I was curious as to what people think about this potential referendum capping attorney contingency fees at 33% on the first $1M and 20% on anything more than $1M. As an attorney, I support the measure.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090215_16_A13_Billya456899
Incidentally, I commented on another thread a while back about the plaintiff bar's effort at stopping tort reform. Right on cue, I received another e-mail from those folks asking me to oppose the referendum.
What would the bill accomplish, really? I tend to agree with the statement of one of the attorneys--they'll just ask for more money in their lawsuits. I wonder if it wouldn't discourage settlements, because lawyers will have to hold out for more $$.
Honestly, I am not a big fan of "ambulance chasers." But I don't see this accomplishing much. And I find it hypocritical that republicans are pursuing this. After all, wouldn't republicans be the first to argue the market should dictate what attorneys charge? Could you imagine if the state tried to regulate defense attorney's salaries? If they put a cap on what they could charge per hour?
They could ask for me but no-one says they will be awarded more. There is a problem where some TV lawyers take so much in fees and reimibursements that the average joe ends up without even enough money to pay the medical bills for the injuries the case was about.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
What would the bill accomplish, really? I tend to agree with the statement of one of the attorneys--they'll just ask for more money in their lawsuits. I wonder if it wouldn't discourage settlements, because lawyers will have to hold out for more $$.
Honestly, I am not a big fan of "ambulance chasers." But I don't see this accomplishing much. And I find it hypocritical that republicans are pursuing this. After all, wouldn't republicans be the first to argue the market should dictate what attorneys charge? Could you imagine if the state tried to regulate defense attorney's salaries? If they put a cap on what they could charge per hour?
Shoot, by that thinking, why shouldn't the lawyer get 80 or 90%? As for what this will accomplish? It will limit attorney fees and will put more money in the pockets of plaintiffs.
Incidentally, as you might know PM, attorney fee caps are already in place in workers comp court and in social security cases (yes, I know it's federal) so the capping concept is not that foreign.
While this isn't a road I'd like to start down (mainly due to the slippery slope argument), these caps seem reasonable.
Of course, it's right around what my clients charge for their contingency PI cases. Who is charging more? Are there really attorneys taking cases on contingency that take more than a third as of today?
What idiot hires those sharks, if they do in fact exist?
Now that I think about it, that's another good reason not to have this law. It's like passing a law making it illegal for a doctor to amputate a person's head.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
What idiot hires those sharks, if they do in fact exist?
While i am not commenting on the legislation, I can say that people genereally do not know much about the law, and many who are uninformed will just pick the one with the biggest ad in the phone book. That's how they get stuck with the sharks. It does not make them idiots if they are just ignorant.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
Are there really attorneys taking cases on contingency that take more than a third as of today?
What idiot hires those sharks, if they do in fact exist?
Many PI firms contract 1/3 with an escalator up towards 1/2 depending on the complexity and duration of the case.
As an aside, I was out in Creek County on a general docket where one case involved the approval of a minor child's settlement (I think it was $15K or something). Anyway, after paying medicals and the $7000 attorney fee, the child received a net of something like $2,500. The judge asked that attorney in front of a full court room if he thought it was fair that he received almost three times what the minor child received. The attorney defended his fee by stating it is what was contracted for and the case was complicated. Although the judge essentially called BS on the explanation and gave him one hell of a glare, much to the delight of many laypersons watching the proceeding, he ultimately approved the settlement.
Cases like that are what I think underlies this movement on capping fees.
PM has a point, that is there is no effort to cap defense lawyer's hourly rates. I am curious how the legislature would go about capping or setting those rates, particularly given the wide ranging hourly rates that are charged throughout Oklahoma. In any case, I can see how plaintiff lawyers would believe that to be unfair.
In my opinion, if the legislature wants to get serious about tort reform, it should scrap that idiotic joint and several liability statute and mandate that all professional liability cases be reviewed by an expert and a report verifying that the case is meritorious. Also, at a minimum, the legislature needs to do something about the state's punitive damages statute. As it stands, it is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Philip Morris, USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 1063, 166 L.Ed.2d 940 (2007). Indeed, at least one Northern District court has found that this statute may be constitutionally infirm.
I cannot imagine a defense lawyer taking a case on contingency since if he/she wins the case, there is no money to be gained by the winners. If we were to "make it interesting" as they say about poker etc, by having the loser side pay all, maybe the defense could get a piece of the action too. I'm not holding my breath.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
What would the bill accomplish, really? I tend to agree with the statement of one of the attorneys--they'll just ask for more money in their lawsuits. I wonder if it wouldn't discourage settlements, because lawyers will have to hold out for more $$.
