Replies

That is just about the most wrongheaded and ignorant statement that has ever been made on FreeRepublic.

Of course, this is just the jury verdict, not the judgment. The judge will apply the "tort reform" caps and limits. By the time that is done, it may well be that the judgment is only $500,000, but that is the fault of people like you, not the judge, jury, family, victim, or their lawyers.

Why on earth would you state that the family would only get half a million if the judgment were $25 million? On what basis could that EVER be true? NEVER!!!!!

A contingent fee agreement is a matter of contract. Why would any family agree to a contract in which they only got $500,000 of a $25 million dollar verdict? Hint: THEY WOULDN'T.

There are also ethical constraints on contingent fee agreements that they be reasonable. I have never heard of a contingent fee agreement that was more than 50%. Most likely, the fee here is 33%.

The envy and covetousness of people like you is destroying our judicial system.

IJ, I am seldom in agreement with you, but I with you on this one. These cases are extremely expensive to bring to trial. Most folks do not have the money to pay the attorney. The attorney is working for nothing while it is pending and has no guarantee of getting paid.

re: There are also ethical constraints on contingent fee agreements that they be reasonable. I have never heard of a contingent fee agreement that was more than 50%. Most likely, the fee here is 33%.)))

Oh, but what about expenses? You know, it costs a lot to run a copy machine!!

The conventional piece of the "take"--a practice illegal, BTW, in Europe and England where our common law originates--is a third, but the lawyer doesn't pay the expenses, the plaintiff does.