It's Bollea's rights that would be violated, so he's the one to decide such. I highly doubt he will given the circumstances.

That's why I can't take seriously anyone other than him suggesting such.

Other people get to 'decide' at appeal time: I were the judge / on a jury on a case were the complainant was tactically dropping charges with the aim of bankrupting the other party rather than seeking justice, I'd probably decide against them. I find using the justice system in pursuit of revenge at the cost of actual justice rather perverse.

You are misunderstanding the system, I think. If Bollea can win the case, and that judgment would bankrupt Gawker, then under our legal system Bollea has the right to bankrupt them. He also has the right to settle with them if he finds an offer they make advantageous. But that is completely up to him.

Whatever he chooses, for whatever reasons he chooses, is justice. By definition. To be honest, if anything is a perversion of justice, it's a settlement. Because a settlement prevents a verdict from ever being reached and the legal 'truth' of the situation from ever being found.

Agreed, it is settling which could be considered unjust.

> I find using the justice system in pursuit of revenge at the cost of actual justice rather perverse.

Its major function, crudely, is to prevent Hulk Hogan from visiting Nick Denton in character.

It isn't to prevent the pursuit of revenge. It is to prevent violence and vendetta by having a neutral third party arbitrate. The pursuit of revenge for wrongs committed is the notion and motivation behind the elaborate social institution we call justice.

No, the only person with a cause of action here is Bolea himself. Until and unless he asserts that something happened which violated his rights, the entire argument is bogus.

He is the only one who can decide that his lawyer somehow wronged him here. The question is simply not before the court. They decide the arguments presented to them, they can't simply invent one to decide. And Bolea is the only person who can make such an argument here.

Also, it's going to be hard to argue that his lawyers bungled things when he won a huge pile of money.

"Also, it's going to be hard to argue that his lawyers bungled things when he won a huge pile of money."

And then made a decision that meant that in all likelihood he will see either none of, or a tiny fraction of that money, when he could have seen nearly all or all of it by virtue of a liability insurance pay out.

That depends on the bankruptcy court. Maybe he has enough money and is happier this way? Like I said, anyone other than Bolea arguing this is full of crap. He's the only one who gets to decide what is or is not in his interests.

Until and unless Bolea says otherwise, the uninformed speculation to the contrary is simply absurd.