91 research outputs found

    Nonrefundable Retainers: Impermissible Under Fiduciary, Statutory and Contract Law

    Get PDF
    Since the New York Court of Appeals banned nonrefundable retainers, numerous other courts have joined in prohibiting this widespread practice of lawyers charging a fee for services in advance and keeping the fee even if the services are not performed. This may reflect increased judicial recognition of the effect of egregious fee practices on the image of the bar and the role such practices play in the declining esteem in which the legal profession is held. Among the more provocative contributors to this ongoing debate, Professor Steven Lubet recently reviewed our work advocating the ban against nonrefundable retainers and posed a number of questions about the per se prohibition against them. In this Article, we respond to Professor Lubet\u27s questions as well as to those posed by other scholars. In Part I, we discuss the client discharge right, the cornerstone upon which the absolute ban on nonrefundable retainers rests, and respond to a series of arguments concerning its meaning, how it may be impaired, and whether it may be waived. In Part II, we show that legitimate purposes that may be served by nonrefundable retainers cannot avoid impairing the client discharge right, but that other fee arrangements that do not impair that right can easily be designed to serve some of those ends. In Part III, we extend an invitation to address the issues we have identified to all those who believe that a per se ban against nonrefundable retainers is unnecessary to prevent the abuses they generate. We have previously extended this invitation to devise a less inclusive rule that would in a practical and self-effectuating way prohibit the abuses while permitting the attainment of legitimate purposes. Unfortunately for the debate, however, none of the participants have accepted this invitation. We therefore think it bears repeating

    The Market for Contingent Fee-Financed Tort Litigation: Is it Price Competitive?

    Get PDF
    Tort liability has undergone an enormous expansion in the past 40 years. So too has the effective hourly rate obtained by plaintiff lawyers which has increased well over 1000% in that time frame (adjusted for inflation). That the enormous increases in effective hourly rates parallel the enormous expansion in tort liability raises a number of issues. In this article, I examine one of them: whether the market for contingent fee-financing of tort litigation is price competitive. To do so, I examine certain indicia of a noncompetitive market including the fact of uniform pricing, the absence of economic justification for uniform pricing such as reductions in agency costs or transactional costs, inelasticity of the price in light of highly variable production costs and the absence of price advertising. I then examine factors which inhibit the emergence of a price competitive market including asymmetrical knowledge, the utility of uniform pricing in misleading consumers as to risk, and the signaling function of uniform pricing. I then examine the reasons for the persistence of uniform pricing in the face of the predictions of economists applying standard economic theory that some lawyers would undercut standard pricing thereby generating competitive behavior that would more closely align pricing with risk and the variable cost of producing the service. I attribute the persistence of uniform pricing to market failures and analyze the reasons for such failures. Finally, I examine the actions of the bar designed to prevent a competitive market from emerging. These actions include the maintenance of barriers to entry into the tort claiming market, prohibitions against the outright purchase of tort claims and adoption of rules of ethics effectively prohibiting price competition including prohibitions against providing financial assistance to clients and brokerage of lawyers\u27 services for profit

    Legal Paraprofessionalism and Its Implications: A Bibliography

    Get PDF
    If access to legal services is thus essential for the attainment of democratic values, then the efficacy of the legal delivery system is of supreme importance. Much has been written examining the inefficiency of present methods of law practice as a means of conveying services to the consumer,\u27 and still more written decrying the shortage of basic legal services for the poor and for the middle class.\u27 In response to this criticism and as a way of meeting other needs, the profession is trying such new delivery systems as group legal services, prepaid legal insurance, and specialized practice. Additionally, there has been a virtual explosion of interest in using legal paraprofessionals to assist the lawyer in supplying legal services. The conceptual foundations of this bibliography thus proceed from these theses: that there are grave concerns for the efficacy of the legal services delivery system and for its ability to meet greatly increasing demands for legal services; and that, in response to these concerns, an attempt is being made to reform the delivery system by incorporating legal paraprofessionals into the delivery mechanism

    An Analysis of the Financial Impact of S.852: The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005

