first is that because the lawyer is representing a broad class of people who didn't pick him or her to be the lawyer, then that lawyer has to be "class qualified" by the court handling the case. Typically, the court will look at the firm's experience in handling class action cases. So, this field tends to be a little "clubby" in the first place. Secondly, you are not going to find a solo or small practice lawyer who is class qualified, nor are you going to find a solo or small practice lawyer who has enough of a paying caseload that they can take a flyer on something that is going to take months of work and might, or might not, end up being worthwhile. Sure, you read in the papers about lawyers making out like bandits on some class action cases. The stories about lawyers going into ruin and bankruptcy because these things have dragged out longer than they could financially support themselves are, frankly, not as interesting. But it certainly does happen. If you have the time, watch the movie "A Civil Action" about a lawyer who does just that, and then ultimately faces the ingratitude of plaintiffs who feel that they didn't get paid enough while he shot his life down the toilet on their behalf. It is based on a true story.
Nevertheless, a lawyer with expertise in a particular area can associate with a class-qualified firm to pursue a case. In that situation, there is going to be a fee-splitting arrangement between the lawyer who brought the case and the class-qualified firm. As you might imagine, class-qualified firms can take a major chunk there, while providing not much beyond the ability to keep the case alive.
I am sure there is no shortage of lawyers who would be interested in pursuing the variety of possible actions that could arise from Sitefinder. Netster, for example, has already filed a lawsuit seeking 100 million dollars as the result of its browser plug-in being broken by Sitefinder. There are a variety of other injured parties here, including trademark owners; owners of domains for which they had intended to remain inactive by not setting nameservers (very similar to the register.com suit); and traffic farmers who now have to compete with a party that does not have the same operating costs due to their monopoly position.
However, if you are not familiar with the way Verisign litigates, then you do not understand what is involved. Verisign, as a matter of policy, does not grant or accept time extensions for response to any motion or paper. Immediately upon filing suit against them, they will wallpaper your office with as many motions and filings as they can possibly dream up, and they will take advantage of as many procedural levers as possible to keep you on your toes. Litigating against Verisign is not something that one takes on as a hobby, and I have not met a lawyer yet that doesn't need things like food and shelter.
