Lawyers want money up front. There is a saying about not using good money to chase after bad. Yes... irony.
The hardest part is nobody has anything in writing and all transactions were in bitcoin. You might as well sue the hamburglar for stealing your monopoly money.
One thing that might work in our favor is that hashking has admitted to the attorney general that he was the mastermind of his scheme. Now it's just a matter of going to small claims court and trying to explain cryptocurrency to a stressed out underpaid judge.
+1
This is exactly what happened when we tried to take up a collection to go after Trendon. Everyone contacted was more than happy to pay half of all BTC collected back to the lawyers but not one single person involved was willing to put in any money up front. The reasons are obvious. The chance of getting anything back is almost zero. Any money put in up front to pay lawyers would be just more money down the drain. Many of the people involved were wiped out by the scam so even if they did want to gamble on getting something back they really do not have anything left to gamble with.
That's why it deserves to be pursued. It has research value for deals far beyond the lending market. Maybe instead of throwing "good money", investors (and maybe even donators) can produce a lower sum to pay for a consultation.
Would you be willing to put in money up front to pay for this? As you said it would be a donation because there is almost no chance of getting anything back.