14 ms·

This is the way the justice system is set up. I don’t really dig into whether this is a systemic problem. I’m not charging my client 48k. I’m recording my time

This is the way the justice system is set up. I don’t really dig into whether this is a systemic problem. I’m not charging my client 48k. I’m recording my time spent working the case. If I have to spend 100 hours working on a case, and my hourly rate is $500 an hour, and we win, then the attorneys’ fee award should be $50,000, regardless of whether the claim is $100 or $100,000. This is an important component of civil rights litigation. Often times does claims have small value (in terms of damages). But we want to incentivize competent lawyering, and so, if you prevail, you get an award of attorneys’ fees. The same is true in this context. If you don’t have a provision like that, then consumers are left without recourse. As it is, there are very few lawyers who practice in this area as is.

oneoff786 4y ago
Ok but if you lose, your client gets $0 and owes you $50k. No? And if you settle?
- rocqua 4y ago
  He works on contigency. That is a 'no cure no pay' system.
- thathndude 4y ago
  No. It’s a contingency fee. My client isn’t paying me hourly. If we lose, we both get $0. This is how lots and lots of plaintiff litigation works, if you’re not familiar. Those guys advertising for car accidents on billboards are not charging you an hourly rate. As plaintiff’s attorneys, we take cases we believe in, we spend our money to prosecute the case (I almost always pay that $200 AAA filing fee for my clients), and then we get paid out on the back end. In my personal opinion, it’s a much more appropriate compensation method, because it puts our interests firmly in line. Based on the very limited understanding I have of this case, if we settle, I’m targeting a 10k settlement and taking a percentage of that (a percentage smaller than the client), and so my client is getting 5k+.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Why don’t you charge 1,000 an hour then?
    - phonon 4y ago
      Courts do lodestar calculations to determine if the hourly billing rates/number of hours were appropriate.
    - thathndude 4y ago
      don’t charge $1000 an hour, because, ultimately the fee charged must be “reasonable.“ Now, as a boy who grew up lower middle class, the idea that an hour of my time is worth $500 or more as part of these calculations is something that I still struggle with. But my rates are in line with my peers, what the system considers to be a reasonable rate, and consistent with my experience and education. But at $1000 an hour, most judges will call BS. Again, I didn’t make the system, I’m just surviving in it
      - paulgb 4y ago
        Since you work on contingency, the $500/hr is also compensating you for the risk that it will turn out to be $0/hr, right? Or do you pretty reliably get to a settlement that involves your full fee being paid?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gbronner 4y ago
    It would be far more reasonable if you had to pay the other side's fees if you lost
    - waqf 4y ago
      Many jurisdictions outside the US do (much more readily) award fees so that the loser has to pay the winner's legal costs. The disadvantage of it is that if you're just some guy against a BigCo, then instead of risking having to pay your own $50k lawyer bill you're potentially risking having to pay their $5M lawyer bill.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Contingency based, so no result = no charge.
giantg2 4y ago
Well... I consulted a civil rights attorney about some rights violations. I was told that if the damages are really small, then the federal judges don't look favorably on reimbursing attorney fees. On a side note, my experiences with the legal system is that it's a complete shit show full of incompetent and even crooked players (DA, police, magistrates, judges). If for no other reason, you have to hire a lawyer because a lawyer can more readily detect the incompetence, and the incompetent people are more likely to accept stuff coming from a credentialed person.
- thathndude 4y ago
  There is some truth to this. The courts are becoming hesitant to make the massive attorneys fees awards that were more commonplace in the past (1,000 damages and 200,000 in fees). But, generally speaking, everyone is still on board for realizing that at the end of the day the attorneys fees award will probably be the biggest part of the award. The fact is, as soon as judges stop giving out those attorneys fees awards, you’re going to stop having attorneys pursuing these civil rights cases. That’s the bottom line. As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not.
  - gbronner 4y ago
    The goal of obtaining justice for the client is rather different than the goal of maximizing legal fees
    - fn-mote 4y ago
      The goal is also to create an incentive for the company to behave appropriately (legally) in the future. A few low-cost losses is not going to do that. The goal is social justice, not just individual justice.
      - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
