IF SOMETHING SOUNDS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE
Hey all- before I get into this post- I am encouraging all of you to let your friends know NOT to sign Uber’s petition to limit attorney’s fees. My post below explains why. And, the truth of it is this- if it gets on the ballot and passes, we are all in serious trouble.
IF SOMETHING SOUNDS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE . . . .
Hello all. I am going to just jump right into it today with this post. I want to talk to all of you about a petition that is floating around trying to get on the upcoming ballot. It is sponsored by Uber (although you won’t be told that when you are asked to sign it). It is a petition to limit attorneys’ fees in personal injury cases to 20%.
At first blush most people may think “Wow! Thanks for looking out for us Uber. This is great!” I understand the appeal of limiting what you might have to pay someone- anyone in any service industry like an attorney, or plumber, or accountant, or fast food worker. The less you pay, the more for you. Right? Well, not in this instance and let me tell you why.
Personal injury attorneys like me work on what is called a contingency fee. That means I don’t bill you by the hour. I don’t make you give me money up front to pay for all of the costs that need to be spent on your case. I front all of those (often times over $25,000, many times over $75,000, and sometimes over $100,000). If we don’t win, I don’t ask you to pay those back. I don’t take a fee because I only get a fee if I win. The contingency fee model gives everyone access to an attorney to help them. Here is a real life example. I have a case right now with a woman who lost her left leg. I won’t get into the facts. But what I will tell you is this. The costs to fight the case, and we are about half done, are in excess of $125,000. That’s right. I have spent $125,000 to help this lovely woman. She doesn’t have $125,000 to spend on litigation costs. I can only do this for her because of the current contingency fee model and my ability to set a fee that allows me to help her and others. I use the money I get in fees to help fund other cases for other clients. It’s that simple.
Generally, the contingency fee is 33% to 40% of what is recovered. Sometimes it is more depending on the case, but the vast majority of the time its 33% to 40%. These amounts allow the attorney to take the risk of fronting the costs, paying his or her staff and all other overhead, and yes admittedly making a profit. It also allows the attorney to take cases that may have some “warts” such as prior crashes, prior injuries, minor property damage, etc. Cases that the lawyer knows will be an uphill battle. Cases that at the end of the day are smaller value cases- which quite frankly most cases are.
Uber knows all of this. Uber knows that the vast majority of people could not afford to hire an attorney to bring a claim against them or anyone else if fees were limited to 20%. Uber knows a cap on fees of 20% will both (1) force many law firms to close their doors because it is not possible to run this type of business if fees are limited to 20% ; (2) those law firms that do stay open will not take smaller cases e.g. cases with a value of less than $25,000 (which probably represent upwards of 50% of claims) because those would not be financially feasible to take; and (3) it will force some law firms to start either charging an hourly fee up front and/or forcing the attorney to tell the client that he or she has to pay the costs of claim up front- that the attorney can no longer afford to front thousands and thousands of dollars in costs and risk that money on a case where the attorney can only collect 20%. All of these will unquestionably cut off access to justice to a great number of Nevadans.
The ironic, or perhaps more accurately the hypocritical, position is this: Uber is trying to market this as “we just want to see the injured person get the money, not the lawyer.” That is a lie. If that were true, then why has Uber over the past several years phased out its under insured motorist coverage for its drivers and passengers who are injured? If Uber cared about making sure people were protected it would have kept its under insured motorist coverage and not completely gutted it.
Uber is trying to protect one thing and one thing only- its bottom line. Does anybody really think Uber has anything but its own best interest at heart? Of course it doesn’t. Uber is doing what is good for Uber- nobody else.
One last thought- if Uber can get a petition like this on the ballot and people can vote to limit what attorneys can charge then what prevents anyone from putting forth a petition to limit what anyone can charge? Like I stated above, who doesn’t want to pay less when a plumber comes to fix a drain, or how much their accountant charges them, or their dentist, or a doctor, or any service provider for that matter. If the populous can vote to limit what lawyers can charge then why not literally every other profession- including yours?
This is a bad idea people. I know good reader that you are smarter than that. Please, if you care about access to justice do not sign that petition. Do not let Uber trick the rest of Nevada so it can increase its bottom line at the expense of your right to justice.