That's not how it works now. Now, a successful plaintiff gets awarded their damages based on their case, and they pay 33-40% of it to their lawyer.

But you want the unsuccessful plaintiff to have to pay the defense attorney's fees (on top of court costs, experts, and jury costs that they already pay for).

So in that case, you're advocating the successful plaintiff receive her award for damages PLUS her attorney's fees. As a plaintiff's lawyer, I'd love that trade off. I can't afford to try bad cases.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

425838 posts

Posted on 1/19/24 at 12:12 pm to NaturalBeam

quote:
So in that case, you're advocating the successful plaintiff receive her award for damages PLUS her attorney's fees. As a plaintiff's lawyer, I'd love that trade off. I can't afford to try bad cases.

Exactly

This would increase insurance costs dramatically. All the losses from suits would increase 25-40%

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by BeepNode

Lafayette

Member since Feb 2014

10005 posts

Posted on 1/19/24 at 12:18 pm to NaturalBeam

(no message)

This post was edited on 1/23/24 at 11:29 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by NC_Tigah

Carolinas

Member since Sep 2003

124712 posts

Posted on 1/19/24 at 12:20 pm to NaturalBeam

quote:
That's not how it works now

But it is.
Sorry, who is paying the plaintiff attorney?

Because if you claim it is the plaintiff, it obviously calls to question the financial basis for contingency. All money originates from the defendant. Again, sans contingency-based practice, we could have a legit discussion here.

The risk in our tort system is uniquely and heavily skewed to the defendant

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board