So, I was watching TGW last night and it occurred to me that in a case involving tortious behavior it could be possible for a defendant to save money by bribing a plaintiff outside of court to drop the case. Let’s say a reasonable damage amount which plaintiff would surely agree to might be $!0 million. If a lawyer is working on a 30-40% contingency a $7 million agreement outside of court would save the defendant money and give the plaintiff a profit. Is this legal? What recourse would a lawyer have in a case like this?
If the defendant gave the money to the plaintiff as a result of being sued through the lawyer, I think the lawyer would be right to say that he delivered the desired result to the plaintiff and is owed his percentage. The lawyer could sue his client to get his due. There are very few circumstance in law where someone is allowed to do indirectly what he is forbidden to do directly.
The defendant and plaintiff would look foolish and dishonest if they tried to explain away how they excluded the lawyer.
Another reason why it couldn’t happen is that the plaintiff’s lawyer would never agree to do it. She gains nothing over a standard settlement and she might be in the position of the defendant’s lawyer down the road.
If the defendant in a lawsuit gives the plaintiff money to “go away”, isn’t that what we call an “out of court settlement”? IIRC from the news, these can happen up to when the verdict is delivered - and even after, if the plaintiff wants to avoid the whole appeal process too.
But yes, the lawyers have fulfilled their part. If the plaintiff’s lawyer had an agreement that any money from a legal settlement resulted in a commission to the lawyer, then I assume that would still have force with an out-of-court settlement. I don’t think the lawyer can prevent the plaintiff from settling the case however he wants, although the constract might specify that no matter the result, the lawyer gets a minimum fee… If he settled for $100,000 and the lawyer’s minimum was $250,000 then that’s not a good outcome for the plaintiff.
If they try some subterfuge like “no, I bought his Ford Taurus for $200,000” then if they can’t see reason, it goes to court and ultimately it’s up to a judge (a lawyer himself) to decide if this was paid due to the lawsuit or just a normal business transaction. And nobody’s mentioned the IRS in all this? Trying to fraudulently claim income is actually capital gains should be good for a few laughs with them.
I’ve never heard how the defence lawyers’ fees work, other than “billable hours” which apparently sometimes are similar to actual hours spent on the case.
Before taking on the case the client and lawyer enter into an agreement as to how they will be paid. I can see no way that the out of court settlement would not be covered in agreement. The defendant would get their butt sued off for breach of contract. And he would have to get another lawyer. Then he would do a back room deal with the plaintiff . Then get sued by his new lawyer…
This sounds nothing like an out-if-court settlement. Lawyers are prohibited from speaking directly to the other party, if that party has a lawyer. Therefore, the defendant’s attorney would have done something wrong just by speaking directly to the plaintiff. For something like the OP to work, you’d have to hide the settlement (and money) from the plaintiff’s attorney.
If the plaintiff didn’t conceal the settlement, his attorney would likely sue to recover his fee. Therefore, the plaintiff would end up losing 30-40% of $7 million rather than 30-40% of $10 million. And, the defense attorney who made the deal might end up having an unpleasant conversation about whether he gets to keep his law license.
You are saying the plaintiff accepts money from the defendant without a trial (aka an out of court settlement). And he is doing this in secret to screw the lawyers out of their share of the fee? I think that is where I got confused.
Agreed, anyone entering an agreement with a lawyer (or real estate agent, or anything else that charges such a fee) would no doubt make you sign a document where you agree not to do this. I’ve heard real estate agents have a hard time with this, because they introduce the buyer to the seller, and then the two try to conclude business on their own.
Most settlements occur with the plaintiff’s attorney. If the plaintiff has a lawyer, a defendant’s attorney will not communicate directly with the plaintiff.
Note that the defendent has no particular reason to offer a settlement that doesn’t contain a guarantee that the plaintiff won’t pursue further action. So the defendant offers the plaintiff ONE MILLION DOLLARS CASH to settle the case. Plaintiff accepts, but asks that it be kept secret so they don’t have to give the plaintiff’s lawyer a cut. Now the plaintiff continues the lawsuit, and when the defendent complains they already paid, the defendant says “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. In other words, the plaintiff’s lawyer isn’t going to let them pay the money without the defendant signing a piece of paper that says the matter is now settled.
Let me get this right. Two guys are in dispute over something. They both hire lawyers to take it to court. The first guy thinks about it and decides both will be better off if he persuades the other fellow to take a particular sum of money. He sees the guy and they both agree to pay off their lawyers for the consultations they’ve had and take the course the first guy suggested.