Honestly, I am not a big fan of "ambulance chasers." But I don't see this accomplishing much. And I find it hypocritical that republicans are pursuing this. After all, wouldn't republicans be the first to argue the market should dictate what attorneys charge? Could you imagine if the state tried to regulate defense attorney's salaries? If they put a cap on what they could charge per hour?
Shoot, by that thinking, why shouldn't the lawyer get 80 or 90%? As for what this will accomplish? It will limit attorney fees and will put more money in the pockets of plaintiffs.
Incidentally, as you might know PM, attorney fee caps are already in place in workers comp court and in social security cases (yes, I know it's federal) so the capping concept is not that foreign.
My point is that it will not necessarily limit attorney's fees. When an attorney takes a case, he or she can estimate about how much time it will take, what the expense will be, and how much $$ is needed to make it worth the time. People sometimes bring lawsuits more to make a statement/stop a behavior than to recover large amounts of money. So if a case comes in that may not worth a lot of money, the attorney could do one of three things: 1. not take the case, 2. charge a higher percentage of return, or 3. set too high of a price for the settlement. If you eliminate #2, you might get fewer attorneys willing to take low dollar suits. But you might also get more attorneys asking for a higher amount. You might get attorneys convincing their clients to hold out for more money.
Again, I just don't see that this really solves any problem. I know there is precedent for it; I just think it is hypocritical of republicans to be dictating how much lawyers get paid. In response to caps on executive compensation for banks getting bail out money, Inhofe had this to say:
quote:
...as I was listening to him [Obama] make those statements I thought, 'Is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?'
I guess the answer is yes, if those getting paid are likely democrats.
The hypocrisy goes both ways. Dems have no problem limiting executive pay but not lawyer pay?
With my tin foil hat securely fastened, I think this approach is retaliation for the plaintiff bar's support of dems.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
What would the bill accomplish, really? I tend to agree with the statement of one of the attorneys--they'll just ask for more money in their lawsuits. I wonder if it wouldn't discourage settlements, because lawyers will have to hold out for more $$.
Honestly, I am not a big fan of "ambulance chasers." But I don't see this accomplishing much. And I find it hypocritical that republicans are pursuing this. After all, wouldn't republicans be the first to argue the market should dictate what attorneys charge? Could you imagine if the state tried to regulate defense attorney's salaries? If they put a cap on what they could charge per hour?
Shoot, by that thinking, why shouldn't the lawyer get 80 or 90%? As for what this will accomplish? It will limit attorney fees and will put more money in the pockets of plaintiffs.
Incidentally, as you might know PM, attorney fee caps are already in place in workers comp court and in social security cases (yes, I know it's federal) so the capping concept is not that foreign.
My point is that it will not necessarily limit attorney's fees. When an attorney takes a case, he or she can estimate about how much time it will take, what the expense will be, and how much $$ is needed to make it worth the time. People sometimes bring lawsuits more to make a statement/stop a behavior than to recover large amounts of money. So if a case comes in that may not worth a lot of money, the attorney could do one of three things: 1. not take the case, 2. charge a higher percentage of return, or 3. set too high of a price for the settlement. If you eliminate #2, you might get fewer attorneys willing to take low dollar suits. But you might also get more attorneys asking for a higher amount. You might get attorneys convincing their clients to hold out for more money.
Again, I just don't see that this really solves any problem. I know there is precedent for it; I just think it is hypocritical of republicans to be dictating how much lawyers get paid. In response to caps on executive compensation for banks getting bail out money, Inhofe had this to say:quote:
...as I was listening to him [Obama] make those statements I thought, 'Is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?'
I guess the answer is yes, if those getting paid are likely democrats.
On the surface it sounds like a reasonible proposition, but allow me to play devil's advocate for a second:
The vast majority of civil lawsuits never see the interior of a courtroom. If anything it will encourage plantiff attorneys to seek quick settlements as the longer the file is open, it's ostensibly got the meter running.
The defense and insurance lobbies wouldn't be pushing this if they thought it was going to increase the amount of awards that civil P/I attorneys would seek.
I can see where this could actually wind up costing legit plaitiffs because an attorney does't want to risk a bunch of time and expenses to go to trial.
It won't stop frivolous cases from being filed, most of those either get settled quick and cheap anyhow or tossed pretty quick if they do make it to court.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The defense and insurance lobbies wouldn't be pushing this if they thought it was going to increase the amount of awards that civil P/I attorneys would seek.
Hmm..I hadn't thought of the insurance companies. Until we figure out how to keep them from stalling for years and years to avoid paying claims, I don't know that we need to be capping contingency fees.
