This document appears to be page 2 of a legal advisory or retainer agreement provided to clients in a sexual abuse lawsuit. It details the strategic arguments for and against joining multiple plaintiffs in a single case, citing credibility benefits versus the risks of 'diluting' strong cases or losing individual control. The document specifically references child sex abuse cases and uses the Bill Cosby case as an analogy for the power of multiple accusers.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Cosby | Example Reference |
Mentioned in reference to a New York Magazine article about multiple accusers to illustrate the power of collective s...
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| New York Magazine |
Publisher of an article referenced in the text regarding Bill Cosby's accusers.
|
|
| The Firm |
The unnamed law firm providing this document to a client, discussing their representation strategy.
|
"our Firm has generally recommended against class action lawsuits in child sex abuse cases, at least as to damages."Source
"having multiple plaintiffs in the same case makes it easier for the judge to see why the evidence should be admitted."Source
"joining together in one case puts everyone's 'eggs in one basket.'"Source
"defendants are more likely to lack credibility with a jury... when arguing they should not have realized victims were in danger in the face of overwhelming evidence that multiple victims were being abused by the same person(s)."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (3,169 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document