LSAT Prep Company Ordered to Pay $927K in Legal Fees Forum

[LSAT Blog]

A test prep company has been ordered to pay more than $900,000 in legal fees and costs to plaintiffs who accused the company of violating District of Columbia consumer protection laws.

Three prospective law students who signed up for LSAT prep courses through Test Masters Educational Services Inc. (TES) sued the company in 2004, claiming they were deceived into thinking they were enrolling in TestMasters, a competitor.

Details:

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legal ... 1014120855

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/1 ... l-fees.htm

[fats provolone]

i heard the founder is getting sent to singh singh

[DavidConeSplitter]

At least they didn't sign up for Taxmasters, starring Patrick Cox

[Louis1127]

This seems like something that would be on Nathan For You. I can't believe real people actually did this.

[mist4bison]

.

[anon sequitur]

I remember hearing about this company like 5 years ago, apparently they got the testmaster's domain site before the "real" testmasters could.

LOL at how much the plaintiffs ended up losing in attorneys' costs and fees after 10 years of ongoing litigation.

You mean how little they won? They didn't pay attorney fees.

[mist4bison]

.

[fats provolone]

are they actually going to pay?

[anon sequitur]

Attorneys' fees were estimated at like 960k, if I recall correctly. Def. paid 927k. Difference of 33k. Pl.'s paid 33k in attorneys' fees. Their awards were 1.5k each. They paid more than they won in the litigation.

The $960k was the attorney's request to the court, not their bill to the plaintiffs. The $927k was how much the Judge approved. The plaintiffs in a case like this don't pay anything. They walk away with $1500. Which I guess was the cost of a prep course.

[mist4bison]

.

[anon sequitur]

Interesting. I guess I was applying what would happen in a bigger civil case. But I'd still argue Pls/whoever paid atty fees for the Pls' is out money. It looks like Robin Singh paid a portion of their costs. Since estimated fees weren't granted, I'm guessing that Robin doesn't get all of his money back, right? Granted, not the Pl, but still.

I wasn't able to read the nationallawjournal article, so maybe I'm wrong if that's where you got that info. The other article didn't mention Robin at all, it's hilarious if he's bankrolling lawsuits against his competitors. Who knows what kind of arrangement they have.

[AReasonableMan]

What exactly did the company do? And why aren't damages awarded like the deformed hand case? Retaking being as easy as it is, how could they be entitled to anything more than a refund?

[mist4bison]

.

[banjo]

Glad they finally got this guy. Their used to be a hilarious deposition of him on youtube, but I can't find it anymore.

[AReasonableMan]

Interesting. I guess I was applying what would happen in a bigger civil case. But I'd still argue Pls/whoever paid atty fees for the Pls' is out money. It looks like Robin Singh paid a portion of their costs. Since estimated fees weren't granted, I'm guessing that Robin doesn't get all of his money back, right? Granted, not the Pl, but still.

I wasn't able to read the nationallawjournal article, so maybe I'm wrong if that's where you got that info. The other article didn't mention Robin at all, it's hilarious if he's bankrolling lawsuits against his competitors. Who knows what kind of arrangement they have.

I pulled the memorandum opinion on the atty fees off pacer yesterday bc I was super bored at work. Right? I thought it was super funny, too. I think he had a vendetta; he'd sued them previously because they took "testmasters.com" after he'd copy righted TestMasters and a court sided with TES on it. ...Things I find out when I'm procrastinating real, billable work...

What exactly did the company do? And why aren't damages awarded like the deformed hand case? Retaking being as easy as it is, how could they be entitled to anything more than a refund?

Falsely represented themselves. But they actually had something in their contract about not being TM, which was written hilariously. It read something like: "There are other companies out there that present themselves as Testmasters Educational Services. One such company is operated by Robin Singh Educational Services. Rest assured, we are not that company."
All they were awarded was a refund.

It seems pretty obvious in hindsight that they would lose. Failure to read isn't a good defense when your name is Test Masters Education Services lol. The name is all you need to make the case, because there are millions of names they could have chosen. It is an asinine business model, because this outcome is pretty obvious.