Hey, Fuck You All for Criticizing the Trial Lawyers!

This was written by one of the Best, Down to Earth Lawyers, I know, You ask him a question. Hold on for the Truth, cause it`s gonna hurt!!!!!

Hey guys,

I wrote an article for my web site, serious-injury-lawyers.com awhile back to attempt to deal with the negative perception that folks have about contingency fee lawyers. I wouldn't care what folks thought, except that sometimes the negatve perceptions can interfere with the good relationship between lawyer and client that is most productive in acheivinng a good result for the client. I think that if folks would think about it for a moment they would realize that the contingent fee system and contingency fee lawyers are the only reason why the common man has access to our court system at all. Our courts are indeed, in many ways, our most important democratic institution, and I suggest that we should value very highly our continency fee system that permits us to gain entrance to our courts.

THE CALIFORNIA CONTINGENT FEE SYSTEM: “YOUR KEY TO THE COURTHOUSE DOOR"

California contingency fee lawyer, Ray Henke, is aware of the fact that there has been created a negative public perception of the contingent fee system. It is often portrayed, particularly in the pervasive insurance industry propaganda, as a system by which "personal injury lawyers" take advantage of their clients. As a product of that negative public perception, it is possible that California contingency fee attorneys in general may have more difficulty at the outset in establishing the good attorney-client relationships which are so important to the most effective prosecution of their clients' cases. Therefore, Mr. Henke offers here to demonstrate that, contrary to this unfortunate negative public perception, the California contingency fee system, and California contingency fee lawyers are essential to permit all of us equal access to this most important of democratic institutions, our courts.

The California contingency fee system and California contingency fee lawyers are absolutely essential if all of us, rich, middle class, and poor alike, are to have practical access to our court system. Think about it. Practically speaking, if it were not for the California contingent fee lawyers, willing to serve as attorneys on a contingent fee, it would be only the wealthy who could afford to pay to vindicate their legal rights in a court of law, indeed only those who could afford to pay an attorney by the hour. In a contested personal injury case, attorneys fees could range from several thousands of dollars to many scores of thousands of dollars or more at the typical hourly rates charged by non-contingency fee lawyers. In the absence of the contingency fee system, the fact is that most of us would have no practical means to assert our rights in our courts of law at all.

Furthermore, under the usual non-contingent fee, hourly attorney/client fee arrangement, the client must pay the attorney's fees whether the attorney wins or loses the case; whereas, in contrast, under the common contingency fee agreement, the client pays attorneys fees only if a recovery is obtained. In an hourly, non-contingency fee arrangement, therefore, it is the client rather than the attorney that must take the "risk" that he will lose the investment of the attorneys fees he’s paid to prosecute the litigation. Under an hourly, non-contingent fee attorney/client contract, if the case is lost, the hourly fee attorney doesn't give back to the client all the money the client has paid in hourly fees. In the hourly fee case, if the case is lost, the client must be prepared not only to suffer the defeat of his rights, but the loss of all the attorneys fees he was required to pay to prosecute the case.

There can be advantages to paying an attorney an hourly fee to prosecute litigation, conceivably even personal injury litigation, although that is extremely rare, even for the wealthy. But clearly it is only by virtue of the contingency fee system that injured victims, rich, middle class, and the poor alike are empowered to pursue their rights in a court of law without paying any attorneys fees until the case is completed; and even then, only a percentage of the recovery, if a recovery is obtained. Indeed, it is only by virtue of the California contingency fee system and California contingency fee attorneys, that most clients may avail an attorney's services at all, enjoy the benefit of his "day in court," and with the peace of mind that if his case should fail, he will be able to walk away free of any financial obligation for the attorney time that was required to obtain his "day in court."

In the absence of our California contingency fee system and our California contingency fee lawyers, what proportion of the public do you think would have the wealth to pay hourly attorneys fees and litigation costs in order to purchase their admission to assert their rights in our courts? Would we really want a system of justice where justice itself was available only to those who could afford to pay for it? NO! This much maligned contingency fee system of ours serves an absolutely essential democratic function to make our courts equally accessible to all people, regardless of their economic status.

Every time the insurance industry sets out to undermine the California contingency fee system, with pandering legislative lobbying, or with "tort reform" initiatives, what do you suspect are the insurance industry's motives? Should we take at face value the calculated message of the insurers $100,000 twenty second television ads, always made to appear as though they were "sponsored by" a “concerned citizens” group? Should we believe that the insurers who attack the California contingent fee system are motivated by a good, high and altruistic calling to protect the public from overreaching California contingency fee lawyers? Of course not! So, why do insurers so vehemently attack the contingency fee system? It is to achieve precisely the effect that their carefully drafted "tort reform" initiatives and lobbied for legislation would have if enacted and actually put into practice. The insurers want to avoid paying the valid claims of personal injury claimants caused by those they insure ~~ claims which the insurers will continue to be held responsible to pay so long as personal injury claimants retain the practical ability to avail the court system to prosecute their cases. The answer: Insurers attempt to create public hostility to the only existing system that permits the public access to the courts solely to impair the ordinary man’s practical ability to have his "day in court."

It is only as an unfortunate bi-product of the insurance industry's "tort reform" campaigns and the industry's ongoing efforts generally to undermine public support for the California contingent fee system that this unfortunate negative public impression of the California contingency fee system is created.

Now, is the California contingency fee system perfect? Clearly not. Is there any other system that has ever been proposed by the insurance industry, or our legislators or anyone else for that matter, that would do a better job to permit all people access to our court system? The answer is "NO."

__._,_.___