        High cost losses won't necessarily do that either. The fallacy is that these transactions have to be financial. They don't. Any number of other remedies - from jail time downwards - would provide a stronger deterrent. Without strong deterrents and the threat of even more expensive class action - possibly leading to personal ruin - individual losses can be written off as a cost of doing business. Generally the sanctions for bad behaviour are far too light, and strongly biased towards business owners over customers/victims. The Sackler/Purdue story is a perfect example. Inconceivable levels of harm were caused - far more harm than a high profile terrorist attack. But the Sackler family is still worth billions. And no one is going to jail.
avar 4y ago
> This is the way the justice system is set up [...] we want to incentivize competent lawyering [...]. Except as you yourself point out upthread it's not really an incentive for competent lawyering per-se, rather it's an incentive for costly lawyering. I.e. a reason for why someone might retain your services is partly or entirely because it gives the defendant a greater incentive to settle.
- thathndude 4y ago
  I mean, if the company thinks the consumer’s lawyer is a clown, then they’re going to assign a probability of having to pay those attorney’s fees at or near zero. Then you’re back to them valuing the case lower. But I also get/agree with your point. Please don’t read any of my comments here as an impassioned defense of lawyers or the legal system in general. Just, generally, having a competent lawyer, can drive better outcomes in these cases.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    To illustrate: I had a spat with a big dutch telco provider for a 6 figure sum, they gave me the runaround and 'what are you going to do, we're big and you're small' until they got a letter from one of the largest legal offices in NL and they folded on the spot and paid up. Better lawyers really do drive better outcomes. If the other party is worth suing (a calculus that many people seem to skip).
- mellavora 4y ago
  Well, an incentive for costly lawyering might translate into an incentive for competent people to go into the profession, which does incentivize competent lawyering. Also, since the counterparty is basically making a financial decision (rather than a moral decision), costly lawyering is competent. The price is part of the service.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    It incentivizes lawyers who prefer expensive lawyering. Competence is an orthogonal question. Lawyers are basically mercenaries engaged in trial by combat, abstracted to an exchange of relevant facts and opinions. It's not obvious that a battle between mercenaries is the best way to get a just result. Considered systemically, lawyers also control legislation. While it would be better for consumers to have much stronger protections, the people who make money out of weak protections are not incentivized to argue for stronger laws which would reduce their billable hours.
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
But those profits that you are generating are ultimately passed onto the consumer. They just don’t materialize out of thin air on a companies balance sheet. Just take a look at what is going on in Florida with litigious , shady roofing contractors, they have nearly collapsed the homeowners insurance market.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Also, that's Florida's government being incompetent as usual. Also, no homeowner insurance company can be profitable in the long run (a decade) in Florida with rising sea levels, climate change, and other compounding factors.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tristor 4y ago
The flip side of this is that the sometimes the judge will not award you attorney's fees even though it's a reasonable ask. I've sued companies three times in my life, and only one out of those three times was I awarded attorney's fees, even though it was requested all of those times. Not to go into too deep of details, I'll also say if you ever do business across an international border, even with a company that is headquartered within walking distance of where you live, they /will/ find a way to weasel out of responsibility, even if they have a signed contract saying they're responsible. Once any sort of business crosses an international border, the only way you can hold a multi-national company responsible is if you represent a government that is an ally of the US and can bring to bear full military force, otherwise they /will/ screw you over. In fact, the primary component of my debt post-college was paying back attorney's fees for cases I had won (or had won / appealed several times until I settled because I could no longer afford to pay for attorneys). Personally, I am a major supporter of the idea we should have it be written into law that the party that doesn't prevail is responsible for attorney's fees for both parties automatically. That said, I also understand that this could be disastrous for smaller entities suing larger entities if they lose (to which I mostly say... don't file frivolous suits).
- thathndude 4y ago
  Lots of good thoughts here. All I'll say/add is that there is a wide chasm between a losing suit and frivolous suit. There are legal issues that I will argue the exact same twice, and, depending on the judge, win one and lose one. If I have to pay for the attorneys fees of the other side for the one I lost, I'll be filing 0. No justice for anyone.
Gunax 4y ago
What about lawyers working on contingency? If I am not paying my lawyer, aren't we incentivised to charge (approaching) infinity, even if it's just a way to inflate the cost?

