I think it is possible for an charity focusing on taking legal action to be impactful without [consistent] legal success, which the review doesn’t really acknowledge. A large part of the theory of change around suing corporate bad behaviour is the idea that it will deter bad behaviour in future, by making standards compliance more cost effective than defending lawsuits
I definitely agree that this is possible! However, as you said
it may be very difficult to have a deterrent effect if cases are typically dismissed.
ACE evaluated 3 “legal actions” in their review of LIC:
2 of the legal actions were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a valid legal claim. 12(b)(6) dismissals occur very early on in the legal process, making any legal expenses incurred by the Defendants relatively low. Additionally, encouraging or valuing lawsuits that fail to state valid legal claims but cost the defendant money risks causing the legal system to take animal rights/welfare cases less seriously. If courts observe a pattern of weak or legally insufficient cases being filed to burden defendants, they will become skeptical of all animal rights/welfare lawsuits—even those with strong legal merit.
The 3rd legal action ACE evaluated was not actually a legal action, but rather a public comment submission (ACE still classified it as a legal action). The public comment was rejected, and it is difficult to see how this would have a positive impact.
I don’t think this necessarily reflects badly on the organization, which is a young charity focused on a legal process which inevitably takes time.
ACE endorses LIC as a top charity. Currently, I don’t think this endorsement is justified given LIC’s track record, and I don’t think ACE provided a very strong justification for it. Here is a quote from ACE’s review of LIC:
“We think that out of all of Legal Impact for Chickens’ achievements, the Costco shareholder derivative case is particularly cost effective because it scored high on achievement quality.”
The Costco shareholder derivative case cost LIC over $200,000 and was dismissed for failing to state a valid legal claim. It is difficult to understand why ACE thinks this is a particularly cost effective achievement.
Some of the questions raised about ACE’s weightings are quite independent from the example given.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
I think this would have been an interesting contribution to the Animal Welfare debate week.
I wasn’t aware of that week. Maybe we’ll be able to prepare something for it next year!
ACE endorses LIC as a top charity. Currently, I don’t think this endorsement is justified given LIC’s track record, and I don’t think ACE provided a very strong justification for it.
I agree with this, and particularly agree that the quote you highlighted below does not seem like good justification. I also think your comment (elsewhere in this thread) that their track record is a “bad one” might be going a little too far.[1] As I say, I was surprised to find that LIC had not yet had any legal success, given that I’d heard about them mostly through hearing positive commentary on their cost effectiveness
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
I meant that there were criticisms you raised about the overall methodology that had wider implications than just LIC. Possibly I could have worded that better.
I wasn’t aware of that week. Maybe we’ll be able to prepare something for it next year!
There was an animal welfare vs GHD debate week on this forum. Honestly, I hope they don’t repeat it![2]
I think a charity aiming to encourage compliance that never filed any lawsuits unless they were almost certain to succeed would probably underperform too, and $200k is not an especially expensive legal case, though there are certainly more proven cost effective ways to save lives for that sort of money. That said, I haven’t read the lawsuit and wouldn’t know enough about relevant law to know whether the basis for dismissal was blindingly obvious or not...
I think there are probably more specific and less polarizing topics for debate. And polarizing topics more likely to yield concrete results, which probably includes this one.
Hi David,
Thank you for your reply!
I definitely agree that this is possible! However, as you said
ACE evaluated 3 “legal actions” in their review of LIC:
2 of the legal actions were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a valid legal claim. 12(b)(6) dismissals occur very early on in the legal process, making any legal expenses incurred by the Defendants relatively low. Additionally, encouraging or valuing lawsuits that fail to state valid legal claims but cost the defendant money risks causing the legal system to take animal rights/welfare cases less seriously. If courts observe a pattern of weak or legally insufficient cases being filed to burden defendants, they will become skeptical of all animal rights/welfare lawsuits—even those with strong legal merit.
The 3rd legal action ACE evaluated was not actually a legal action, but rather a public comment submission (ACE still classified it as a legal action). The public comment was rejected, and it is difficult to see how this would have a positive impact.
ACE endorses LIC as a top charity. Currently, I don’t think this endorsement is justified given LIC’s track record, and I don’t think ACE provided a very strong justification for it. Here is a quote from ACE’s review of LIC:
“We think that out of all of Legal Impact for Chickens’ achievements, the Costco shareholder derivative case is particularly cost effective because it scored high on achievement quality.”
The Costco shareholder derivative case cost LIC over $200,000 and was dismissed for failing to state a valid legal claim. It is difficult to understand why ACE thinks this is a particularly cost effective achievement.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
I wasn’t aware of that week. Maybe we’ll be able to prepare something for it next year!
Thank you for your feedback!
I agree with this, and particularly agree that the quote you highlighted below does not seem like good justification. I also think your comment (elsewhere in this thread) that their track record is a “bad one” might be going a little too far.[1] As I say, I was surprised to find that LIC had not yet had any legal success, given that I’d heard about them mostly through hearing positive commentary on their cost effectiveness
I meant that there were criticisms you raised about the overall methodology that had wider implications than just LIC. Possibly I could have worded that better.
There was an animal welfare vs GHD debate week on this forum. Honestly, I hope they don’t repeat it![2]
I think a charity aiming to encourage compliance that never filed any lawsuits unless they were almost certain to succeed would probably underperform too, and $200k is not an especially expensive legal case, though there are certainly more proven cost effective ways to save lives for that sort of money. That said, I haven’t read the lawsuit and wouldn’t know enough about relevant law to know whether the basis for dismissal was blindingly obvious or not...
I think there are probably more specific and less polarizing topics for debate. And polarizing topics more likely to yield concrete results, which probably includes this one.