Law Suits and Popular Ignorance

My juries will give my injured clients their fees. You make the argument that they're not fully compensated unless the Defendant also pays for the attorney's fees. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Like I said, I knew what Tush would say about it. Every lawyer in this country knows that a jury would give costs and lawyers fees in cases that warranted it.

Isn't it funny that there's no good argument on the other side?

Cheers,
Mazo.

I'll take that bet. My juries will give my injured clients their fees. You make the argument that they're not fully compensated unless the Defendant also pays for the attorney's fees.

They might not do it in small fender bender cases, but in a major case -- pipe line explosion with gross negligence, father burned to the point he lost a limb, etc.; truck wreck that broke someone's neck and caused them brain damage because truck driver was speeding (just to mention two cases in my office right now) -- I'll get them 95 out of 100 times. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You must have the oratory skills of an MLK Jr. or Ronald Reagan (to pick a couple of equally despised leaders depending on your political orientation).

I don't have that kind of faith in the jury system, or that you can find 12 people willing to give attorneys money.

The first thing Walker did in office was cut taxes on businesses... Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Yes, and I think that will probably be a very good thing for the competitiveness of the state, especially while Illinois seems intent on going in the opposite direction.

Some on the left seem to think taxes on business offer some sort of free lunch. They don't. Workers and consumers end up paying the freight. Attempts to maintain unsustainable fiscal policies and uncompetitive tax regimes are killing a number of states. The starkest example may be California, but there are many others. Just look at New Jersey. Governor Christie is trying to mitigate or even reverse the damage there, and those on the left talk about him as though he's some sort of evil demon.

But absent bold action, they'd be headed for a horrific bust. With a U.S. fiscal deficit of about 11%, there's little appetite for federal bailouts.

Entitlement metastasization is a widespread malady, existing at national, state, and local levels. How much more obvious could it be that we can't afford it any more?

You must have the oratory skills of an MLK Jr. or Ronald Reagan (to pick a couple of equally despised leaders depending on your political orientation).

I don't have that kind of faith in the jury system, or that you can find 12 people willing to give attorneys money. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

If they didn't like your case, they wouldn't give you any money to start with. And it's not like the choice is to stiff the lawyer. The choice is the poor guy whose burned half to death and left with one arm pays his own lawyer, or the company who didn't maintain their pipeline and burned his arm off pays. I think that even the most heartless jury who saw fit to render a verdict for a Plaintiff would say that the negligent party should pay the lawyer, not the poor burned guy.

Let me ask you -- if you had found that the Defendant's failure to have an anti-corrosion program cause the pipeline to rupture and burned the guy -- why would you want him to cough up 40% rather than the fuckers who cause the entire problem? I'd really like to hear an answer to that question.

If they didn't like your case, they wouldn't give you any money to start with. And it's not like the choice is to stiff the lawyer. The choice is the poor guy whose burned half to death and left with one arm pays his own lawyer, or the company who didn't maintain their pipeline and burned his arm off pays. I think that even the most heartless jury who saw fit to render a verdict for a Plaintiff would say that the negligent party should pay the lawyer, not the poor burned guy.

Let me ask you -- if you had found that the Defendant's failure to have an anti-corrosion program cause the pipeline to rupture and burned the guy -- why would you want him to cough up 40% rather than the fuckers who cause the entire problem? I'd really like to hear an answer to that question. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't think winning plaintiffs should have to pay their fees and costs on a contingency basis now. But that ain't the way it works. You get your guy a $1 million judgment against Evil Oil Corp, and he owes you $400,000 in fees plus whatever out of pocket expenses you had. I was just saying that if we had a system whereby the jury determined attorney fees (God forbid), I think juries would seldom award fees to hated attorneys.

Same scenario: you get your guy $1 million, and he walks away with that. Now, you plead your case for $400,000 plus expenses to a jury. And all this time, the jury is thinking, "What the hell did this atty do that's worth $400k plus expenses?" Under that set of facts, I think you might get the jury to award your expenses, maybe even all of them, plus maybe an hourly rate. But giving you an award for 40% of the judgment...I don't think so. And remember, defense firms are fairly adept at countering good arguments.

