4 ms·

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or no

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.

umpalumpaaa 1y ago
And to be even more fair: It is strictly regulated how much money Morgan and Morgan can get out of someone who they represent.
- abduhl 1y ago
  I’ve never heard of a regulation governing attorney’s fees. Which regulations might you be referring to?
  - JohnMakin 1y ago
    Presumably talking about damages.
  - flkiwi 1y ago
    For example, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(a) prohibits "clearly excessive" attorney's fees, while 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) sets several criteria for contingency fees (typically the sort of fees a plaintiff's firm would charge) that, if not met, renders a fee presumptively "clearly excessive".
    - lukasmark744 1y ago
      [dead]
    - jrs235 1y ago
      Most Florida contingency fees will be about 1/3 of collectible settlement/awards.
      - wbshaw 1y ago
        ...after expenses which can be considerable.
flkiwi 1y ago
That's true, though I wonder at times how much of that is because of the way plaintiff's firms set the market up. And, again, I don't really mean to criticize them--I tend to err on the side of access to justice--as much as to explain to anyone non-US who tf M&M are and why this is interesting.
- toast0 1y ago
  Jury trials involve a lot of time, costs, and uncertainty. Juries are human and their verdicts need not be rational. For claims significantly less than the defendant's assets, if the defendant is likely to be found liable, they may need to pay the plaintiff's losses as well as lawyer and court costs; settling before court most likely reduces the cost and provides certainty. For the plaintiff, settling before court may reduce the award, but provides it faster and with certainty. For claims larger than the defendant's assets, typical cases involve an insurance company and in some cases a trial award that's above policy limits may be payable the insurance company if a settlement offer below the limits was offered by the plaintiff and not accepted by the insurance company (keyword: excess judgement), but if the plaintiff is on their own they may not care one way or the other --- a settlement they can't pay might be the same as a judgement they can't pay, perhaps delay and hope is preferred, perhaps they may be able to negotiate a settlement that they can pay. For the plaintiff, if there's only $X from the defendant, using it on legal costs is a loss, so settlement is preferable, especially if there's a chance of the defendant making the assets unavailable. The incentives for settlement aren't so much about what plaintiffs' lawyers or defendants' lawyers are up to, but about how courts operate. Certainly lawyers have some influence on operation of courts, but it's a big combination of things, and IMHO, it falls more under government policy than anything else. If courts were staffed such that you could reliably expect to take an injury case from complaint to judgement in 6 weeks, maybe more people would do it. Of course, that might require more omniscience than is possible.
- freejazz 1y ago
  The idea that cases settle before trial because of Plaintiff's and not defendants is pretty silly. I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that the powerful people in this country are personal injury attorneys and not the gigantic insurance companies they are always battling.

umpalumpaaa 1y ago

And to be even more fair: It is strictly regulated how much money Morgan and Morgan can get out of someone who they represent.

abduhl 1y ago
I’ve never heard of a regulation governing attorney’s fees. Which regulations might you be referring to?
- JohnMakin 1y ago
  Presumably talking about damages.
- flkiwi 1y ago
  For example, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(a) prohibits "clearly excessive" attorney's fees, while 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) sets several criteria for contingency fees (typically the sort of fees a plaintiff's firm would charge) that, if not met, renders a fee presumptively "clearly excessive".
  - lukasmark744 1y ago
    [dead]
  - jrs235 1y ago
    Most Florida contingency fees will be about 1/3 of collectible settlement/awards.
    - wbshaw 1y ago
      ...after expenses which can be considerable.

flkiwi 1y ago

That's true, though I wonder at times how much of that is because of the way plaintiff's firms set the market up. And, again, I don't really mean to criticize them--I tend to err on the side of access to justice--as much as to explain to anyone non-US who tf M&M are and why this is interesting.

toast0 1y ago
Jury trials involve a lot of time, costs, and uncertainty. Juries are human and their verdicts need not be rational. For claims significantly less than the defendant's assets, if the defendant is likely to be found liable, they may need to pay the plaintiff's losses as well as lawyer and court costs; settling before court most likely reduces the cost and provides certainty. For the plaintiff, settling before court may reduce the award, but provides it faster and with certainty. For claims larger than the defendant's assets, typical cases involve an insurance company and in some cases a trial award that's above policy limits may be payable the insurance company if a settlement offer below the limits was offered by the plaintiff and not accepted by the insurance company (keyword: excess judgement), but if the plaintiff is on their own they may not care one way or the other --- a settlement they can't pay might be the same as a judgement they can't pay, perhaps delay and hope is preferred, perhaps they may be able to negotiate a settlement that they can pay. For the plaintiff, if there's only $X from the defendant, using it on legal costs is a loss, so settlement is preferable, especially if there's a chance of the defendant making the assets unavailable. The incentives for settlement aren't so much about what plaintiffs' lawyers or defendants' lawyers are up to, but about how courts operate. Certainly lawyers have some influence on operation of courts, but it's a big combination of things, and IMHO, it falls more under government policy than anything else. If courts were staffed such that you could reliably expect to take an injury case from complaint to judgement in 6 weeks, maybe more people would do it. Of course, that might require more omniscience than is possible.
freejazz 1y ago
The idea that cases settle before trial because of Plaintiff's and not defendants is pretty silly. I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that the powerful people in this country are personal injury attorneys and not the gigantic insurance companies they are always battling.