Please read the story below, reprinted in its entirety from the website of the Center for Justice & Democracy. The story is about contingency fees. Simply put, contingency fees allow lawyers to front the costs of litigation for clients who cannot afford to pursue their cases. The lawyer takes all the risk and does not get paid until the client gets paid.
Contingency fees are crucial to our civil justice system because they allow the courthouse to remain open for everyone regardless of how much money they have — remember, the courtroom is the only place on Earth where the poorest individual can stand on equal footing with the richest multi-national corporation. Contingency fee contracts must be upheld. We do not need judicial activism or legislation impinging on this vital entry point into the civil justice system.
If you hear of others talking about the evils of trial lawyers, remind them that trial lawyers and the contingency fee contract are the last line of defense for most individuals.
Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Crash Award: Future Victims Could Pay
Imagine for a moment you are James McMillan—a forty-four-year-old former Fulton Fish Market worker in New York City and victim of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash which killed 11 people and injured scores more. On that horrible day, while standing near the ship’s bow, you are pinned facedown by debris and several bones in your spine are crushed, rendering you permanently quadriplegic. You now require the assistance of an aide for even the most basic activities. You also suffer migraine headaches and cannot regulate your body temperature, among other complications.
You know you need the services of a reputable attorney, but unfortunately, you are unable to pay for one since you have lost the use of your arms and legs and are totally unable to work. Luckily, Attorney Evan Torgan agrees to take your case on a standard contingency basis—that is, you pay nothing up front, and Torgan agrees to cover all litigation costs (which could total thousands, and perhaps even millions of dollars). In return, if you win, Torgan’s compensation will be one-third of your award. If you lose, Torgan will receive nothing.
The city initially offers to settle for a completely inadequate sum, but Torgan knows a lowball offer when he hears one—so he advises you to go to trial, and you agree. Following the trial, you are awarded 83 percent more than the city originally offered. But most importantly, you’re in a far better position to pay for the life-long expenses you will incur as a person who is completely paralyzed from the neck down.
Now put yourself in Attorney Torgan’s shoes. By any measure, you have done a magnificent job in obtaining justice for your client. Nevertheless, following the trial, the judge (Judge Jack B. Weinstein) inexplicably decides to reduce your fee to 20 percent—leaving you with roughly the same amount you would have received had you not invested your time and resources in preparation for trial, and simply accepted the city’s lowball offer.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened—and it could have a very chilling effect on the ability of future injury victims to obtain justice from the courts.
Simply put, if Weinstein’s decision is allowed to stand and/or signals some sort of new trend in judges inserting themselves into attorney/client fee agreements, attorneys may no longer be able to accept the risk of representing clients on a contingency. And even if they do, they’ll be tempted to settle immediately no matter how unfair the offer may be to the client, knowing that the resources they expend in preparation for a trial may never be recouped.
Thankfully, Weinstein stayed his judgment for 20 days to allow the parties to seek relief from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime, for the sake of injured people everywhere, let’s hope the 2nd Circuit responds appropriately to Judge Weinstein’s ridiculous fee ruling—by tossing it out with the other garbage.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