Insurance companies piss me off a lot more than even the sleazebag PI firms.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
On the surface it sounds like a reasonible proposition, but allow me to play devil's advocate for a second:
The vast majority of civil lawsuits never see the interior of a courtroom. If anything it will encourage plantiff attorneys to seek quick settlements as the longer the file is open, it's ostensibly got the meter running.
The defense and insurance lobbies wouldn't be pushing this if they thought it was going to increase the amount of awards that civil P/I attorneys would seek.
I can see where this could actually wind up costing legit plaitiffs because an attorney does't want to risk a bunch of time and expenses to go to trial.
It won't stop frivolous cases from being filed, most of those either get settled quick and cheap anyhow or tossed pretty quick if they do make it to court.
I agree--in some cases it could be more likely to cause the attorney to settle, to stop the meter running. But cases might also get to a point that the only way to recoup cost is to go to trial. If the ultimate goal is to limit how much money a trial attorney can make, this may or may not achieve that. The only way to be sure it limits what trial attorneys make is to combine this law with a cap on recovery--which I wouldn't agree with.
And I agree that it won't stop frivolous law suits. The bottom line is that attorneys want to make money. Like every profession, there are some idiots that file worthless lawsuits, which usually get thrown out. Smart lawyers (it isn't a complete oxymoron) know that 30%, 50% or even 100% of $0 is still $0.
My guess is that the insurance industry support the law because they think it will discourage attorneys from taking smaller claims. In my experience, insurance companies often fight over the small amounts. I suspect they save a lot of money by doing that.
quote:
As a [defense] attorney, I support the measure.
(I don't know that to be a fact)
For full disclosure, I do about 75% plaintiff's work. About half of that on contingency contract. Now, I'm just a hired gun, I'm not a principle - so the contingency contract is as important to me as your company making a profit to be able to pay the bills. I have also worked for Defense Firms in town - so I'm not ignorant on the subject from either perspective. But as an attorney, I'm against this measure.
It is nothing more than a naked attempt from insurance companies to buy off citizens contracting rights. Does this bill protect citizens in some way that they are not already able to protect themselves? Is there a monopoly on PI work that needs to be corrected? Of course not, there are hundreds of attorneys in the yellow pages - call one and tell him Jeff Martin gave you 40% and you want 33% (if you think that's a wise move). Certainly the cheapest attorney will be the best (that's why the insurance company on the other side went with a cheap firm... right?).
There is plenty of competition to allow citizens to decide what is best for them. That is, unless insurance companies can get laws passed that dictates what is best for them. The law would result in less expenditures from insurance companies, not more money TO victims.
1) The standard PI Contract
The standard PI contract is for 25% for settlement, 33% if a suit is filed, and 40-50% if the case goes to trial - or some variation on that theme (there is in fact a cap already in place, it is unethical to take more than 50%), plus costs (which at some firms are just filing fees, some include mileage, copy charges, etc.).
The reason is very simple: to settle a case may only require a few hours of attorney time plus a dozen or so support staff time. To actually file a suit takes still more time. And to go to trial it could take weeks of work.
Now remember that many PI cases are for $10K (most firms waive fees on property settlements). 40 hours of attorney time, 40 hours of support staff time. 80 hours of work to complete the failed settlement, discovery, trial prep and a trial (and that's fast). Even at 50% that works out to $60 an hour. Lets pretend the case is for $20K (minimum coverage range) and still only takes 80 hours - $120 an hour. $40K - $240 an hour. Now we are in the ballpark of Defense attorney fees - except the PI attorney only collects if they win.
If you think Plaintiffs will get a decent attorney for $60 an hour, you're wrong. The reason insurance companies want the cap is so that decent attorneys won't take the cases. Or will be forced to settle more cases. Without a real threat of going to trial an insurance company is free to settle the claim for much less.
2)
quote:
Cases like that are what I think underlies this movement on capping fees.
Wow, a heart touching anecdote about a poor child that didn't get as much money as he should and an attorney who took too much. Tell me, was there a defense counsel and an insurance company on the other side offering to fully compensate the kid? Did the defense counsel waive their fees (after fighting to keep the kid from getting any money) in order to more fully compensate the poor child? Did the insurance company step in with more cash?
No? Well if the defense counsel wasn't willing to give up his fees and the insurance company isn't putting any more money in to help the kid, it's pretty crappy to expect the plaintiff's counsel to do the same. Personally, I would like to have seen Plaintiff's counsel help the kid out and believe most would not have taken such a share - but without the work of said counsel the kid would have had zero dollars (if he had to go to trial there would likely not have been a settlement).
If we want to start pointing fingers about poor victims then why not point them at the people whose entire goal is to stop them from getting money? If we capped defense counsel fees at $150 an hour and they only got paid if they win the case - then insurance companies would have more money to pay the poor starving child. Sell the big defense firms on $150 /hr contingency, or $200, or $250, or $300. . .
