- law dawg
- 22 Comments
- 2927 Views
- Uber-backed ballot question capping attorney fees widely supported, internal poll finds. [TNI]
- Fred Goldman files $117M claim against OJ Simpson’s estate. [RJ; 8NewsNow]
- DNA from nail clippings crack 21-year-old murder mystery. [News3LV]
- Pershing County Commissioner and hunting guide arrested on felony charges. [Nevada Current]
- Is this a key moment for the bar exam? [ABA Journal]
Is the ballot initiative really going to change anything? I think you will see a lot of contingency fee agreements converted to hourly. Or some hybrid. It just says you cannot contract for a contigent fee.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24485255-petitionembargoedcontingency-fee-limitation-initiative-petition3-18-24?responsive=1&title=1
Even though a Flat-Fee is the greatest legal method ever invented for the poor and despite it being ethical and legal in 49 states (and in Nevada) the OBC has effectively declared it in violation of NRPC. See last few years of discipline.
Good thing this ballot initiative can’t impact claims brought under federal law. I hope the seven active federal district judges in the entire State of Nevada are prepared for the avalanche of litigation that will be brought to their doorstep once attorneys determine which federal-question fee-shifting fig leaves apply to claims they would have otherwise brought in state court.
Yeah…interesting how flat fees are suddenly a violation and despite it being a flat fee, you still have to track your time. At that point, might as well bill them hourly.
This road can and should run both ways. So where is the ballot initiative limiting defense counsel fees (either by way of statutory maximum billing rates for experience levels, or capped number of hours spent on specific litigation tasks)? Obviously, money companies spent on expensive, overbilling defense counsel is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
The initiative could be designed by taking the pay rates and task-completion hourly credit from public servants like federal or state staff attorneys as its guides. I know the federal AO provided specific hourly credits for specific types of work, so those could serve as a basis for restricting the number of hours defense counsel can bill on any specific task or matter.
Defense counsel fees are already in the crapper due to insurers doing their best to squeeze every last dime of profit from them. With rates frozen in time from the nineties, you are targeting the wrong group here. If you wanted to adjust the rates as you describe, you’ll probably end up increasing the same.
Rather, we should be asking about capping fees for rideshare companies, eliminating the use of “medical payments” insurance in lieu of UM/UIM coverage for drivers, or possibly defining their drivers as employees and not contractors. I’d much rather hurt the sleazy company that only got ahead by ignoring the law governing taxi cabs than other attorneys.
And yes, defense counsel should come out against this as well. If this drops claim volume….you get the picture.
Not at all. If memory serves, the federal AO used to give staff attorneys eight hours’ credit for an entire habeas petition (reviewing court record, doing legal research, drafting / editing opinion for judge’s review). If they can do that in eight hours, then no defense counsel should be billing more than four hours for a motion for summary judgment and the same should be the subject of a ballot petition if this attempt to cap plaintiff’s contingency fee recovery passes. If Uber’s petition is as popular as the survey they purchased suggests, there should be no problem passing it.
How is the ballot initiative even legal? How do they intend to get around contract clause challenges?
I am proposing an initiative that caps the price of a new vehicle at $6,000.00. Cars are too expensive and consume too large a percentage of my income. Now I need a new car. Hey, where did all of the new cars go?
Are you telling me there is a way to get rid of attorneys?
According to quite a few posts this week, getting the OBC to investigate leads to that happening.
I have the perfect case to develop some law. While I think the argument for my client’s position is stronger than the adverse position, I couldn’t find an appellate decision anywhere in the country that addresses it.
It’s an issue that comes up a lot but never gets litigated to the appeal stage, because most of the time, it would cost more to litigate than is at stake. In this case, there are rare circumstances that would actually make it worth taking it to appeal.
The other side is getting nervous and has made an offer that may actually get us on the path to settlement.
Have any of you ever faced a similar situation? Have you ever litigated an issue just to make law? What kind of conversation would you have with your client?
I’ve never found a client willing to pay for new law.
Insurers will often do that, especially auto insurers, because of the high volume of cases, they need to be strategic and put their money behind arguments and cases that could save them a ton over the long run.
I think the conversation is likely the same as with any client at this stage. There must be a strong basis for the decision to have a long term impact on their business/them, beyond just winning this one case.
I had one in BK court about 12 years ago and was about to make a certain trustee pay the piper. For their actions and double dealing. As soon as I filed the Motion, they hit us with a settlement offer that I thought was fair (actually, it was pretty good) and the client jumped out the window to accept it.
Bar Exam
“the new exam will emphasize skills junior attorneys need—such as research, client management and dispute resolution.”
Maybe, but the Bar should test knowledge. It is possible to earn a JD without really knowing the law and we cannot depend on possession of a JD to become the filter, the qualifier. The quality of law schools vary, sometimes vastly. Without that minor component, knowing the law, a new attorney can not effectively research, manage clients or meaningfully participate is dispute resolution.
The NextGen, downgrading the passing cut score and the like is wrong headed thinking. I think it points to the end of law as a profession trending towards mere technician.
Many of the Family Court “judges” are the worst human beings among us. Prove me wrong. Remember PD? Damn, what a sadistic POS.
Welcome to DEI
DEI is simply the latest incarnation of affirmative action.
The MBE, which is scheduled to sunset, is an excellent test of the depth of a person’s knowledge of the law. Yes, it is hard but you either know the subject matter or your don’t. The state essay exams tests the ability to apply law to fact. Losing both means admitting unqualified people to the Bar.
I truly enjoy the MBE. There are 2 right answers, but 1 is “more right” than the other.
I realize there are all kinds of people with different perspectives and relationships with hunting. But the pic of the commissioner with the bear he killed–illegally–for fun is flat-out disgusting.