Lawyer fees - what happened here

[imoldernu]

To add a little perspective to the subject. In Security transactions alone, a 31% increase in 2016.

Record Increase in 2016 US Securities Class Action Filings Driven by Merger-Objection Cases; NERA Economic Consulting Releases Annual Securities Class Action Trends Report

Total class action suits have varied little by the year, over the past 20 years with the number of suits increasing or decreasing by one or two percent along the way.

The cost and difficulty of pursuing a class action suit is almost insanely expensive and complex, requiring research and investigation of federal, state, and lower levels of law, many of which are mutually exclusive. Even though there may be a settlement, the amounts can be divided to be higher or lower than the average settlement, and the beneficiaries not necessarily the individuals who have been harmed the most... or harmed at all.

My understanding... I defer to those with more or better info.

Some stats here:
Type and Frequency of Class Actions | Class Action Survey

 

[MarieIG]

I agree that this is the main justification for these lawsuits. However, behavior can be changed much more inexpensively with well-crafted and enforced regulations instead of armies of lawyers.

Who would prosecute those "well crafted" regulations? More lawyers, but paid by the government. And who would defend against them? More lawyers. And the suit Cited by OP involved nine years of litigation. Frankly, I rather have government lawyers prosecuting murderers, rapists, and drug dealers than spending years chasing after Sears for faulty dryers or Wen for their negligent cleansing conditioner. Regulations don't get rid of lawyers, it attracts them. They litigate the meaning of the regulation, the interpretation of the regulation, applicability of the regulation, the enforcement of the regulation, the class effected by the regulation, the constitutionality of the regulation, and those who don't have clients directly effect request submit briefs as "friends of the court." Then, after the judge finally makes a decision. They appeal it.

 

[Bamaman]

Someone said Southern Illinois is a haven for civil suits. They won't beat Alabama who's juries are famous for ridiculous judgments.

Those fat cat Atlanta lawyers haul ass in their Mercedes just across the state line to spew their venom. The silicone implant case was one of the bigger cases.

Now we cannot get any trials into court for a year locally with a backlog.of 800 cases in.our county.

 

[flyingaway]

My wife just received a check of $1.07 for something against a credit company, we don't even bother to deposit it.

 

[oneill225]

Who would prosecute those "well crafted" regulations? More lawyers, but paid by the government. And who would defend against them? More lawyers. And the suit Cited by OP involved nine years of litigation. Frankly, I rather have government lawyers prosecuting murderers, rapists, and drug dealers than spending years chasing after Sears for faulty dryers or Wen for their negligent cleansing conditioner. Regulations don't get rid of lawyers, it attracts them. They litigate the meaning of the regulation, the interpretation of the regulation, applicability of the regulation, the enforcement of the regulation, the class effected by the regulation, the constitutionality of the regulation, and those who don't have clients directly effect request submit briefs as "friends of the court." Then, after the judge finally makes a decision. They appeal it.

Well crafted does not, necessarily, mean complicated. "Loser pays" speaks for itself and the other control could be simply limiting attorney fees to a percentage of the total award; 10%, 20%, or whatever is deemed "reasonable".

 

[OldShooter]

My wife just received a check of $1.07 for something against a credit company, we don't even bother to deposit it.

Another throught I have had is that lawyer fees could be limited to, say 1000x the larges award to any plaintiff. So that would probably be $1,070 in your case.

All this "white hat" blather about protecting consumers is ridiculous. Yes, there is some protection in egregious cases but most of these settlements are pin-pricks for the defendants and don't deter anything. Their only practical effect is to enrich plaintiff's counsel at the expense of the rest of society.

 

[MarieIG]

Well crafted does not, necessarily, mean complicated. "Loser pays" speaks for itself and the other control could be simply limiting attorney fees to a percentage of the total award; 10%, 20%, or whatever is deemed "reasonable".