Tush, you are already paid your fees from the winning cases -- its the excess of contingency fees over lodestar.

Your business is really two economic issues mixed into one. You plead cases as a lawyer, and for that service, like your brethren across the bar, the appropriate fee is lodestar win or lose. But you are also in the business of financing litigation. For this, your revenue is the difference between the contingency fee and lodestar on the cases you win and -(lodestar+expenses) on the ones you lose. (When you sum the two revenues streams, it is just contingency fees - expenses on the cases you lose -- expenses for winning cases typically come out of the plaintiff's payment.)

If you are a decent attorney and are reasonably skilled at choosing cases to litigate, the revenue stream from financing lawsuits should represent a competitive risk adjusted return on investment (i.e., lodestar + expenses). There is no reason under a loser pays approach to pay you twice.

I don't think winning plaintiffs should have to pay their fees and costs on a contingency basis now. But that ain't the way it works. You get your guy a $1 million judgment against Evil Oil Corp, and he owes you $400,000 in fees plus whatever out of pocket expenses you had. I was just saying that if we had a system whereby the jury determined attorney fees (God forbid), I think juries would seldom award fees to hated attorneys.

Same scenario: you get your guy $1 million, and he walks away with that. Now, you plead your case for $400,000 plus expenses to a jury. And all this time, the jury is thinking, "What the hell did this atty do that's worth $400k plus expenses?" Under that set of facts, I think you might get the jury to award your expenses, maybe even all of them, plus maybe an hourly rate. But giving you an award for 40% of the judgment...I don't think so. And remember, defense firms are fairly adept at countering good arguments. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I sometimes get paid an hourly rate in commercial cases. And generally, I think the jury understands that when I work for that hourly rate, I'm guaranteed to get it, not matter the outcome. They also understand that I don't advance expenses. (Say $25k for a smaller case, $75k on average, and up to $280k in one case.) I think that they understand getting paid for taking risk.

But I'm not going to work on the sort of arrangement you propose. You may get a lesser lawyer to do it, but I doubt it. Nobody is going to advance large five figure amounts without some substantial chance of getting repaid. (Which is why the contingent fee is one of the greatest tools against frivolous lawsuits ever invented.)

PJ, not sure I follow you. I don't charge any interest on expenses. So I only get them back (and loose money in terms of opportunity costs). In fact, I don't know any lawyers who charge interest on expenses. And the average turn around time on a case if about two or three years, although to some degree the biggest expenses are partially back loaded.

And loadstar recoveries are typically seen only in commercial litigation. I've never seen one in a personal injury suit. Maybe in a class action context, but I think personal injury cases are notably ill suited for class treatment.

@TTH

I didn't propose any system other than the one we have now. I like it just fine since those who couldn't afford to walk through an attorney's door can now have representation in tort cases.

I was merely responding to the guy (to lazy to go back and see who) who was suggesting a "loser pays" system, or let the jury decide system.

Even in cases where fees are statutorily awarded (as I understand it) it is the Judge who determines the amount of fees based on the evidence. It is not a question of fact for the jury, but rather a question of law for the judge.

All of those tens of thousands law school graduates every year have to do something to justify their existence.

All of those tens of thousands law school graduates every year have to do something to justify their existence. Originally Posted by pyramider

The next time you need a lawyer, remember, you wrote this.

A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade. --Abraham Lincoln


And BTW, you should check the your figures. Yeah, maybe tens of thousands, but it's in the very low tens of thousands, especially by the time you weed out those who don't pass the bar, and those who actually get jobs.

Actually, there is a glut of new lawyers. This is probably where the education bubble is going to burst -- the cost of a degree now exceeds the incremental income for most.

especially by the time you weed out those who don't pass the bar, and those who actually get jobs. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Come on down to Bourbon Street. It's Mardi Gras, where nobody passes the bar (but they do offer "go-cups").