Quote:
Originally Posted by Keryl Raist
So you think a system where lawyers get all the rewards is better?
It's not uncommon in this country, by the time the fees, hours, other expenses and taxes have been dealt with that the plaintiff gets less than 20% of the settlement.
|
Cite?
In normal tort cases, the plaintiff pays the 30-40% and there are no additional fees, taxes, etc. Of course the real key is that there are no fees if you lose, of course.
There are other kinds of cases - civil rights cases, specifically - where the attorney fee can exceed the settlement by a small multiple. That is by design - the point is to give someone the ability to sue police (or whoever) for violating civil rights, even if the actual damages are small.
Some sort of system that prevented complete windfalls would be reasonable, I think (i.e., if the attorney puts in 3 hours of work and the defendant settles, the attorney shouldn't get 1/3 of a large settlement and should be required to take an hourly rate).
But no attorney would take a typical $15,000 accident case for $750 - considering the time spent interviewing witnesses, reviewing medical document, getting estimates, etc., it would not be worthwhile. (Particularly if you only get that amount if you win.)
And are there any restrictions on the amount that the defendant can spend on his attorney?