But What About Those Contingency Fees?

The Connecticut Trial Lawyer's Association now has a blog page. It is called, grandiosely enough, Connecticut Voices for Civil Justice. Somehow, the bloggers are anonymous or use pseudeonyms. Perhaps that is to avoid shame. Some of that contignency fee income should raise eyebrows. It's A Start But, alas, I feed from the self-same trough. Soooo-eee, I say, and I'll say it over and over again until tort reform's axe falls where it should: On the wallets of profiteers seeking fortune from the misfortune of others.

Justice, justice, they proclaim;

They take your money all the same.

It's not upfront, or on the hour;

What they take is far more dour.

A hefty helping of all your pain;

Chalk it up to pecuniary gain.

Justice, justice, they proclaim;

They take your money all the same.

Comments

[Donald]

Norm,

I've seen this kind of rhetoric from you before, but I'm perplexed as to two things:

First, you're one of those who makes his living from the "misfortune of others." Whether it's your civil practice (representing aggrieved plaintiffs) or your criminal practice (representing people who are either (a) wrongfully accused, or (b) may have committed a crime against an innocent victim), your phone rings only when misfortune befalls someone.

Aside from the pot-kettle problem, what's the solution? When an individual is treated badly by police, or an elderly person is dropped and seriously injured by a nursing home caregiver, or a patient in a hospital gets treatment that falls below the professional standard of care, is s/he entitled to access the civil justice system only if s/he can pay a retainer up front and an hourly fee as the case goes along? If contingent fees are sufficiently discouraged by so-called "tort reformers" (who are mostly big business lobbyists who have no problem restricting the access of poor people to the courts), many with legitimate causes of action (who suffered serious harm) will be unable to find counsel. Is that better? If contingent fees are so bad, how does the plaintiffs' bar serve clients (all clients, rather than just those who can pass a credit-check and a means-test) in the alternative?

It seems that a lawyer who is so concerned about profiting from the misfortune of others has only two choices: leave the profession, or go to a non-litigation practice (real estate, tax law, corporate mergers, etc.).

[Norm Pattis]

Donald:

Thanks for reading.

There are limits to what is reasonable. I don't see a million dollar fee for a bad injury that settles as reasonable. Many personal injury lawyers cream skim, focusing only on cases of great value and enromous fee. I am offended by that.
I am very ambivalent about living off the misfortune of others. No question about it. I simply try not to gouge folks. I also do not practice in the area of personal injury or medical malpractice, where fee-gouging appears to be the highly lucrative norm.
I am still uneasy, though. So I try not to gouge folks. A simple enough distinction for most folks to grasp, Donald.

N

[Moe Levine]

here are limits to what is reasonable . . .

really? what are those limits, especially given that prices are set in a totally free and competitive market. PI lawyers in our state are advertising 10% contingency fees now.

[Neil H. Ferstand]

Norm:

Thanks for drawing attention to CTLA's BLOG - I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice. Didn't take long. BTW I'm the "Howie" you reference rather backhandedly - who posts anonymously. My secrets out.

Who was it that said - "I wouldn't belong to an organization that would have the likes of me as a member..." Groucho Marx - I think. Perhaps you might tell your reader's you've been a long time member of CTLA.

Best Regards,
Neil H. Ferstand
Executive Director

[Norm Pattis]

Neil:

I am indeed. But your post reminds me it may be time to reconsider.

Norm