3) The vast majority of plaintiffs get their bills covered.
Most PI firms will waive fees, negotiate with subrogates, or otherwise ensure that the fees are covered. The big advertising "ambulance chasers" chief among them. Why spend $1,000,000+ a year advertising then have the word of mouth from a few bad nickle or dime cases destroy your base of business?
FURTHERMORE, it is the client's choice to settle or not. If his bills are not going to be covered by a settlement, the odds of agreeing to a settlement are slim. Yet another example of telling people they are too stupid to make a decision for themselves.
4) Limiting lawyer pay? REALLY? The DEFENSE BAR is talking about limiting lawyer pay. Cute.
Lets list the most expensive firms in town and then list whether they are plaintiff's firms (working for injured parties) or defense firms (working for insurance companies). If we are limiting attorney pay, then lets cap hourly rates too. Fair is fair right? Or are insurance companies smart enough to know what an attorney is worth and citizens too stupid to figure it out?
So lets cap defense fees and make them payable only if the defense wins the case outright (zero award). Justice for all! Or maybe it makes more sense to only limit one side of the equation by working to keep the pay down of the victims attorneys while allowing the insurance company to spend whatever they want on an attorney. That should results in a balanced litigation process.
5) NO, I WILL NOT TAKE YOUR CASE.
Get ready to hear that a lot. For 33% only the lowest rung of attorneys would take a case that they felt would probably go to trial or one that brought unique aspects of law. No thanks, I'll pass... I'll get a few more easy cases to settle because it is not worth my time to fight for your rights. I'll do it for an hourly fee? What, you're poor... too bad then.
I do much of my work on an hourly basis. I can tell you actually doing the work is only half the battle - getting paid for doing the work is the real trick. Super Mega Corp. Inc. is going to pay their bills, but a $5,000 bill for Joe Blow is significant. An attorney working for private parties ends up financing private parties all too often. I would not take a complex case on an hourly basis without a full retainer - I doubt many others would either. Hence, it is unlikely many difficult cases would ever be heard.
6) Workers Comp and SS are administrative suits against governmental entities.
Workers Comp and SS cases have attorney fee caps because those are suits petition the government for money. Not too mention the outcome of most SS/workers comp. cases is dang near predetermined with only the numbers to be filled in. Very simple distinguishing quality to an admin suit petition a governmental (or quasi governmental) body for funds and suing another citizen for negligence.
7) Limiting attorney pay in Oklahoma?
I work as an attorney in Oklahoma. I took a massive pay cut to do so as well as massive debt. Attorney's in Oklahoma are not a wealthy bunch by and large. The ones at the top are, just as the ones at the top of most professions are. Now I'm not complaining, I would always go back to my old career and have a standing offer to do so, but most of us still work for a living.
There is enough competition among attorneys in Oklahoma that if you do not like the rate you are being offered, you can find 500 others in the phone book. Why do you think so many attorneys spend so much on advertising? Don't like the 50% contract, then move on.
Why do we need the legislature to tell citizens what a fair rate is? That's the basic question we aren't getting at.
- - - - -
So do I think we should tell insurance companies what their attorneys are worth? Of course not. If Federal Insurance wants to pay Conner Winters $300 an hour to defense my suit, so be it. Presumably they earn their fee.
If they disagree with my position and refuse settlement, forcing me to go to trial - then I'll have to spend more of my time sticking up for my clients rights. And my contract will compensate me for that extra time and hopefully my client will be rewarded by a judgment that fully compensates them. I earn my fee too.
Do I think the system as it stands is perfect? Of course not. But as an adversarial system it relies on their being actual adversaries that are both skilled at what they do and both in a position to negotiate. If you limit the pay of one side and remove a bargaining chip (willingness to go to trial) then you have off balanced that system. And in this instance, the scales will be tilted away from John Q. and towards the insurance company.
[if forced to tell, I'd have 50% of all punitives over $X paid to a Bar Fund of some kind for victims rights, or indigent counsel, or to subsidize education of some kind. I'd support more dismissals of frivolous cases before they get rolling. I'd have fees awarded more often like domestic cases if a party refuses to cooperate in discovery or repeatedly files junk. There are improvements to be made, but stacking the compensation in favor of the Defense Bar is not one of them.]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Quote
Why do we need the legislature to tell citizens what a fair rate is?
Boy, this is rich with irony.
Especially since the legislation is being introduced and touted by Republican lawmakers -- the same ones who b*tch about the government getting too involved in free markets.
I liked what Dal Handley said in the El Reno Tribune when he called this the "Corporate Immunity" bill.
