3 ms·
How do they justify that? Or is it part of some agreement with the primary claimant that they'll take the case for free but get some % of the winnings? Either
by mLuby 5y ago
How do they justify that? Or is it part of some agreement with the primary claimant that they'll take the case for free but get some % of the winnings?
Either way, mixing justice and profit feels slimy.
- gruez 5y ago>Either way, mixing justice and profit feels slimy. It's slimy but it's still the least bad system. The alternative is the state having sole authority in compensating the victims (judging from the fact this went to trial, my guess is that they would have paid the victims far less), or leaving it to non-profits (which have limited budgets and are up against tax-payer funded lawyers).
- mLuby 5y agoAh, what I meant was that lawyers should be paid for their billed hours, but shouldn't be able to earn percentages of settlements.
- azinman2 5y agoIf they lose, then there’s no one to bill. The percentage makes them willing to take on the risk and millions of dollars it costs to try the case.
- gruez 5y agoThat just incentivizes lawyers to go after the most complex (more billable hours) and sure-to-win (greater expected value) cases. If you want to maximize justice delivered (ie. victims getting their compensation), using dollars seem way better than any of those two metrics that a flat-rate system would incentivize.
- mLuby 5y agoCompensation of $3,000 if you can prove you've been harmed is barely justice.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoYour proposed change would likely bump the per person payout from ~$4,400 to ~$6,300. In such a case I'd dare to guess you'd still feel the same way about whether receiving $6,300 for being poisoned is justice.
- mLuby 5y agoYes, good point.