oneoff786 4y ago

Ok but if you lose, your client gets $0 and owes you $50k. No? And if you settle?

rocqua 4y ago
He works on contigency. That is a 'no cure no pay' system.
thathndude 4y ago
No. It’s a contingency fee. My client isn’t paying me hourly. If we lose, we both get $0. This is how lots and lots of plaintiff litigation works, if you’re not familiar. Those guys advertising for car accidents on billboards are not charging you an hourly rate. As plaintiff’s attorneys, we take cases we believe in, we spend our money to prosecute the case (I almost always pay that $200 AAA filing fee for my clients), and then we get paid out on the back end. In my personal opinion, it’s a much more appropriate compensation method, because it puts our interests firmly in line. Based on the very limited understanding I have of this case, if we settle, I’m targeting a 10k settlement and taking a percentage of that (a percentage smaller than the client), and so my client is getting 5k+.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Why don’t you charge 1,000 an hour then?
  - phonon 4y ago
    Courts do lodestar calculations to determine if the hourly billing rates/number of hours were appropriate.
  - thathndude 4y ago
    don’t charge $1000 an hour, because, ultimately the fee charged must be “reasonable.“ Now, as a boy who grew up lower middle class, the idea that an hour of my time is worth $500 or more as part of these calculations is something that I still struggle with. But my rates are in line with my peers, what the system considers to be a reasonable rate, and consistent with my experience and education. But at $1000 an hour, most judges will call BS. Again, I didn’t make the system, I’m just surviving in it
    - paulgb 4y ago
      Since you work on contingency, the $500/hr is also compensating you for the risk that it will turn out to be $0/hr, right? Or do you pretty reliably get to a settlement that involves your full fee being paid?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gbronner 4y ago
  It would be far more reasonable if you had to pay the other side's fees if you lost
  - waqf 4y ago
    Many jurisdictions outside the US do (much more readily) award fees so that the loser has to pay the winner's legal costs. The disadvantage of it is that if you're just some guy against a BigCo, then instead of risking having to pay your own $50k lawyer bill you're potentially risking having to pay their $5M lawyer bill.
jacquesm 4y ago
Contingency based, so no result = no charge.

giantg2 4y ago

Well... I consulted a civil rights attorney about some rights violations. I was told that if the damages are really small, then the federal judges don't look favorably on reimbursing attorney fees. On a side note, my experiences with the legal system is that it's a complete shit show full of incompetent and even crooked players (DA, police, magistrates, judges). If for no other reason, you have to hire a lawyer because a lawyer can more readily detect the incompetence, and the incompetent people are more likely to accept stuff coming from a credentialed person.

thathndude 4y ago
There is some truth to this. The courts are becoming hesitant to make the massive attorneys fees awards that were more commonplace in the past (1,000 damages and 200,000 in fees). But, generally speaking, everyone is still on board for realizing that at the end of the day the attorneys fees award will probably be the biggest part of the award. The fact is, as soon as judges stop giving out those attorneys fees awards, you’re going to stop having attorneys pursuing these civil rights cases. That’s the bottom line. As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not.
- gbronner 4y ago
  The goal of obtaining justice for the client is rather different than the goal of maximizing legal fees
  - fn-mote 4y ago
    The goal is also to create an incentive for the company to behave appropriately (legally) in the future. A few low-cost losses is not going to do that. The goal is social justice, not just individual justice.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      High cost losses won't necessarily do that either. The fallacy is that these transactions have to be financial. They don't. Any number of other remedies - from jail time downwards - would provide a stronger deterrent. Without strong deterrents and the threat of even more expensive class action - possibly leading to personal ruin - individual losses can be written off as a cost of doing business. Generally the sanctions for bad behaviour are far too light, and strongly biased towards business owners over customers/victims. The Sackler/Purdue story is a perfect example. Inconceivable levels of harm were caused - far more harm than a high profile terrorist attack. But the Sackler family is still worth billions. And no one is going to jail.

