All I know is that I receive about $100 of coupons in the mail every week in various junk mail, and none of it puts money in my bank account. Unless the coupon is for a product you need and intend to buy, its cash value is $0.
I confess ignorance on the manner in which lawyers are compensated. In this particular case, the lawyers are getting $19mil on a class action around a 10mil tire recall. That’s almost $2 per tire for the lawyers, and the consumers get a free tire rotation, or a discount on more of Firestone’s crappy rubber. If the consumers only got 2x what the lawyers get, they’d at least get $16 to spend on something they WANT.
Instead, they get a free rotation, which shouldn’t cost more than $15-$20 at full price, and can be gotten for free very easily anyway. Alternately, they get to spend money on Firestone products, probably still earning Firestone a profit for the sale even with the discount, and denying Firestone’s competitors the ability to win a new customer.
For all the money that these lawyers are earning, they didn’t actually do their ‘clients’ very much good.
Well, let’s figure it out. You say the cash value of a $10 coupon is zero, but clearly, that’s not so. It has some value, even if you don’t want it. You may not want a Nortake soup tureen, but someone does. Someone else may have the complete Nortake china set EXCEPT for the soup bowl, and they REALLY want it. There is a fair market value for things.
I don’t think anyone was expecting a big cash windfall, just their fair share. The lawyers getting such a huge payout is the clear instance of opportunism here.
Oh, so I’m supposed to take my $10 coupon and try to find a market for it? That seems fair, I suppose you would support the idea that the lawyers also get their compensation in coupon form too, right?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If it’s A-OK for a million consumers to get a $10 coupon instead of $10, then the lawyers can get a million $10 coupons instead of $10,000,000.
I fully expect that you don’t think this is OK, that for some reason compensation for lawyers must be in cash, but compensation for plaintiffs can be in whatever form the lawyers concoct.
I’m concerned that those of you rejecting coupons out of hand are not considering the background to the settlement. This class action represents a lawsuit. If a plaintiff can’t settle a lawsuit, two choices remain - dismiss it or take it to trial. Trial is always the background. If you can’t get a result through a trial, you aren’t very likely to reach it through negotiation. If you tried a case like this tire one, where you claim that you have a defective tire that didn’t hurt anyone, you might win, but you won’t win enough to cover the costs of the case. So, in a class action like this one, a trial would result in you getting nothing and your lawyer would be left footing the bill for your case. In essence, the background to a case like this is that your claim is worth $0. Through negotiations with the defandant, the class members at least get something.
It is also important to note that it is not uncommon for class counsel in a class action to bill by the hour or by the task. This is not a contingent fee arrangement and it is susceptible to abuse through overbilling and make-work activities.
For those of you interested in similar types of lawsuits in the federal system, you can check pending Multidistrict Litigation. These are not necessarily class actions, but they are filed cases that have sufficient common questions to be transferred to a single judge for pretrial purposes. Since MDLs and class actions are before a single judge, they share some common features.
Frankly, I don’t even want the $10, I want the Class Counsel to stop badgering corporations over ridiculous penny-ante crap, costing the companies millions of dollars that magically appears in lawyer bank accounts (both plaintiff and defendant lawyers).
In the type of case you mention, there should be no lawsuit, as you said, the claim is worth $0. This is a poster child for an excessively litigious society. There is no excuse, really, for lawsuits to be filed when the compensation per plaintiff is so laughably small. Is somebody REALLY suing over $10? Of course not, they’re suing over the millions of dollars of lawyers fees (on both sides), not the ten bucks the plaintiff is going to get.
The corporations decide to settle purely to avoid the costs of defending the lawsuit, the plaintiffs receive a pittance as compensation, and the Class Counsel pulls in millions.
And just how much is a fair share, guava? Then multiply that by 2.5 million and ask yourself if justice is served by levying that kind of judgement against the tire company, or even likely that such an award would be allowed by the court.
I want the corporations to stop designing defective products.
I am slightly amused by threads like this. A corporation designs a defective vehicle. When the defects are brought to the attention of management (before any single vehicle had been sold), management didn’t want to fix the problems. Instead, management sought cheap ways to reduce the problem, and they turned to their tire manufacturers for help. The tire manufacturer then designed a less-than-safe tire for the defective vehicle. Later, they redisgned the tire to make it look more aggressive and made the tire less safe in the process. Ultimately, this combination of products killed and injured a number of people, but at the end of the day, plaintiff’s lawyers play the part of the villain. It’s almost funny, really.