Why do Republicans consistently care more about Big Business than they do about Average People?
Hint = $
That's right CF, it's the evil insurance company that deprives people of money that's rightfully theirs. It could not possibly be that the insurance company has insured a person facing liability and that person might actually believe he/she did nothing wrong. Reading your post one would expect that if you get into a car wreck and in your opinion you did not cause it, the other side should just open up their pocketbook and start handing out cash.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, my practice is nearly all defense-although at one time I did almost all plaintiff work. My support of this measure, however, has nothing to do with that fact. Indeed, there is a likelihood that if enacted it will be declared unconstitutional special legislation if it is not a constitutional amendment. I believe that under no circumstance should an attorney have as much at stake in a case as the injured party. 50% attorney fee contracts are abhorrent if not down right embarrasing to this profession in my opinion. Now I will concede that 33% might be low and the percentage could be a bit higher up to the first million.
What say you about my tort reform suggestions?
Dan Sullivan is so full of it, his eyes are green. That said, his business would stand to take a bit of a hit if you believe his logic that insurance companies are so afraid of Oklahoma courts. I'm not sure I buy into it.
I think I remember a case where he asked for punitive damages, then around the same time sponsored a bill asking to get rid of them. I might be a little off on those facts, but I remember a specific med mal case where that was an issue.
Regardless, this bill is clearly an over-reach in an attempt to get something less stringent passed and/or boost the GOP's chances in the 2010 state elections. This is classic national level GOP strategy over the last 15 years. They try to set it up to where even if they lose, they win.
Guido,
I'm not faulting the insurance companies for not being cash machines and I'm not pointing a finger at defense attorneys. They have every right to defend their position and certainly are justified just as frequently as any Plaintiff may be. I never indicated that they shouldn't be allowed to or were not justified in defending. I was playing devils advocate to the extreme position that it was all the Plaintiff's fault but pointing out that the others parties have a roll as well.
But certainly the insurance companies and defense counsels have as much or more to do with poor little Joey not getting just compensation as his Plaintiffs attorney does. But the anecdote assigned all the blame to Plaintiff's counsel, who we are then supposed to rally in favor of legally capping his pay. When the other parties involved were in as good, if not a better position to compensate the kid for whatever travesty befell him. So why are we pointing all the fingers at the one person trying to get money for the injured kid? I'm merely pointing out the flaw in the anecdote.
And 50% fees, from what I have seen, are reserved for slip and fall cases that go to trial. Situations where the likelihood of success is slim. Given the low odds of success most people won't take them even at that rate. But that doesn't mean that some of them don't have merit and deserve a shot at representation.
BUT, even if a firm wanted to charge a 50% for every settlement they did. Why bother making it illegal? Are you arguing that citizens are so stupid they can't call another firm (not all of them have William Shatner)? Or are you arguing that there are not enough attorney's in town such that there is somewhere else to go?
How about laws that used cars can not be sold above Blue Book. Doctors can't be paid above the medicaid rate. Plumbers rates are all over the bored, cell phone contracts are crazy... I'm sure there is a host of other markets we should protect the public from by limiting someones pay.
The main point is as follows:
Under this bill Plaintiffs will have more difficulty finding someone to take a tough case and in general will receive lower settlements. The main beneficiary of this proposed law would be insurance companies who reduce the threat of have a verdict levied against them by a jury and will limit the determination of new issues of law. This isn't a bill to help citizens, it's a bill to help insurance companies.
And per your tort reform,
quote:
it should scrap that idiotic joint and several liability statute and mandate that all professional liability cases be reviewed by an expert and a report verifying that the case is meritorious. Also, at a minimum, the legislature needs to do something about the state's punitive damages statute.
Adding required experts is unfortunately a farce. Each side can hire someone to say whatever they want - whoever spends the most generally gets the best trial expert. Lets run out and hire Framjee to say whatever we want him to say - well, OK, not him. After a decade he has been adjudicated a defense whore (Tulsa CJ-07-3102, 'expert witness' pays way better then practicing doctor), but there are plenty of others out there happy to take a check to be an expert. Most of the time the 'exert' hasn't even evaluated the patient - they aren't to get an expert opinion but just for jury impact.
Look at the domestic situation. Experts galore for ugly custody matters, an independent reviewer for DHS, and a judge as an arbitrator. They can still drag out worthless claims for years and cost tens of thousands of dollars for both sides (neutral experts remain amazingly neutral "no finding of misconduct" does not dismiss a frivolous claim). In the realm of med mal if the Plaintiff hired the expert it would always have merit, if the Defense hired them - it would always fail.