Can the lawyer(s) really sue over this successfully? Or have I misunderstood the scenario presented? (Not unlikely)
But is there any rule that prohibits the plaintiff and defendant from voluntarily meeting privately and settling their differences without their attorneys present? I realize the plaintiff’s attorneys would still want their cut of any money (or other thing of value) that changed hands if they found out about it.
The plaintiff needs to check the fine print of their contract. I’ll bet you anything they’ll find some clause to the effect of “If you back out of the suit without it coming to a trial/settlement, then you owe me for time and costs.”
The attorney in the OP’s hypothetical might lose some money by not getting their 30%… but they’ll still end up with a profit.
The two guys who are involved, plaintiff and defendant, can say whatever they want to each other.
The point was*** lawyer*** for either must talk to lawyer of the other, not directly to the other person bypassing the lawyer.
I’m sure any lawyer’s agreement in acontingency case (if you are suing for a million, I’m sure it’s a contingency case) will have conditions under which the lawyer gets paid, and accepting any settlement not advised by the lawyer probably triggers extra penalty costs - plus a percentage of any settlement. Trying to hide the settlement is fraud - lying to get out of paying money.
That was something that occurred to me too - an out-of-court settlement should be written by a lawyer, to ensure that the settlement truly closes the case. Not sur what this situation is about, but of course it’s easy to sayafterwards - no, that was not a settlement, that was just a down payment because he felt bad about what he did, keep the lawsuit going.
Of all the people you should trust to honour a private, illicit, undocumented deal, why would “the one who’s suing you” be on the list?
In the actual show the lawyers represented two web site designers who were suing a CEO/Owner of a google type search engine operator who hates Will and the firm and who apparently caused the bankruptcy of the web site operators by using an algorithm that ignored the website whenever someone searched for it.
After Will secured a settlement offer of x million dollars but before client accepted, CEO/Owner hired the web site owners at an undisclosed rate and apparently got them to agree to drop the suit. I assume that at least they got a long term services contact. This seems to be tortious interference or something. The show ended with Alicia apparently resigned to accepting this result. Perhaps there will be more next week, but I could not wait.
My guess - I assume any settlement that could be attributed to “settling the lawsuit” can reult in contingency fees to the lawyer. Depending on how the settlement situation is reached, it would ultimately be up to a judge to decide if the final outcome was a payment to settle the lawsuit, in which case the plaintiff’s lawyer gets a share unless his contract is very stupid. A contract to do something else that is pretty much a direct result of the lawsuit could easily be considered proceeds from a settlement of the lawsuit. Calling it a “consulting fee”, “wages”, or “I overpaid you for your Ford Taurus” does not make it not a lawsuit settlement payoff. If it quacks like a duck, etc.
Either the plaintiff knew of the offer, which means the backdoor settlement is in the ballpark, or he did not - which means it’s a lot lower. The defendant would be pretty stupid to settle without paperwork guaranteeing the lawsuit is dropped; which would then be evidence in a lawsuit between the plaintiffs and their lawyer if they don’t pay him. A good contract would say, if I get an offer of $XM, and you chooose to accept lower, I still get my cut based on $XM.
Not really on point, but does anyone else remember the case in FL where the rich guy bought his way out of criminal prosecution, by paying $ to the spouses of the guys he ran over? I thought that was pretty astounding.
The GW moment that caused my wife and me (both lawyers) to roll eyes this week was the BS explanation of free speech permitting noncompliance w/ a subpoena. One of us asked the other if they had any idea what the show was trying to say, and the other responded that it was essentially gibberish simply intended to move the show along in an entertaining manner. Which is pretty much how I approach much of this show!
Not sure how that would work - it’s a case between the state and the driver, not between the driver and the spouses. They could take all the money they wanted, and the state would still prosecute. If the spouses tried to change their story (assuming they were witnesses) then I see cases of perjury, inducing perjury, interfering with a witness, bribery, whatever. “I don’t want to press charges” is a request with limited value.
What he does is remove the chance of being sued for even more money by the spouses once he’s convicted.
Interesting. What aspect of the law allowed the widows to override the default / typical sentence for this crime? I did not know victims’ families has that kind of power. They can ask for leniency, but my limited understanding of the alw is that unless the judge agrees, no go. It seems to imply the deal included the prosecutor demanding restitution, and that the prosecution agreed to the deal?
(Although I understand the widows’ desire to avoid a years-long lawsuit against a guy who can afford the best lawyers…)
