I think it was sufficiently clear in context what SPI meant by “pending cases.” Their response disclosed that they were running on volunteer labor with a shoestring budget. So I’d start with an assumption that any of their cases were in the very early stages, and I would assume as a litigator that their cases would need significant investigation and development prior to filing.
Moreover, the reference to a desire for confidentiality strongly implies that the referenced cases were at the pre-filing stage of the litigation process. Civil actions are almost always a matter of public record, and the case-initiating documents (a summons and complaint) are generally served on the defendant(s) soon after being filed with the court. And presumably the goal of confidentiality would be that the intended target and/or the broader industry not find out until the case is filed and served. (It’s really unlikely that either the plaintiff or defendant in a case involving (e.g.) widespread pesticide use would be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym, at least in US courts.)
Thanks Jason. We thought it was clear from context as well, but have edited the post to ensure that no one could construe it any other way. We are indeed working on volunteer labor and on a tight budget. Your assessment of our current stage and reason for our desire for confidentiality is accurate.
“Pending case” does seem to have a specific legal meaning. I am not a lawyer and wouldn’t know whether there is an additional colloquial meaning (though when asked in those terms, Claude Sonnet 4 agrees that there is). Therefore I disagree that it was “sufficiently clear”—I would say it was below a sufficient standard of clarity.[1] I don’t think the reader can be expected to infer that a legal term was being used differently from the fact it was a disclosed to be a newly-formed volunteer team. I do think readers would have expected an organisation’s formal statement to be using the legal, more formal, meaning, and indeed I think many non-lawyer readers of this forum would not be aware that there is any other meaning.
Thanks Hugh. For the purpose of clarity, we are editing the words “pending cases” on the prior post and noting that it has been edited. The original ambiguity was not deliberate, for what it is worth. We meant it the way that your Claude session explains it, but we understand that there is a specific legal meaning.
SPI stated: “Much of our current efforts involve […] litigation, which we keep confidential for operational reasons—sharing details publicly would compromise pending cases.”[1]
We do not think SPI’s statement makes it clear that SPI has not litigated any cases, and only has “potential litigation in development and preparation.”[2]
Their response disclosed that they were running on volunteer labor with a shoestring budget.
Filing cases is often free for volunteer-run charities due to fee waivers.
Moreover, the reference to a desire for confidentiality strongly implies that the referenced cases were at the pre-filing stage of the litigation process. Civil actions are almost always a matter of public record, and the case-initiating documents
There is often a lot of information that you’d still want to keep confidential even if the lawsuit you’ve filed can be found with a docket number. Some of this confidentiality is even legally required.
In practice, it is also much less likely that people would find your cases if you don’t mention them to anyone (i.e. confidentiality).
Your implication seems to be that the filing fee is the only resource bottleneck, but there are other resource-consuming tasks involved (extensive fact finding, legal research, finding and consulting with witnesses, plaintiffs, hiring local counsel, etc.). These things take time and money, even when volunteers are working for free in their spare time.
Filing cases is often free for volunteer-run charities due to fee waivers
The filing fee isn’t the issue—getting to a proper complaint in an impact-litigation case generally requires a lot of resources. Consider, for instance, LIC’s 58-page complaint in the Costco case.
But if the resource was time, which in SPI’s case is free as they are volunteers, then having filed a case is consistent with operating on no budget or a shoestring budget, because of free waivers.
I think it was sufficiently clear in context what SPI meant by “pending cases.” Their response disclosed that they were running on volunteer labor with a shoestring budget. So I’d start with an assumption that any of their cases were in the very early stages, and I would assume as a litigator that their cases would need significant investigation and development prior to filing.
Moreover, the reference to a desire for confidentiality strongly implies that the referenced cases were at the pre-filing stage of the litigation process. Civil actions are almost always a matter of public record, and the case-initiating documents (a summons and complaint) are generally served on the defendant(s) soon after being filed with the court. And presumably the goal of confidentiality would be that the intended target and/or the broader industry not find out until the case is filed and served. (It’s really unlikely that either the plaintiff or defendant in a case involving (e.g.) widespread pesticide use would be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym, at least in US courts.)
Thanks Jason. We thought it was clear from context as well, but have edited the post to ensure that no one could construe it any other way. We are indeed working on volunteer labor and on a tight budget. Your assessment of our current stage and reason for our desire for confidentiality is accurate.
“Pending case” does seem to have a specific legal meaning. I am not a lawyer and wouldn’t know whether there is an additional colloquial meaning (though when asked in those terms, Claude Sonnet 4 agrees that there is). Therefore I disagree that it was “sufficiently clear”—I would say it was below a sufficient standard of clarity.[1] I don’t think the reader can be expected to infer that a legal term was being used differently from the fact it was a disclosed to be a newly-formed volunteer team. I do think readers would have expected an organisation’s formal statement to be using the legal, more formal, meaning, and indeed I think many non-lawyer readers of this forum would not be aware that there is any other meaning.
(Though I don’t get the impression this was deliberate, whereas I get the sense Vetted Causes does.)
Thanks Hugh. For the purpose of clarity, we are editing the words “pending cases” on the prior post and noting that it has been edited. The original ambiguity was not deliberate, for what it is worth. We meant it the way that your Claude session explains it, but we understand that there is a specific legal meaning.
SPI stated: “Much of our current efforts involve […] litigation, which we keep confidential for operational reasons—sharing details publicly would compromise pending cases.”[1]
We do not think SPI’s statement makes it clear that SPI has not litigated any cases, and only has “potential litigation in development and preparation.”[2]
Filing cases is often free for volunteer-run charities due to fee waivers.
There is often a lot of information that you’d still want to keep confidential even if the lawsuit you’ve filed can be found with a docket number. Some of this confidentiality is even legally required.
In practice, it is also much less likely that people would find your cases if you don’t mention them to anyone (i.e. confidentiality).
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KuwEsBTGXSSxrkh6m/society-for-the-protection-of-insects-review?commentId=MicynucEovxbejNeL
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sk9btzq9MjivvYtXG/spi-the-litigators-that-have-never-litigated-a-case?commentId=TiyoBgmn4fGRaHH8S
Your implication seems to be that the filing fee is the only resource bottleneck, but there are other resource-consuming tasks involved (extensive fact finding, legal research, finding and consulting with witnesses, plaintiffs, hiring local counsel, etc.). These things take time and money, even when volunteers are working for free in their spare time.
The filing fee isn’t the issue—getting to a proper complaint in an impact-litigation case generally requires a lot of resources. Consider, for instance, LIC’s 58-page complaint in the Costco case.
But if the resource was time, which in SPI’s case is free as they are volunteers, then having filed a case is consistent with operating on no budget or a shoestring budget, because of free waivers.