# Why not limit attorney fees? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983 "2003-01-31T23:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983/61 "2003-02-06T15:12:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > Nice selective bolding there, **Whack-a-Mole** (_in re_ the NPDB data). Did you miss this part: > > _I.e._, the information is emphatically NOT available to the public. The insurance companies DO have the information, and if they want to make radical changes in the law, they need to produce it in support of their arguments. Nope…I didn’t miss it. You’ll notice that I linked to publically available data from the NPDB. From my reading what is withheld in the NPDB from the public are specifics on who was sued and the like. Apparently when the law was being proposed the AMA lobbied (successfully) to have doctor’s names washed out of the data along with other such telling items. The ostensible reason was to ensure that doctors didn’t see a need to evade or lie to the NPDB since they could potentially be singled out if their names were linked to the data. Consumer groups however would like that information as it would allow a person to determine if a given doctor had more than his or her fair share of lawsuits filed against them which might be indicative of the doctor’s abilities. I’ll see if I canmanage anything regarding your desire for per capita numbers. I think that info might be in the NPDB sheets I linked to (or maybe something close enough to satisfy you). > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by lucwarm:_ > Gah. The logic is simple. If you try to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits by limiting attorneys fees, you also reduce the number of meritorious lawsuits. Why won’t you concede this obvious point? Nonsense…what you wrtoe was hyperbole. I do concede that some meritorious lawsuits might not get their day in court because of what I am proposing. Unfortunately that may be a price that has to be paid. As Americans we enjoy many rights but none are 100% absolute. You have a right to free speech but you cannot shout “Fire” in a crowded theater when ther is none. You cannot engage in slander without potentially beiong made to pay for it. Hate speech is potentially limited. We limit these sorts of things because it is in society’s best interests to have them limited. A balance is struck. Your hyperbolic statement was patently out of balance to anything reasonable. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the reality is that if you have a really crappy case, you’re very unlikely to find a lawyer to take it on contingency, even if there’s no “downside” to you. Why won’t you concede this obvious point? What you keep neglecting to say is that you turn away cases that do have merit…you said as much earlier in this thread: “The people I turn away (for the most part) have been legitimately wronged. The problem is that the wrongs they have suffered are not actionable. Or there is insufficient proof.” What you left out is you will turn down a case that has merit if there is no money for you to be made either even if you’ve never seen a case with more merit in your life (I suppose you might take a few pro bono cases but I think my point still stands that merit is not all it takes to get a case to court). Further, have you never seen a case (that you either took yourself or saw another attorney take) that you thought was thin on merit but winnable so the case was brought? You are holding yourself and your colleagues out to be some paragons of virtue defending society and the weak. The reality is you’re business people. If your case can defend the weak that’s great but it won’t happen if you can’t make a buck. Understand that it is fine that this is this way…you have to earn a living like everyone else. It’s the holier than thou attitude I object to. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what your point is - are you saying that attorneys fees should be limited only in the area of medical malpractice? I am more kicking an idea around here. I am not married to any one form of it but rather seeking to explore it and modify it where necessary. Medical malpractice was foremost in my mind whebn starting this thread and you rightly point out there are many types of cases taken on contingency. Maybe my idea could be modified to only restrict contingency fees in medical malpractice cases, or any malpractice case but leave other types of contingency cases out of it (such as discrimination). Certainly it could be something to talk about at some point if we ever get that far. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983/62 "2003-02-06T15:45:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe my idea could be modified to only restrict contingency fees in medical malpractice cases, or any malpractice case but leave other types of contingency cases out of it (such as discrimination). Certainly it could be something to talk about at some point if we ever get that far. Then please do some homework, as some states are ahead of you on this point. California, for example: > [@](#): > > [6146](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=06001-07000&file=6146-6149.5). (a) An attorney shall not contract for or collect a contingency fee for representing any person seeking damages in connection with an action for injury or damage against a health care provider based upon such person’s alleged professional negligence in excess of the following limits: > (1) Forty percent of the first fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) recovered. > (2) Thirty-three and one-third percent of the next fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) recovered. > (3) Twenty-five percent of the next five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) recovered. > (4) Fifteen percent of any amount on which the recovery exceeds six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000). > The limitations shall apply regardless of whether the recovery is by settlement, arbitration, or judgment, or whether the person for whom the recovery is made is a responsible adult, an infant, or a person of unsound mind. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983/63 "2003-02-06T16:00:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Robb \* > \*\*Then please do some homework, as some states are ahead of you on this point. California, for example: \*\* Interesting…I didn’t know that. Any idea on how it has worked out? Any change in malpractice cases from after that took effect? People with legitimate claims getting left behind? Attorneys going out of business in droves? ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983/64 "2003-02-06T16:08:37Z")
It’s your homework, not mine. I have no idea of the effect in California - I don’t sue doctors there. I think a point you are missing is that restrictions like these hurt injured people much more than they hurt lawyers. Lawyers can find other cases to work on - peolpe injured by medical malpractice get shafted a second time when they can’t pursue a remedy. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983/65 "2003-02-06T16:53:18Z")
And another point you are missing is that unless there has been a proven increase in medical malpractice payouts (beyond what would be accounted for by population increase and inflation), then any legislation which would discourage lawsuits is nothing more than a windfall for insurance companies. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Still waiting for proof of the alleged “crisis.” ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983/66 "2003-02-06T17:02:23Z")
**spoke-** , I think that you should also factor in that some malpractice awards are going to increase because people now survive more serious injuries, but at greater long-term costs. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983/67 "2003-02-07T04:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\* > > Nonsense…what you wrtoe was hyperbole.\*\* What I wrote was _reductio ad absurdum_. You now seem to admit that you favor throwing out good lawsuits in order to get rid of bad lawsuits. I’m taking your principle to an extreme to illustrate why it’s problematic. \*\* > [@](#): > > I do concede that some meritorious lawsuits might not get their day in court because of what I am proposing. Unfortunately that may be a price that has to be paid. As Americans we enjoy many rights but none are 100% absolute. You have a right to free speech but you cannot shout “Fire” in a crowded theater when ther is none. You cannot engage in slander without potentially beiong made to pay for it. Hate speech is potentially limited. We limit these sorts of things because it is in society’s best interests to have them limited. A balance is struck. \*\* The trouble is that you aren’t really assessing things accurately enough to evaluate what the price to be paid is and what we will get in return. \*\* > [@](#): > > Your hyperbolic statement was patently out of balance to anything reasonable.\*\* Of course, and limiting contingency fees to 15% is unreasonable too. (Although not as patently unreasonable) \*\* > [@](#): > > What you keep neglecting to say is that you turn away cases that do have merit…you said as much earlier in this thread: “The people I turn away (for the most part) have been legitimately wronged. The problem is that the wrongs they have suffered are not actionable. Or there is insufficient proof.” \*\* Well, you’re confusing a couple different issues there, but it doesn’t really matter. Because what you’re saying doesn’t support your argument that attorneys fees should be limited. Limiting attorneys fees will only make the above problem worse. \*\* > [@](#): > > You are holding yourself and your colleagues out to be some paragons of virtue defending society and the weak. \*\* Where did I claim to be a paragon of virtue defending society and the weak? \*\* > [@](#): > > The reality is you’re business people. If your case can defend the weak that’s great but it won’t happen if you can’t make a buck. \*\* Absolutely. So what?!? How does this support your argument? \*\* > [@](#): > > It’s the holier than thou attitude I object to.\*\* I certainly am not trying to project a “holier than thou” attitude. However, let’s face reality: I’m more knowledgeable than a lot of non-lawyers about the practical realities of litigation. Among non-attorneys, there is a myth floating around that you can charge into court with a frivolous case and extract a nice juicy settlement from a deep pocket defendant. There is a myth floating around that the courts are flooded with such frivolous cases. etc. etc. The truth is, I agree that there should be barriers to starting legal proceedings. However, such barriers already exist. There’s room for debate about what should be proper. But if you buy into the above myths, your opinion doesn’t count for a lot in my book. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-limit-attorney-fees/151983.md?page=3)