Well crafted, even if not complicated, does not stop the litigation. If parties and their lawyers have a stake in the outcome, litigation arises. As far the loser pays, a great deal of plaintiffs are judgment proof whether from being on public assistance or other reason. So, if they lose they would not be paying. Depending on the type cases, (at least in my neck of the woods) there are some controls on attorney's fees.

Oh, and yes, I actually am for tort reform; caps on awards to litigants, not just the lawyers' fees (although if the awards were capped the fees would necessarily be reduced), and would actually like to see people who bring ridiculous lawsuits have to pay for them.

 

[Walt34]

...and would actually like to see people who bring ridiculous lawsuits have to pay for them.

We all would like to see that happen.

But... who gets to decide what is a "ridiculous lawsuit" and by what criteria do they decide?

 

[MarieIG]

We all would like to see that happen.

But... who gets to decide what is a "ridiculous lawsuit" and by what criteria do they decide?

There is such a thing as a "frivolous lawsuit." What defines would either be (depending on venue) statute or caselaw. Most likely, what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit would be determined by the judge taking the law and the undisputed facts into consideration. (Judges typically decide issues of law; juries issues of fact.)

 

[Walt34]

There is such a thing as a "frivolous lawsuit." What defines would either be (depending on venue) statute or caselaw. Most likely, what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit would be determined by the judge taking the law and the undisputed facts into consideration. (Judges typically decide issues of law; juries issues of fact.)

That's the way it's supposed to work. But all can be appealed, and that's where the silliness starts.

 

[OldShooter]

We all would like to see that happen.

But... who gets to decide what is a "ridiculous lawsuit" and by what criteria do they decide?

This is a fairly standard response to a user-pays proposal.

Just because there is gray does not mean there is no black or no white. So we set up some criteria in law that allows judges to make the determination. Then we let the PI attorneys fight it out in appellate courts, until the guidelines stabilize.

A ridiculous lawsuit might be one where the alleged tort had no significant financial impact on any plaintiff. Like the ones where the plaintiffs receive $1.69 in compensation for an event they don't even remember.

A ridiculous lawsuit might be one where the plaintiffs claim to have been defrauded by an action that a reasonable person would not consider to be fraudulent, like putting extra ice in a cold drink.

A ridiculous lawsuit might be one where the plaintiffs claim injuries that could have been avoided by exercise of simple common sense, like being careful when handling a hot drink or by not ignoring a protective fence around the lions' cage.

A ridiculous lawsuit might be one in which the plaintiffs should have recognized and mitigated a normal and easily perceived risk, like walking carefully on a wet sidewalk.

A ridiculous lawsuit might be one where the lawyers recruited plaintiffs who otherwise would not have asserted a tort.

A ridiculous lawsuit might be one where the lawyers' contingent fees would egregiously exceed the fees they would be due under normal circumstances at normal billing rates.

... and so on.

 

[Texas Proud]

Or just go loser pay and there is no decision if it is ridiculous or not...



OldShooter, the problem with your list is that a number of the ones you find lacking, they lawyer won the case... like the hot coffee... or slipping on ice...

 

[OldShooter]

... OldShooter, the problem with your list is that a number of the ones you find lacking, they lawyer won the case... like the hot coffee... or slipping on ice...

The point of loser-pays is primarily to deter frivolous suits. Like would anyone sue for hot coffee being hot if he risked having to pay the defendant's costs? Or how about the one (actually thrown out of court) accusing Starbucks of putting too much ice in drinks? That clown should have been forced to pay Starbucks costs but, more importantly, under loser-pays he/she probably would not have considered that particular extortion attempt.

Note that loser-pays only works if the losing attorney is on the hook for the payment. He/she is the one who has the expertise to assess the risk, hence he/she should be the one at risk.

 

[MarieIG]

Virtually all of the contracts that we've had to agree to, now include the "binding arbitration" clause.
Legal status vis a vis class action?
Has anyone here been involved in "binding arbitration"?

Well yes, but I don't like it. Less protection for the parties, and less recourse from a poor decision. (I should edit to say, in my area, I can't speak to arbitrations in other parts of the country.)