    Get PDF
    Nearly 30 years ago, the first of a series of bills to remove asbestos litigation from the tort system by creating an industry-funded mechanism to administratively pay asbestos claims was introduced into Congress. The need for a legislative fix of asbestos litigation has long been manifest. After many unsuccessful efforts to resolve the asbestos litigation crisis, the Senate is poised to take up consideration of S.852, The Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005. This essay is a preliminary effort to present some context for discussion of certain aspects of S.852 and to estimate the costs that may be incurred for resolution of personal injury asbestos claims if S.852 is enacted. To date, over 850,000 individual claimants have filed suit against over 8,400 manufacturers, distributors installers and sellers of asbestos-containing products distributed across most of U.S. industries, as well as against owners of buildings and plants in which asbestos is present, claiming injury from exposure to asbestos. Since each plaintiff sues approximately 60-70 different defendants and bankruptcy trusts, the total number of claims probably numbers in excess of 50,000,000. A number of factors account for the significant impetus to current consideration of legislative proposals that range from limiting compensation available in the tort system to plaintiffs whose injuries meet specified medical and exposure criteria to the creation of an administrative alternative to asbestos and exposure litigation. These factors include: the number of asbestos lawsuits; the almost 80billionincostsalreadyimposed;anevenlargersumprojectedforfuturecosts;500,000jobslostornotcreatedbecauseofthelitigation;thefurtherfinancialconsequencesofthelitigation2˘7simpactoncapitalmarkets;andtheconcernfortheintegrityoftheciviljusticesystemasmostrecentlyvoicedbyafederaljudgepresidingoverthesilicaMDLproceedingthatX−rayreaders,diagnosingdoctors,screeningcompaniesandlawyerswereengagedinaschemetomanufacturediagnosesformoney.S.852,whichisnowbeforetheSenate,istheproductofanextendedandextensivenegotiationbetweenanumberofstakeholders,including,interalia,businesses,insurers,laborunions,andlawyers.Thebillproposescreationofa80 billion in costs already imposed; an even larger sum projected for future costs; 500,000 jobs lost or not created because of the litigation; the further financial consequences of the litigation\u27s impact on capital markets; and the concern for the integrity of the civil justice system as most recently voiced by a federal judge presiding over the silica MDL proceeding that X-ray readers, diagnosing doctors, screening companies and lawyers were engaged in a scheme to manufacture diagnoses for money. S.852, which is now before the Senate, is the product of an extended and extensive negotiation between a number of stakeholders, including, inter alia, businesses, insurers, labor unions, and lawyers. The bill proposes creation of a 140 billion trust ( Trust Fund ) funded mostly by business and insurers, to pay claims that meet the medical and exposure criteria set out in the bill. In this essay, I examine the financial costs, in addition to the 140billiontobepaidintotheTrustFund,whichmaybeincurredtoresolvecurrentandfuturepersonalinjuryclaimsbaseduponasbestosexposure.Inattemptingtoquantifythecoststhatfixingtheasbestoslitigationcrisismaygenerateand,inparticular,thosecostsadditionaltotheTrustFund,IamneitheradvocatingadoptionorrejectionofS.852oranyotherlegislativefixofthemassiveciviljusticesystemfailurethatIdescribeinthisessay.Moreover,thoughIconsiderthecoststhatmaybeincurredinadditiontotheTrustFundtobecreatedifS.852isenacted,Iamnotexpressinganyviewastothelikelihoodofthebill2˘7spassage.Tosetthestageformyanalysis,Ifirstconsiderthebenefitsthatcanberealizedbyenactinglegislationtocreateanadministrativemechanismforresolutionofasbestosclaimsinplaceofthetortsystem.Ithenpresentabriefhistoryofasbestoslitigation,includingthedevelopmentofanentrepreneurialmodelofclaimgeneration,followedbyabriefsummaryoflegislativeeffortstofixtheasbestoslitigationcrisis.IthenbrieflysummarizeS.8522˘7slegislativehistoryandcurrentformat.Finally,Iconsiderthecostswhichcontributorstothetrustfundmayadditionallyhavetobeartoresolvepersonalinjuryasbestosclaims.Iidentifyfivesuchareasofcosts:1.asbestosclaimshandledandpaidoverthepastthirtymonthssinceS.1125wasfirstdiscussed;2.exigentclaimantswhoqualifyforspecialtreatmentunderS.852;3.subrogationandworkers2˘7compensationclaims;4.pendinglawsuitswhereevidencehascommenced,lawsuitswhereafinaljudgmenthasbeenentered,andcertainsettlements;and5.silica/mixeddustclaims.ConsideringonlythecoststhatIhavebeenabletoquantify,myanalysisindicatesthatthecoststhatdefendantsandinsurersmayincurforresolutionofpersonalinjuryasbestosclaims,inadditiontothe140 billion to be paid into the Trust Fund, which may be incurred to resolve current and future personal injury claims based upon asbestos exposure. In attempting to quantify the costs that fixing the asbestos litigation crisis may generate and, in particular, those costs additional to the Trust Fund, I am neither advocating adoption or rejection of S.852 or any other legislative fix of the massive civil justice system failure that I describe in this essay. Moreover, though I consider the costs that may be incurred in addition to the Trust Fund to be created if S.852 is enacted, I am not expressing any view as to the likelihood of the bill\u27s passage. To set the stage for my analysis, I first consider the benefits that can be realized by enacting legislation to create an administrative mechanism for resolution of asbestos claims in place of the tort system. I then present a brief history of asbestos litigation, including the development of an entrepreneurial model of claim generation, followed by a brief summary of legislative efforts to fix the asbestos litigation crisis. I then briefly summarize S.852\u27s legislative history and current format. Finally, I consider the costs which contributors to the trust fund may additionally have to bear to resolve personal injury asbestos claims. I identify five such areas of costs: 1. asbestos claims handled and paid over the past thirty months since S.1125 was first discussed; 2. exigent claimants who qualify for special treatment under S.852; 3. subrogation and workers\u27 compensation claims; 4. pending lawsuits where evidence has commenced, lawsuits where a final judgment has been entered, and certain settlements; and 5. silica/mixed dust claims. Considering only the costs that I have been able to quantify, my analysis indicates that the costs that defendants and insurers may incur for resolution of personal injury asbestos claims, in addition to the 140 billion to be paid into the Trust Fund, could range from approximately 37billionto37 billion to 60 billion. To this should be added the cost of four other exceptions that may impose costs outside the Trust Fund that I have not quantified: (i) trial court verdicts; (ii) cases where the presentation of evidence has commenced; (iii) certain settlements; and (iv) silica claims. Each will add unspecified sums to the cost of resolving personal injury asbestos litigation. The assumptions I have made in quantifying costs and the reports and studies I have relied upon (which I have not attempted to validate), may generate outcomes that are too high or too low. I have set out these costs and acknowledged my inability to quantify certain other costs, however, as an invitation to undertake a similar calculus to those who seek to meaningfully compare the costs of the tort and bankruptcy systems (which I have not attempted to quantify), with the costs that may be incurred for resolution of personal injury asbestos claims if S.852 is enacted

    A Rejoinder To The Rejoinder To On The Theory Class\u27s Theories of Asbestos Litigation

    Get PDF
    This short essay is a partial response to an essay by Professor Charles Silver contesting assertions I set forth in an article titled, On The Theory Class\u27s Theories of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship and Reality , 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 33 (2003-04), in which I responded to several personal attacks against me by Professor Silver. Since Professor Silver was permitted to substantially add to his essay after I submitted my Rejoinder and I was not provided with these extensive additions, my response is necessarily incomplete. Professor Silver\u27s essay is titled, A Rejoinder to Lester Brickman , 32 Pepp. L. Rev. 765 (2005). In this exchange on the academic field of battle, bluster meets fact in a head-on-clash. This mictuating match has two redeeming features. One is a discussion of the obligation of an academic, in relation to scholarship, to disclose any personal interest such as a retained advocacy relationship. I favor such disclosure; Professor Silver did not. In addition, there is a brief discussion of the role of the law professor within the legal profession. Professor Silver advances the view that law professors\u27 self-interest should lead them to hold pro-lawyer views and they should therefore not criticize the legal profession because that contributes to the low public esteem in which the bar is held. I demur. In my view, that low esteem is not due to criticisms of various practices of lawyers and the bar but rather to the failure of the bar to curb abuses and to thus enforce its own standard set forth in the Preamble to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct that the bar should act in the public interest and not in furtherance of [its] parochial self-interested concerns. . .

    Ethical Issues in Asbestos Litigation

    Get PDF
    Asbestos litigation has given rise to over 50,000,000 claims against 8400 former producers, distributors, installers and sellers of asbestos-containing products. To date, 850,000 claimants have sought compensation, costing businesses and insurance companies over $70 billion and resulting in more than 70 bankruptcies. Over 100,000 deaths are attributable to asbestos exposure with an additional 40,000 deaths anticipated over the next 30 years. Despite the significance of the ethical issues generated by the processes of acquiring, pressing and settling the most massive litigation in history, the legal literature is substantially devoid of any such discussion. One possible reason for this paucity of coverage is that rules of ethics are rarely applied to asbestos litigation despite clear and systematic violations of those rules. In practice, it is as if each state supreme court had appended to its rules of ethics, the following exclusion: These rules shall not apply to asbestos litigation

    Mandatory Fee Arbitration Under New York\u27s Matrimonial Rules

    Get PDF
    Attorney-client fee arbitration is a subject of burgeoning interest to the bar and to scholars as well. Several years ago, I agreed to write an article on the substantive issues raised by fee arbitration as part of an analysis of New York\u27s then newly adopted mandatory fee arbitration rule. Contacting other mandatory arbitration programs to request copies of the manuals they provided to fee arbitrators, I learned that no such manuals existed. Writing on a tabula rosa, I wrote an analysis of the substantive tasks in fee arbitration that could be adopted for use as part of a training manual for arbitrators tasked with determining whether a fee was excessive. This analysis extended well beyond the usual practice of courts simply repeating the general propositions set forth in ABA Model Rule 1.5. I described the product as a work-in-progress that would hopefully jump start a colloquy with respect to the substantive reasonable fee issues that I addressed. Alas, this did not occur
    • …
    corecore