Robb, you forgot the part where the corporation lost $1.6 BILLION last year due in large part to this tire fiasco. Of course that isn’t really a disincentive to make defective products, instead, the pile of coupons is REALLY gonna show those guys! I mean, they’ll get to buy Firestone’s products at a lower price! :rolleyes:
Face it, this lawsuit is garbage, the plaintiffs get nothing, the payout is a speck in comparison to what Firestone has already lost, the only group that has any real skin in the game is the class counsel.
I’d also like to say that my thoughts on this issue are a bit colored from the class action that I’m involved in. Suffice to say that the company, Whirlpool, went IMHO far above and beyond the call of duty in managing the recall. They went to the point of offering to buy their customers new microwave ovens so that they wouldn’t have to ‘do without’ while repairs were scheduled. Despite this, they still had to deal with a class action lawsuit, based on people not having use of a microwave oven for a month or so. The plaintiffs got $7.50 each, the lawyers, surprise, got a couple of million.
That whole thing absolutely sickened me, the company spent millions managing that recall. They offered to pay for brand new microwave ovens. Each customer got a visit from an appliance repairman to fix the problem. Yet a bunch of lawyers felt they could strong arm the company into a settlement, and it worked, just another few million for Whirlpool to pay out, who’s going to miss it? I’m convinced that no matter how hard any of these companies try to fix the problem, someone will sue them and it will wind up cheaper to settle.
Losing money hasn’t stopped Ford from creating the Pinto, the Bronco II, or the Explorer. But, I certainly hope it taught Firestone a lesson.
Remember, you think that this class action is a sign of a litigious society. What is Ford’s and Firestone’s conduct a sign of?
No, because the lawyers and the members of the plaintiff class are not “geese and ganders” for which the same things are good.
The lawyers have had real expenses, for which they paid cash. The members of the class have not. You persist in painting this as some sort of equal partnership, but you’re astounded at the suggestion that a disaffected plaintiff remove himself from the class. You want to drive the truck from your tiny share of the back seat.
I can’t see why not. If my actual damages were $50, it seems to me that the point of a class action is that I and all the other similarly-harmed persons have a chance to get ‘made whole’ to the tune of that $50, minus the chunk that goes to the lawyer.
But that’s a side issue to me. My main issue is still, if the lawyer wins me and my fellow clients a theoretical $50 coupon whose fair market value (after 40% of those 1 million coupons have flooded eBay, 15% of them have been redeemed for , and the remaining 45% thrown away or left to gather dust in a drawer) is $2, then why should the attorney be compensated on the basis of the $50 rather than the $2?
I, as a member of the class, have been wronged by the corporation, how is it that I get shabbier treatment than the lawyer that is supposedly representing me? You’re right it’s not an equal partnership, I am the lawyer’s goddamn CUSTOMER! My needs are supposed to be represented and FOUGHT FOR by that lawyer, not the other way around. Now, I’m supposed to accept that HIS needs outweigh my own? HIS expenses are more important than my damages? HIS costs deserve cash and my damages deserve a coupon?
The real reason the lawyers get cash is that they’re Lawyers, and the plaintiffs are powerless schmucks. The lawyers make the deal, the lawyers get the cash. The plaintiff’s choice is to either take the offered crumbs, or say no and get nothing.
If this were a regular lawsuit, my lawyer would be fired the day he mentioned that the settlement includes just enough cash to pay him and the remainder is paid in coupons. Would you, as a plaintiff, ever, ever accept that type of ‘representation’? Why is this just accepted in class actions? This just feels like the worker/customer relationship is reversed, as if the plaintiffs work for the lawyer, ensuring THEY get the big payday.
Robb, companies that make defective products should absolutely make good on it. If they fail to make good on it, they should absolutely be sued. However, when the compensation is on the order of $10 per customer on a product worth hundreds of dollars, I get the sense that they did in fact already make good, and the lawsuit was nothing but a nuisance.
I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but as Cheesesteak said with a bit more passion, I have this weird notion that a lawsuit exists to serve the clients.
I gather you’re taking the opposite position, at least in the case of class actions. Bricker, I really thought better of you.
And I’ve already discussed the problems inherent in the goose-and-gander situation. A response would be welcome.