In reality, and I'm not implying this is your intent, but in reality such a requirement would discourage an large number of meritorious claims from being heard. Most plaintiffs can not front thousands for an expert review and most plaintiff's attorneys either don't have or won't risk that kind of capital for them even if they think the case has great merit.
If there was some way of actually administratively reviewing the claim that was unbiased, it would be a great thing. But unless you are arguing that our Workers Comp. system in Oklahoma is a smooth operator (among worst in the nation for business and not much better for workers) I'd have to say it wouldn't work out. In most such instances the experts go both ways and the neutral expert refuses to make a firm decision.
If there is no merit to a claim I support judges who have the nerve to throw it out and at least entertain a request for fees. Rules already exist to take care of the problem, we need judges we are willing to use the tools they have been given. Not more administrative hurdles that really won't aid the purpose.
Again, no, the system is not perfect. But maintaining an adversarial system requires parties to be on or near an even footing before the court. We don't require the defense to prove that they have a meritorious defense before issuing a general denial and for that matter we don't punish them if they stall without a defense. The parties enter before the court on an even footing, if it is later shown that one party misused the system, dismissal and/or fees are an appropriate remedy.
And yes, other things need to be changed too. I am not married to the Plaintiff's practice, my interest is in keeping the system open to plaintiffs. As cliche as it sounds, if people can't be heard in court then laws, contracts, and rights simply don't matter. The more restrictions on plaintiff attorney fees, the more administrative hurdles and added costs - the less likely it is someone gets heard.
So my fear is throwing out merited claims with the bad simply for expedience sake.
/ramble
The 50% contingency fees (in the event of trial) are increasingly common. I know one well respected plaintiff firm in town only uses them. You see them in a lot of cases where there is a smaller amount of money (less than $400K) and a possible huge expert witness bill at trial. It buys the risk in the event the small firm drops $50K+ in cost or if costs/attorney fees aren't recoverable.
Sullivan's bill really misses the boat in my opinion. There is just as much abuse my the defense bar, especially right before trial. Certain companies would rather spend $10,000 a day on a trial than offer a dime to a plaintiff; they'll literally throw the kitchen sink if the client will pay for it. If there was a way to get rid of all the ridiculous crap that defense firms bill for, I think insurance companies would be better off.
I hear you CF. I think we can agree to disagree.
Why all the animosity towards Jeff Martin?
quote:
Originally posted by Rex
Why all the animosity towards Jeff Martin?
Why not? We always pile on trial lawyers plastered on the cover of the phone book.
I went to meet Jeff Martin and there was no giant robot there, like on his ad! And I didn't meet William Shatner, either!!!! [:o)]
That's a good one Conan.
Doesn't less lawsuits mean less defense work? Which means less money for defense lawyers?
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
I went to meet Jeff Martin and there was no giant robot there, like on his ad! And I didn't meet William Shatner, either!!!! [:o)]
'I'm Denny Crane!'
quote:
Originally posted by Rex
Why all the animosity towards Jeff Martin?
I don't think anyone should any animosity towards any particular attorney (until after you brought this up, then his advertising came under fire). Unless you were being sarcastic, my sarcastic-o-meter has been known to be weak on Mondays.
I said:
quote:
there are hundreds of attorneys in the yellow pages - call one and tell him Jeff Martin gave you 40% and you want 33% (if you think that's a wise move)
Just a random well-known plaintiff's attorney. I have no idea what his rate structure is nor have I heard particularly good or bad things about him as far as how good he is to work with or how well he does for his clients. Just sayin' if you didn't like what he had to offer you could certainly shop around.
and yes Rex, less suits means less defense work. This isn't being pushed very hard by the defense bar, it is the insurance companies that want it. The defense firms are of course paid by insurance companies, so they have to at least put on lip service.
I know those ads are funny. If you google some OKC lawyers on youtube.com you will get some really really wild ads.
Regarding the defense bar paying lip service to this, Guido seems to believe in it.
I am asking for an honsest answer, none of us know each other, so no ego needs to be involved...is it really just jealousy? Guys like my boss and Martin (who are very close BTW) seem to do very well financially and seem to have fun and be genuinely liked by their clients. Is the other side just plain sour and jealous?
quote:
Originally posted by Rex
I know those ads are funny. If you google some OKC lawyers on youtube.com you will get some really really wild ads.
Regarding the defense bar paying lip service to this, Guido seems to believe in it.
I am asking for an honsest answer, none of us know each other, so no ego needs to be involved...is it really just jealousy? Guys like my boss and Martin (who are very close BTW) seem to do very well financially and seem to have fun and be genuinely liked by their clients. Is the other side just plain sour and jealous?
Come on Rex, I explained why I support the cap. It has nothing to do with jealousy. Incidentally, I am doing just fine financially and could care less about plaintiff lawyer earnings.
