The Legal Fee Tort Reform
Big Business has created a cottage industry of raising money to take away victim's rights. Fortunately, many of these efforts have been beaten back. However, there is another method that is being employed. Certain legislators,Chamber of Commerce lobbyists, and Big Business interests have decided to go after lawyer fees. Not the fees that are charged to the businesses, as you would think that they would be concerned about. No, they are attacking the contingency fee in an attempt to limit the amount that a lawyer can charge in an injury case. Why do you think that they are not worried about the hourly rates they pay as a business?
In Colorado, the movement was an attempt to reduce contingency fees as far down as 10% on certain recoveries.. Rather than trying to fight that back as a single piece of bad legislation, lawyers decided that the best way to attack it was to take the approach of "what's good for one is good for all". That meant that they added amendments to the legislation that would have included a limit on real estate commissions,a limit on CEO pay and an increase on penalties for defective construction damages. All of sudden, these other industries including Big Business decided that maybe this limitation was not such a good idea.
For your consideration, I attach an editorial that was written in the Rocky Mountain News by Vincent Carroll. He takes lawyers and the idea of limitation to task.(Carroll article). Since he is neither lawyer nor Big Business, he does not have a dog in the fight. He does suggest the obvious that this can limit access to recovery but he also addresses the image problem that it creates for lawyers in trying to defend what they earn.
I say that he does not have a dog in the fight but he may find that it would effect him in finding representation, if such limitation had gone through. In certain states like Florida, there was a limitation enacted on legal fees on medical negligence cases. It was later struck down as unconstitutional but it did cause a period of time where victims had a hard time finding some representation. If the recovery was limited, then it served as a concern in taking the case because in many cases, the upfront costs that had to be borne by the lawyer outweighed the benefit of recovery. This same disincentive is occurring in Texas where certain caps have caused lawyers to stop handling medical negligence cases. Those that pushed the caps through, knew what they were doing because one way to limit responsibility is limit the access of the poor, to representation. As I have said in past blogs, the battle continues to wage and wrongdoers will continue to invent ways to circumvent their responsibilities.