Yes. He created the class. He spent the money to identify the class, prepare the motions, identify the common questions. What did you do? Nada. Zip. You are a faceless speck in a sea of a zillion similarly situated plaintiffs. This case isn’t about your individual interests. Stop thinking that it is.
Now, in the aggregate, it’s about the interests of the class, I agree. But …
Listen, you know the story about the plumber who’s called to fix a difficult problem? He quotes the homeowner a price of $500, to which the homeowner agrees. The plumber then takes out a wrench, carefully selects a spot amongst the maze of pipes, and whacks it hard. Immediately, water begins flowing, and everything is fixed.
The homeowner is furious. “I know I agreed to $500, but I didn’t know it would just be for one tap - that’s outrageous!”
“Oh, the tap was free,” replies the plumber. “The $500 was for knowing where to tap.”
So, too, are we here. You are convinced that the lawyers are earning more than they should in this situation – that they should voluntarily reduce their fees in favor of the class.
Bull. If they should, then what’s to stop another lawyer from offering to represent the class at that cheaper price? Of course, that second lawyer can’t just waltz in – he would have had to spend the upfront capital to develop the case too.
The point I’m making is that the MARKET determines what the price is. There are only X number of law firms that have the capital and expertise to prepare a class action and be a credible enough threat to force a settlement. Like the plumber, they are uniquely situated with the knowledge and skill to act. If you don’t like it, find another lawyer; form your own class.
But I’;m betting you won’t, because no other lawyer will work for less than the payoff the market promises.
Oh, boo-stinkin’ whoo. Yes, the lawyers are more powerful than the indivdual class members. That’s life. Suck it up. We’re not talking about pro bono lawyers, working out of the kindness of their hearts to help others. These are people in a business to make as much money as they legally can make. There’s nothing wrong with that. You can’t stick out your quivering lower lip and whine about how unfair it it that they make money and you don’t, when THEY CREATED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MONEY TO BE MADE in the first place.
My advice to you is to find a soup kitchen or a PD’s office; they are both excellent places to be spoon-fed benefits you didn’t earn and can’t get yourself.
I’m not really sure how your point relates to mine. In essence, I was pointing out that attorneys fees per se are not problematice - what is problematic is excessive attorneys fees.
In the case of a class action, it is possible for attorneys fees to be excessive even if the injury to each class member was small, no? And it is possible for the damages awarded each class member to be too small, no?
Well, jeez, Rick, no need for you to start slingin’ the slop around, simply because you’re losing the argument.
Look, I’m so cool with this, you wouldn’t need air conditioning all summer if you had me in your house. The problem is, it’s a red herring.
Look, Bricker, how big does the lettering need to be?
This is not what we are contending. Not at all.
Got it now? Good.
No, let the lawyers increase their fees if need be - let them take 40%, 50%, 70% of the total payoff. Whatever.
The problem is the divergence of plaintiffs’ and attorneys’ interests. Feel free to address it at any old time.
I accept your gracious concession on the field of logic, since you’re choosing to avail yourself of the taunts of the elementary-school schoolyard instead.
As I’ve said repeatedly, I have zero problem with lawyers making lots of money. (Though I’m having second thoughts in your particular case.)
So, you’re reducing the economic injury to the plaintiff class to a money-making opportunity for the lawyers. The thing is, if the lawyer makes money off a class action and the plaintiffs don’t, there’s really no need (from the POV of the plaintiff class, anyway) for the class action to begin with, is there?
Heck, maybe the system should just do away with plaintiffs altogether: just let the lawyers calculate the damages per plaintiff, determine the size of the class, then collect 100% of the winnings, without the class ever being involved or notified. It’s the logical conclusion of what you’re saying, Rick, and we’re not that far from it already. Kinda like the way slave states used to be able to vote ‘on behalf of’ the slaves without consulting or benefitting them, the same thing seems to be true in your world: the lawyers ought to be able to ‘represent’ clients without any meaningful benefit to, or consultation with, the client class.
Bricker, thank you for finally admitting that the class action lawsuit is really there for the benefit of the lawyers. Some of the people out there may have had the silly notion it was for the benefit of the damaged parties.
Go ahead, lawyers, earn your money. Just don’t make a fortune off of my ‘pain and suffering’, throw me a few pennies, and tell me to be happy with it.