I know a lot of attorneys who very much question the abilities of Martin and his ilk. They just don't think they are very good members of the Bar.
I've had some different experiences with those types of firms. I tend to see them more as middlemen for insurance companies. They often have so much work that stuff falls through the cracks. You can't actually get the attorney on the phone to talk to you; you'll get a secretary or paralegal on the phone (at times) and I've seen them make deals over procedural stuff. I have no idea how those types do in the court room, but I have doubts on some of them and have heard some stories.
I also think a lot of bigger firm attorneys are ambivalent towards the Jeff Martins of the world. They often exist in different worlds; Jeff Martin didn't get a piece of the chicken litigation, for example, and those firms generally aren't going after the car wreck cases with $5,000 in medical bills. Insurance companies handle a lot of stuff in house that law firms never touch.
I think Martin's ads, especially the most recent one with the robot cartoon, are pretty cheesy and don't do much for the image of the profession.
I'm also not so sure there is a bias against these Plaintiff types so much as there is a bias against their personalities. I know a couple of Plaintiff guys in town that are generally not well-liked; it's nothing about their legal work, they just have nasty personalities, especially if you get on their wrong side. But there are just as many like that, if not more, on the defense side. Some attorneys are jerks -- I'm not sure that's newsworthy.
I'm not saying Guido is paying lip service to the measure, just that in general the defense bar at large pretty well has to - no matter how they actually feel about it (you wouldn't have to on a internet forum).
My main point was the only mention of Jeff Martin was vague until you brought him up. I casually referenced him in a neutral light, you turned this into a thread about him. I have no ill will towards Jeff Martin, never met the man and I am not familiar with his legal practices.
Am I jealous of his income? I don't know what his income is. If he makes mega bucks, then sure I am. But that doesn't mean I wish him ill (he is not taking money from me).
Do I think Martin and Garret help the image of the legal profession? No, not really. But they serve a niche market of people that very well may not have representation if it weren't for them and often do just need industrial legal services. I don't want to sound derogatory towards their services, they have plenty of satisfied clients and I know at least some of their attorneys to be competent (I don't know them all, clearly), but they are bulk practices.
So I have no particular animosity nor affinity for those firms.
My father (Bob 70) would be doing a flat spin in his grave if he knew how commercialized the legal profession has allowed itself to become in the last 35 years and how slip and fall litigation has turned into a huge industry.
The partners at my last firm were doing about $850,000 a year back in 2003. But they weren't happy with that and they brought in a consultant to work with them to boost their earnings. It was a High Tech firm and the Associates tended to very young. The Associates started at $145,000 -- right out of law school. The firm used a caterer to provide dinner every night and no one paid for their parking or their cab home. Then there were the bonuses and benefits and ... oh, good grief, who needs, personal injury. Let's do mergers and acquisitions and initial public offerings and make some serious money.
Which reminds me, the first thing Ronald Reagan cut when he came into office was legal aid for low income people.
Well, I know my boss laughs all the way to the bank. He's a good lawyer, but I respect him because he has no problem bringing in another law firm on the case if he thinks that would benefit the client. He seems to treat his law practice like a business. It works very well for him. I have learned a lot of sound business principles about cash flow, avoiding debt, resource management etc.
My comment on the jealousy factor is only half-serious, but I do wonder because of the freedom these guys seem to have...not having to be in a coat and tie at a particular place, at a particular time.
And Gold about not being a good member of the bar, I know for a fact my boss has assisted the OBA with winding up the practice of lawyers who have screwed around with their trust accounts. I worked on one such project. He put in a lot of time and effort and got no pay, no reward and no public recognition (no award). He just helped quite a few people who had been screwed over. So, I think that's being a good member of the bar, don't you?
As for crazy commercials, aren't all commercials a little out of whack now anyway? In all due respect conan, what would your father say about Trojan or KY ads, or the use of a half clothed Brittany Spears to sell pepsi? We live in 2009 and the bounds of good taste went out the window years and years ago. In an era where we are constantly bombarded with information, that which is memorable is what is successful. Sometimes, the cheezier, the better.
I think we have strayed from the OP and just FYI, for the lawyers here; in particular Conan, cannon-fodder, and Guido. hile I may not agree with each of you, I enjoy your posts which almost always seem to be well reasoned and cordial.
Hometown, I think you are right. I should get that LLM in Securities and make real money![}:)]
Personal Injury just seems kind of easy...
Lets go ask those security lawyers how much money they made in 2008. It is a boom or bust industry with low numbers. If you can be a member of the club you'll be fine. But getting into the club is the hard part.
