|
|
|
A Modest Proposal Bipartisan group takes common-sense approach to lawyers' contingent fees
The Columbus Dispatch, June 27, 2003 As lawyers hone their best adversarial skills to do battle against the latest
incarnation of tort-reform legislation, a little-noticed proposal has made its
way to the Ohio Supreme Court seeking moderation in the amount of attorneys' fees
paid in some personal-injury settlements.This reasonable approach deserves a fair
hearing before attorneys flood the zone with objections.
Unlike Senate Bill 80, which proposes to set limits on punitive and noneconomic
damages in cases decided by trial, the proposal of Common Good, "a bipartisan
initiative to overhaul America's lawsuit culture," deals only with lawyers' contingent
fees when "agreements are reached early and their outcome (is) assured."
Such fees are payable only when the lawyer wins a settlement for a client and
usually amount to one-third or more of the settled amount.
Common Good, in its petition presented to the Ohio justices last month, wants
contingent fees capped at 10 percent of the first $100,000 of a settlement and
5 percent of any amount thereafter.The limits would apply only to cases settled
without trials.
For the record, when Common Good says bipartisan, it really means bipartisan.
Members of its board include George McGovern, Newt Gingrich, Alan Simpson, Paul
Simon, Richard Thornburgh and Eric Holder, university Presidents Tom Kean, George
Rupp and John Silber and other leaders in education, health care, law, business
and public policy.
"Common Good is calling upon judges and legislatures to take back the responsibility,
abandoned in the 1960s, to draw the line on who can sue for what," the organization
says in a statement on its Web site, cgood.org.
Taking aim in words you shouldn't expect to hear at the next bar association
meeting, Common Good says: "Fear of litigation has undermined our freedom to make
sensible decisions....Our system of justice, long America's greatest pride, is
now a tool for extortion, not balance."
Ouch! What say you, justices of the Ohio Supreme Court? | |
