Today the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill that would send the question of whether attorney’s contingency fee caps should be lowered to the vote of the people. A contingency fee is a fee that is collected only if the attorney’s client obtains a settlement or jury verdict, i.e. the attorney fee is contingent on the client recovering money. If there is no recovery there is no fee. The contingency fee is beneficial to people who do not have enough money to pay an attorney up front for legal work. An attorney who accepts a contingency fee arrangement puts in hours of work and pays case expenses without any guarantee of recovery. The attorney invests his time and money in the hopes of obtaining a recovery. Currently, Oklahoma law dictates that an attorney’s fee shall not be more than 50% of the recovery. The current proposed legislation seeks to limit an attorney’s contingency fee to 33% on the first million recovered and 20% on higher awards. Usually, cases that are worth over a million dollars are the kinds where a life has been lost or even worse, a person is living with a severe lifelong disability that was cause by the negligence of another. I often tell my clients, “The cool thing about the contingency fee agreement is that you and I have the same incentive, to get the highest possible settlement as quickly as possible.” I’m wondering how the proposed legislation would affect my statement? When my attorney fee is dependent on the amount of recovery, would my statement be true? I would have to make the moral and ethical decision to prosecute my client’s case with every intention to maximize my client’s recovery even to my detriment, but would hate to even have to consider the negative impact on my fee if I get my client a more successful result.
Most attorneys charge 33% for a routine car accident case. When the cases get more complicated such as in the area of medical malpractice, the hours and expenses go up drastically. Medical Malpractice cases require medical experts who do not come cheap. Remember, the attorney is paying all expenses before they see a dime in fees. The attorney is taking all the risk. Therefore, a higher contingency fee is justified in medical malpractice cases, usually 45% and rarely 50%. The contingency fee arrangement allows a person to hire a legal professional to take on a large insurance company who insures a large entity. How would that person fare without the professional? The Defendant’s insurer has hired a professional as well. The difference is that the Defendant’s attorney is getting paid hourly, usually at the rate of $225 to $250 an hour. Have you ever known a person who works hourly to want to get the job over quickly? No. The Defense attorneys are getting paid handsomely as they go. They have every incentive to churn litigation to earn more fees. Truth be told, Defense attorneys don’t want tort reform either. Ask one.
The current proposed legislation is really nothing more than a political ploy. The real legislation that most legislators want passed includes caps on damages, elimination of joint and several liability and other laws that they sell as preventing frivolous lawsuits when there are already those type of laws in place! No, the ploy is to throw out legislation that the attorneys who represent injured people hate which begins to make the other legislation mentioned look like the least of the evils and worth agreeing to. Nice ploy, but hopefully the people of Oklahoma will see the proposed legislation for what it is.
Our civil justice system is NOT broken. Challenge a legislator to show you run away verdicts in Oklahoma. Challenge a legislator to show you examples of frivolous lawsuits that abused the system and were not thrown out by our Courts. The evidence is NOT THERE. Challenge the medical communities’ insurer to show you that their losses are due to frivolous lawsuits, not bad medicine and bad investments in declining markets. Its…about…money.
Read the story in the Journal Record about the proposed legislation here
Stay tuned……
February 20, 2009
Categories: Uncategorized . . Author: actionlawcenter . Comments: Leave a Comment