Seriously, if you are an attorney and your goal is to make money: leave Tulsa. Instant $10,000 raise at a minimum. Not that there are not attorneys who make money in Tulsa and not that most attorneys don't do OK. But the $850,000 a year or even the $145,000 a year guys are not the norm. Go to the BLS website and get back to me...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
My father (Bob 70) would be doing a flat spin in his grave if he knew how commercialized the legal profession has allowed itself to become in the last 35 years and how slip and fall litigation has turned into a huge industry.
There was a time when lawyers and the medical profession were considered above advertisement. Now, the airwaves are filled with Jeff Martin and Cialis. Some say it cheapens the profession, but others say it provides information to people so they can make better decisions. Thirty-five years ago, before attorneys advertised on tv, one had very little recourse to find an attorney. Big companies knew lawyers through connections and country clubs. Average citizens don't belong to country clubs. Now, PI attorneys can reach their audience where they are most likely to be (apparently, watching really bad daytime tv). I think the commercials are cheesy, but so are many, many commercials. That's what Tivo is for.
Also 35 years ago the number of attorneys was restricted the same way the number of MDs is restricted today. When the BAR limited the number of admissions in a given year they were limiting supply, of course demand was nearly constant so they greatly inflated the price of an attorney.
Unfortunately for me, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice deprived average people of adequate legal representation and the quota was changed to "if you are qualified you can practice law." So in an attempt to increase demand, or to get a piece of what there was advertising took on more significance.
Still today the AMA limits the number of MDs admitted each year. The limit is not "qualified to practice" it's "we should admit X% of what we think we will need to meet demand" and that number is admitted to medical schools. And it is assured that X+allowed immigration will be less than the 100% demanded. Of course demand doesn't change because of that. Hence, we never have enough MDs and the price is artificially high.
Cause and effect. Allow more people to practice, the price goes down and arguably the quality goes down. BUT, you can go to a cheap lawyer, and expensive lawyer, or do it yourself. It's the consumers option, not the BAR association's.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Lets go ask those security lawyers how much money they made in 2008. It is a boom or bust industry with low numbers. If you can be a member of the club you'll be fine. But getting into the club is the hard part.
Seriously, if you are an attorney and your goal is to make money: leave Tulsa. Instant $10,000 raise at a minimum. Not that there are not attorneys who make money in Tulsa and not that most attorneys don't do OK. But the $850,000 a year or even the $145,000 a year guys are not the norm. Go to the BLS website and get back to me...
That firm had equity stakes in a good number of very successful initial public offerings and I imagine they are doing as well now as they did in the dot com bust where they cut out the free sodas -- period.
But my point is to draw contrast in the surreal world that I live in, where the bourgeoisie doesn't even pay for its cab rides opposed to a working class that can't make rent, much less hire an attorney.
The working class has no real advocates at all in this pay to play world. They have no representation in state government. Their only shot at voice in this whole process is an attorney willing to take on their cause on a contingency basis because he or she might make some money.
Even the middle class would be hard pressed to have a day in court without contingency fees.
Limiting attorneys' fees in contingency contracts will make it nearly impossible for many average people to seek justice. And that's a prescription for class conflict.
quote:
Originally posted by Rex
Well, I know my boss laughs all the way to the bank. He's a good lawyer, but I respect him because he has no problem bringing in another law firm on the case if he thinks that would benefit the client. He seems to treat his law practice like a business. It works very well for him. I have learned a lot of sound business principles about cash flow, avoiding debt, resource management etc.
My comment on the jealousy factor is only half-serious, but I do wonder because of the freedom these guys seem to have...not having to be in a coat and tie at a particular place, at a particular time.
And Gold about not being a good member of the bar, I know for a fact my boss has assisted the OBA with winding up the practice of lawyers who have screwed around with their trust accounts. I worked on one such project. He put in a lot of time and effort and got no pay, no reward and no public recognition (no award). He just helped quite a few people who had been screwed over. So, I think that's being a good member of the bar, don't you?
As for crazy commercials, aren't all commercials a little out of whack now anyway? In all due respect conan, what would your father say about Trojan or KY ads, or the use of a half clothed Brittany Spears to sell pepsi? We live in 2009 and the bounds of good taste went out the window years and years ago. In an era where we are constantly bombarded with information, that which is memorable is what is successful. Sometimes, the cheezier, the better.
I think we have strayed from the OP and just FYI, for the lawyers here; in particular Conan, cannon-fodder, and Guido. hile I may not agree with each of you, I enjoy your posts which almost always seem to be well reasoned and cordial.
I didn't say your boss wasn't a good member of the bar. You asked about the bulk PI guys in general and why people turn their noses up at them. Some of it is fair, some of it is total crap. But if you got some of the snob types talking, that's what they'd say.