avar 4y ago

> This is the way the justice system is set up [...] we want to incentivize competent lawyering [...]. Except as you yourself point out upthread it's not really an incentive for competent lawyering per-se, rather it's an incentive for costly lawyering. I.e. a reason for why someone might retain your services is partly or entirely because it gives the defendant a greater incentive to settle.

thathndude 4y ago
I mean, if the company thinks the consumer’s lawyer is a clown, then they’re going to assign a probability of having to pay those attorney’s fees at or near zero. Then you’re back to them valuing the case lower. But I also get/agree with your point. Please don’t read any of my comments here as an impassioned defense of lawyers or the legal system in general. Just, generally, having a competent lawyer, can drive better outcomes in these cases.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  To illustrate: I had a spat with a big dutch telco provider for a 6 figure sum, they gave me the runaround and 'what are you going to do, we're big and you're small' until they got a letter from one of the largest legal offices in NL and they folded on the spot and paid up. Better lawyers really do drive better outcomes. If the other party is worth suing (a calculus that many people seem to skip).
mellavora 4y ago
Well, an incentive for costly lawyering might translate into an incentive for competent people to go into the profession, which does incentivize competent lawyering. Also, since the counterparty is basically making a financial decision (rather than a moral decision), costly lawyering is competent. The price is part of the service.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  It incentivizes lawyers who prefer expensive lawyering. Competence is an orthogonal question. Lawyers are basically mercenaries engaged in trial by combat, abstracted to an exchange of relevant facts and opinions. It's not obvious that a battle between mercenaries is the best way to get a just result. Considered systemically, lawyers also control legislation. While it would be better for consumers to have much stronger protections, the people who make money out of weak protections are not incentivized to argue for stronger laws which would reduce their billable hours.

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

But those profits that you are generating are ultimately passed onto the consumer. They just don’t materialize out of thin air on a companies balance sheet. Just take a look at what is going on in Florida with litigious , shady roofing contractors, they have nearly collapsed the homeowners insurance market.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
Also, that's Florida's government being incompetent as usual. Also, no homeowner insurance company can be profitable in the long run (a decade) in Florida with rising sea levels, climate change, and other compounding factors.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tristor 4y ago

The flip side of this is that the sometimes the judge will not award you attorney's fees even though it's a reasonable ask. I've sued companies three times in my life, and only one out of those three times was I awarded attorney's fees, even though it was requested all of those times. Not to go into too deep of details, I'll also say if you ever do business across an international border, even with a company that is headquartered within walking distance of where you live, they /will/ find a way to weasel out of responsibility, even if they have a signed contract saying they're responsible. Once any sort of business crosses an international border, the only way you can hold a multi-national company responsible is if you represent a government that is an ally of the US and can bring to bear full military force, otherwise they /will/ screw you over. In fact, the primary component of my debt post-college was paying back attorney's fees for cases I had won (or had won / appealed several times until I settled because I could no longer afford to pay for attorneys). Personally, I am a major supporter of the idea we should have it be written into law that the party that doesn't prevail is responsible for attorney's fees for both parties automatically. That said, I also understand that this could be disastrous for smaller entities suing larger entities if they lose (to which I mostly say... don't file frivolous suits).

thathndude 4y ago
Lots of good thoughts here. All I'll say/add is that there is a wide chasm between a losing suit and frivolous suit. There are legal issues that I will argue the exact same twice, and, depending on the judge, win one and lose one. If I have to pay for the attorneys fees of the other side for the one I lost, I'll be filing 0. No justice for anyone.

Gunax 4y ago

What about lawyers working on contingency? If I am not paying my lawyer, aren't we incentivised to charge (approaching) infinity, even if it's just a way to inflate the cost?