• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is a fair contingency fee?

quixotecoyote

Howling to glory I go
Q
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
10,379
Throwing this out there to the forum who may have had similar experiences.

What do you think a fair contingency fee for a lawyer to charge for representation in a civil suit?

I'm looking at an offer from one now who wants 40% if the defendant denies liability, 33% if they admit liability, and an extra 5% on top of either if they appeal.

45% sounds high to me, but I'm not experienced in such matters.

Thoughts?
 
It would depend partially on the type of case. I have seen as high as 40% only for some complex medical malpractice cases where there is a lot of risk and up front outlay; I have not seen that much charged around here (Texas area) for much else.

Is this a technical, complex, and/or speculative/risky suit?
 
NoZed Avenger said:
It would depend partially on the type of case. I have seen as high as 40% only for some complex medical malpractice cases where there is a lot of risk and up front outlay; I have not seen that much charged around here (Texas area) for much else.

Is this a technical, complex, and/or speculative/risky suit?
Click to expand...

It's the Zicam smell loss case.

(he said, wondering why he was hesitant to say so originally)
 
IMO, many to most class action lawsuits (don't know about this one, so I am generalizing) end up with the attorneys receiving the only paycheck and the class they are supposedly representing getting squat all.

So just on that basis, I would guess the percentage is too damn high. In too many cases do the attorneys in class action suits walk off with $millions and the clients - whom they supposedly represent -- all get 50% off coupons for an all you can eat eggs buffet somewhere and not much else.

This is one area where some real reforms could be used. I suspect if the client opted out of the class, they might get a better deal. At the same time, a lawyer without multiple clients may not be in a position to handle the case or expenses with an expected smaller payoff. So there may not be much choice.
 
As a side note the link mentions that the product is homeopathic and has an active ingredient (zinc gluconate). I thought these were mutually exclusive?
 
NoZed Avenger said:
IMO, many to most class action lawsuits (don't know about this one, so I am generalizing) end up with the attorneys receiving the only paycheck and the class they are supposedly representing getting squat all.

So just on that basis, I would guess the percentage is too damn high. In too many cases do the attorneys in class action suits walk off with $millions and the clients - whom they supposedly represent -- all get 50% off coupons for an all you can eat eggs buffet somewhere and not much else.

This is one area where some real reforms could be used. I suspect if the client opted out of the class, they might get a better deal. At the same time, a lawyer without multiple clients may not be in a position to handle the case or expenses with an expected smaller payoff. So there may not be much choice.
Click to expand...

I get a lot of these in the mail for various shares I own or have owned. I used to read through them, but the proposed settlement is always along the lines of you have to gather together all sorts of documents showing that you owned the stock, when you owned it, when you sold it, etc and then you'll end up with $8. So now, I pretty much just toss them.
 
I've always thought that 33% (roughly, and usually on top of out-of-pocket expenses) was high, but that is based on nothing other than my own intuition. Are these fee percentages set by statute? If not, I would think that competition among lawyers in the open market would push that number down. Unless roughly 1/3 is simply where the market has settled. Would love to hear the informed opinion of any scum-sucking bottom-feeding lawyers on the forum. :p
 
Losing your sense of smell would suck... but I suppose you could be in porn then. (hat tip to pillory)
 
rjh01 said:
As a side note the link mentions that the product is homeopathic and has an active ingredient (zinc gluconate). I thought these were mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

It has become a marketing term, and AFAIK there is no law prohibiting anyone from calling their snake oil 'homeopathic.' Nobody owns the word. Lots of herbal 'remedies' are marketed as homeopathic nowadays, and there is no a priori reason why they wouldn't have drug-like effects.
 
If the lawyer gives you accurate, truthful information about the merits of your case, lets you decide to proceed or otherwise, and then does a competent job representing you, why should ANY of his fee be based on the outcome?

You're paying him to provide a service- He provides, you pay.
 
RossFW said:
If the lawyer gives you accurate, truthful information about the merits of your case, lets you decide to proceed or otherwise, and then does a competent job representing you, why should ANY of his fee be based on the outcome?

You're paying him to provide a service- He provides, you pay.
Click to expand...

Because in this case that's the deal the lawyer is offering. If those terms are acceptable to the lawyer and the client, it does not really concern anyone else, does it?
 
Puppycow said:
Because in this case that's the deal the lawyer is offering. If those terms are acceptable to the lawyer and the client, it does not really concern anyone else, does it?
Click to expand...

Well, if we were to get into a more general conversation about legal ethics I'd say yes, it concerns all Lawyers and potential clients but, as it is legal and not in breach of professional ethics, caveat emptor

MY problem with a contingency based fee arrangement is that it clearly (at least to my mind) skews the lawyers view of potential cases.

He'd rather do 10 cases with a 1/10 chance of a really big settlement than 10 cases with a high chance of success, but only a modest settlement.

personally, I pick my lawyers the way I pick my financial advisers- I pay them to deliver an honest service and fire them if they don't. i don't want their opinions or performance biased by their own smelling of a payday.
 
RossFW said:
Well, if we were to get into a more general conversation about legal ethics I'd say yes, it concerns all Lawyers and potential clients but, as it is legal and not in breach of professional ethics, caveat emptor

MY problem with a contingency based fee arrangement is that it clearly (at least to my mind) skews the lawyers view of potential cases.

He'd rather do 10 cases with a 1/10 chance of a really big settlement than 10 cases with a high chance of success, but only a modest settlement.

personally, I pick my lawyers the way I pick my financial advisers- I pay them to deliver an honest service and fire them if they don't. i don't want their opinions or performance biased by their own smelling of a payday.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent response. I have to agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom