# Lawyers get $19 million, clients get rolled! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2003, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194 "2003-05-24T06:29:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/41 "2003-05-27T19:29:11Z")
**Bricker:** > [@](#): > > I’d also point out that you have the option of opting out of any class. Nitpick: not any class. Not, say, a 23(b)(1)(b) mandatory class where a limited fund exists. Otherwise, I’m in complete agreement with your posts. Well-said. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/42 "2003-05-27T19:31:47Z")
I should probably also say, for the benefit of people not named **Bricker** , that the 23(b)(1)(b) class seems to have very restricted applicability when trying to aggregate mass torts, at least per [Ortiz v. Fibreboard](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1704.ZO.html), 527 U.S. 815 (1999). But it can still happen. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/43 "2003-05-27T20:29:20Z")
Actually, **Gadarene** , your information was very helpful to people named Bricker as well – my background was in criminal law, and the last time I had to know class action details was the bar exam! I also note that for some reason, I called **RTFirefly** “FT” above. Who knows where my mind was… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/44 "2003-05-27T20:33:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > The whole point of a class action lawsuit is the recognition that a single defendant has committed some tortious act against, or breaches a contract with, many similarly-situated would-be plaintiffs, but each individual act’s damages are so small that individual litigation would be cost-prohibitive. In other words, if Firestone sells you a bad tire, and then replaces the bad tire with a good tire, your damages are minimal - certainly not worth suing over; you’d spend mor ein filing fess than you’d collect in damages. I agree. > [@](#): > > But if I can show there are a million similarly situated plaintiffs, each owed $50 in damages, and that each plaintiff would have to prove the same, common questions against the defendant, then the court will allow a class action. Yes. > [@](#): > > So, unlike a traditional contingency fee, in which a lawyer undertakes part of the risk for a share of the reward, the individual share of the reward in a class action is never large – it starts out that way. If an individual class member has significant damages, he should remove himself from the class and litigate separately. But even if the award for each _individual_ is small, it’s the _total_ award that we’re talking about, here. So I don’t see the difference. One-third of on-million $50 awards is the same as one-third of a single $50M award. How does this change the risk/reward structure for the lawyers? > [@](#): > > The class lawyer does all the work of identifying the potential class, research to show that the common questions predominate, and arguing the certification of the class. He also is responsible for identifying members of the potential class. Yup. But again, how does this differ, in the risk/reward side of things, from any other contingency case? Whether it’s a class action or not, the lawyer knows he’s going to put in a bunch of hours, and only be paid if he wins. His payday may seem outsize when he wins, but that makes up for some of the cases he took on, but lost at. I have no trouble with that, either. > [@](#): > > It’s unclear to me how people who are no worse off than they were before can complain. No one forces them to be part of a class- if their settlement is so odious, let them withdraw - or hire their own lawyer and pursue their own remedy. You’ve already refuted this last point: we’re talking awards that are too small for one class member to have any incentive to pursue alone. But you seem to be oblivious to my main point: in a normal contingency case, the lawyer’s interest is aligned with that of the plaintiff. But in one of these coupon class-actions, they diverge. If the lawyer gets one-third of a single-plaintiff contingency settlement, that means one-third. The better the lawyer does for the client, the better the lawyer does. But in a class action, the lawyer can do well _despite doing poorly for the clients_. Sure, they’re no _worse_ off, but they’re no _better_ off either, when they’re part of one of these coupon settlements. (Actually, they probably _are_ worse off in a sense - sure, you can opt out of the class, and try to find an honest lawyer to bring a class action for you and others who’ve opted out, or who weren’t identified to begin with, but that’s going to be a much smaller class than at first. So who’s going to take your case now?) But _the lawyer has won a nice payday on the legal fiction that he’s helped make you whole, even though he hasn’t done a damned thing for you_. How you can defend that, I’m not sure I can see. You’re saying that it’s perfectly reasonable for the plaintiff class to simply represent an opportunity for the lawyers to make themselves some bucks, while not accomplishing diddly for the plaintiffs. Many people regard lawyers as leeches and parasites. I’m not one of them. But here, dammit, that’s _exactly_ what they are. They are being rewarded for merely the _pretense_ of winning a settlement for their clients. It’s not that they haven’t added to the wealth of the society, but they haven’t even moved any of that wealth from the hands of those who had it but shouldn’t have, to the hands of those who were done out of it. But they’ve been paid as if they had. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/45 "2003-05-27T21:42:16Z")
**RTFirefly: A man of all seasons. A man who ends Diogenes’ search. No matter what you say or do, you are my hero forever. Unless of course, you slip.** - 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/46 "2003-05-27T22:16:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*(the lawyer) does all this because without this, the individuals have no compensation at all. It’s unclear to me how people who are no worse off than they were before can complain. No one forces them to be part of a class- if their settlement is so odious, let them withdraw - or hire their own lawyer and pursue their own remedy. \*\* I think what bothers me about it that it seems to me that the lawyer is not acting in the clients’ best interests. [For example- my monitor’s screen size wasn’t as large as advertised](http://www.computermonitorcases.com/)- how does a $13 coupon towards a new monitor help remedy that? I understand that I don’t have to accept it, and I probably won’t be able to prove significant damages, but it makes me feel that the attorney who filed the class action suit wasn’t doing so on my behalf. For having someone claiming to act in my interests, “not being worse off” is a pretty low standard. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/47 "2003-05-27T22:32:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > He does all this because without this, the individuals have no compensation at all. It’s unclear to me how people who are no worse off than they were before can complain. \*\* It seems to me that you’re presenting a bit of a false dichotomy here. I agree that if the choice were purely between class actions as we have them now, and no class actions at all, we’d be probably better off with class actions. However, I believe that there is another alternative: Class actions where class members get juicier settlements than they do now. \*\* > [@](#): > > No one forces them to be part of a class- if their settlement is so odious, let them withdraw - or hire their own lawyer and pursue their own remedy. \*\* This is not a realistic alternative for the exact reason we have class actions in the first place – it’s just not worth the trouble. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/48 "2003-05-28T00:36:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > I also note that for some reason, I called **RTFirefly** “FT” above. Who knows where my mind was… Dunno about your mind - I just assumed your left index finger was one row down from where you’d meant it to be. No biggie. 🙂 **Milum** - don’t worry, I’ll slip. Happens all the time. But thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Philly\_Style](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@Philly\_Style](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philly_Style)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/49 "2003-05-28T00:55:08Z")
I worked for a credit card lender who accidentally charged card members a $36 late fee. We settled class action lawsuits in various locations. End result, card member $0.36 per claim, attorneys $35.64 per claim. Best yet, most of the people receiving the 36 cent checks had no idea what they were for.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![guava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@guava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guava)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/50 "2003-05-28T05:28:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philly Style \* > \*\*I worked for a credit card lender who accidentally charged card members a $36 late fee. We settled class action lawsuits in various locations. End result, card member $0.36 per claim, attorneys $35.64 per claim. Best yet, most of the people receiving the 36 cent checks had no idea what they were for.:smack: \*\* In my eyes, this is a case of a settlement too small. The credit card lender should be forced to pay out an amount large enough for each member to get at leasthis $36 back, _and_ to cover the lawyers charges. Yes, even if it is eighteen trillion dollars. I’m sure there were opportunities to settle _fairly_ out of court for a much smaller sum. ---
**Author:** ![guava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@guava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guava)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/51 "2003-05-28T05:43:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\*If you think the clients deserved, say, $500 each, that would translate into a total award of **$1.25 _BILLION_** (2.5 million clients times $500). Do you really think that is going to happen, given that none of the clients suffered any damages? \*\* No I don’t _think_ it’s going to happen. But I think that’s what _should_ happen. Settlement should be related to real damages suffered, not some random amount that will pay for the lawyer’s new summer home. Dreamland, I know, but I can hope. And you’re ignoring the fact that yes, the plaintiff _did_ suffer damages, of time and money, in my eyes anyway. > [@](#): > > But if I can show there are a million similarly situated plaintiffs, each owed $50 in damages, and that each plaintiff would have to prove the same, common questions against the defendant, then the court will allow a class action. Yes, sounds right to me, but then when each plaintiff does NOT receive his $50 in damages, he has a right to be annoyed. Opt out? Not likely > [@](#): > > you’d spend mor ein filing fess than you’d collect in damages. Nobody has answered yet. Who decides how much the lawyers get as compared to the plaintiffs? If I was expecting a $50 settlement and got $25, does the lawyer somehow now get half of what she was expecting? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/52 "2003-05-28T12:11:46Z")
Good grief. What do you think happens to your settlement in a straight contingency case? Let’s say that you, the victim of a negligent driver, were injured. At trial, a jury finds your injuries and damages amount to $9,000. That’s the amount of money that fairly and accurately represents your damages. Are you pissed at your lawyer when you receive a total of less than $6,000? After all, you were hit with $9,000 of damage, and you’re only getting $6,000 - right? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/53 "2003-05-28T12:57:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > > Are you pissed at your lawyer when you receive a total of less than $6,000? After all, you were hit with $9,000 of damage, and you’re only getting $6,000 - right? \*\* Yeah, I’d be annoyed. But let’s suppose the case was settled as follows: My lawyer gets a fee of $5000 and I get a coupon for $10,000 off the next time that same driver runs into me and I need to get my car repaired. In that case, I’d be outraged. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/54 "2003-05-28T14:35:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\*Yeah, I’d be annoyed. But let’s suppose the case was settled as follows: My lawyer gets a fee of $5000 and I get a coupon for $10,000 off the next time that same driver runs into me and I need to get my car repaired. In that case, I’d be outraged. \*\* As well you should be. But in the case of the OP, the clients had no significant damages. Expecting a big cash windfall is just opportunism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/55 "2003-05-28T14:57:27Z")
My point is this: when the lawyer accepts some of the financial risk in your case by working on contingency, he will collect some of the money that “rightfully” is awarded to you to compensate for your damages. That’s the way contingency works, and it produces relatively little outrage. Now compare that principle to the one we’re seeing in class actions. We’ve already agreed that the only reason you’re in the class in the first place is because your damages were so small that individual litigation was cost-prohibitive. Under what theory do you expect to receive anything approaching your actual damages? ---
**Author:** ![j.c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@j.c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j.c)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/56 "2003-05-28T15:07:27Z")
My concern is that it seems as though firms are now sniffing around for things that might make a case, and then alerting people to the fact that they’ve been ripped off. That is, that the young go-getters of Winkin, Blinkin, and Nodd notice that Scope is quite as minty fresh as the ads might have one believe. So Winkin, Blinkin, and Nodd contact as many Scope customers as they can find and ask them to join the suit. By sending out letters explaining to people, most of whom were probably happy enough with the minty freshness of Scope, that certain studies from the Minty institute and a number of papers published by the Freshness Consortium show that a level of minty freshness 1.25-percent higher than the minty freshness of Scope is possible, yet those evil Scope people failed to provide all that minty freshness - despite widespread TV and print advertisements clearly promising a high level of minty freshness! It seems this way because for the few years I’ve seen more and more news stories on the topic (along with real-live experience with CALs). However, I’ve never seen any proof that class action lawsuits are more common now than they were 15 years ago, and it would certainly be difficult to prove that lawyers were sniffing around for anything. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/57 "2003-05-28T16:30:28Z")
I’m hoping this doesn’t become an octuple post: Screw receiving compensation equal to actual damages, Bricker, how about just receiving REAL compensation? A coupon for $10 off the next purchase of a lousy product, or for a service you don’t want isn’t compensation at all. If my compensation is only $10, then give me a check for $10, I’ll buy a pizza with it. A coupon for $10 isn’t equal to a check for $10, therefore the lawyer’s compensation should not be based on $10. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/58 "2003-05-28T18:33:01Z")
In response to my heated denial that lawyers engage in collusionary price-fixing: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Milum 05-24-2003 06:20 PM \* > Wow! Calm down,_\* Bricker\*\*, did I somehow touch a sore spot? What sensitive button did I push that brought you to such a namecalling state. Do you realize that you gave me the option of “citing” or else you would declare me a “liar”? (Smile.) > > And futhermore your rapid fire questioning and “Next Question” delivery left me almost too imtimidated to respond. Almost. > > So now I will laboriously search the net to locate the “cites” that saves you real think and report back. Poor **Bricker** , what will you do then? Call the cites “liars”? > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 🙂 > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Milum 05-25-2003 02:38 PM_ > Damnit **Bricker** will you please stop interupting and let me get on with my research. I don’t despise lawyers and judges, I play tennis with several of them three days a week. Some of them have high morals, even my good friend ,\_\_\_\_\_, who went to jail for a couple of years. > As for Michael Jordan and pointy-tit Madonna, who cares how much scratch they do or don’t earn. They sell shoes and records to earn their keep. > Meanwhile too many greedy lawyers sell everyman’s right to fair and blind justice to the highest bidder. > > Now leave me alone and let me work. It is now 5-28-2003. Well, Milum? Are you researching in a different language? Are you on a 300 baud dial-up connection? Or are you merely going to slink off into the distance without either a retraction or a citation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/59 "2003-05-28T18:38:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\*I’m hoping this doesn’t become an octuple post: > > Screw receiving compensation equal to actual damages, Bricker, how about just receiving REAL compensation? A coupon for $10 off the next purchase of a lousy product, or for a service you don’t want isn’t compensation at all. If my compensation is only $10, then give me a check for $10, I’ll buy a pizza with it. > > A coupon for $10 isn’t equal to a check for $10, therefore the lawyer’s compensation should not be based on $10. \*\* Who says it is? Does a coupon for $10 have any cash value at all? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194/60 "2003-05-28T19:06:41Z")
Cash Value : 1/20 Cent Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-get-19-million-clients-get-rolled/177194.md?page=4)