Quoted from Taxman:
No argument. Keith seems to want this right. And maybe he gives ore details to his clients. But it always seems you never get a list or flow-chart showing where these things can or usually go. If you knew from day one it would mean paying a lawyer, years go by, continue this, he declares bankruptcy here, you need another fee there. I just would want to know what to expect. Otherwise along the way you either have to say "I'm in it this far might as well keep going" or "can't keep throwing good after bad I'm out" and wish you never went this far.
You are placing far too much predictability upon the justice system, which is adversarial by nature. Litigation, including this creditor-debtor case, is like a boxing match. Keith can tell you how many rounds it might take; however, he cannot tell you the score of each round in advance of the fight.
Certainly, it would be easier to place your bet if you knew more about the likely result in advance. But, it is unrealistic for anyone to expect an attorney to possess omniscience.
Lawyers who represent plaintiffs are akin to doctors who treat patients. Neither professional can guarantee the result. Moreover, neither professional can guarantee the parameters of the timetable. There are simply too many factors beyond the control of the professional to do so. In the case of the lawyer, the court itself dictates the schedule. A single motion's disposition or other event can have a dramatic effect on the case's calendar and its viability. All the while, there are defense lawyers (or other creditors) trying to achieve an opposite or contrary result. While it's not utter chaos, there are a lot of moving parts and a lot can go wrong, even in a strong case. Think of all of the events which can cause a pinball machine to malfunction. It's the same with litigation.
As far as your pedestrian comment that the justice system is designed to line the pockets of lawyers, I suggest that your comment does a disservice to many lawyers, including Keith. You're Taxman. Is the IRS Code designed to line the pockets of certified public accountants? Of course not. Such sweeping comments disregard the complexity of the specific situation at hand.
For example, Zane Smith, Esq. is representing a dozen or so Zidware customers in the Jpop litigation. Those clients paid Zane a nominal flat fee to join a lawsuit against Zidware/Jpop. Also, Zane is advancing all of the litigation costs. The fee arrangement is a contingency fee plan in which Zane's firm receives a percentage of any judgment or settlement.
Zane's clients are not paying Zane by the hour. Zane's motivation to settle or otherwise favorably resolve the Jpop case is aligned precisely with his clients. Zane wants the case to resolve sooner rather than later. Court and discovery delays are contrary to Zane Smith, Esquire's interest in the same way that his clients' interests are not served by such delays. In other words, the system is not designed by lawyers to line the pockets of lawyers, as you state.
Trying to right the wrongs of the Predator debacle and the Jpop mess are extremely frustrating. I think that everyone on this thread gets that fact. It's easy to be cynical, after all of this time, with customers still waiting for refunds. However, I suggest that your cynicism is misdirected at the one guy who is working hard to help the victims, the victim's counsel, Keith.