A bill that could limit the amount of attorney fees awarded in fee-shifting cases has riled plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The legislation, introduced earlier this month, would require that where a statute provides for the award of attorney fees to a successful litigant, judges must take into consideration the reasonableness of the fees sought in relation to the amount of damages awarded to the prevailing party.
The bill also contains a provision mandating that if a plaintiff claiming an award of attorney fees rejected a Rule 68 offer of judgment and failed to obtain a verdict in excess of the offer, the plaintiff will not get any fees after the date of the offer.
Opponents of the bill are concerned it will cause attorneys to refuse cases where the amount in dispute is minimal, like some landlord-tenant matters or debt collection cases.
Attorney Michael Bryant, president-elect of the Minnesota Association for Justice: “If you won’t get paid for what you put into it, why do it? Who’s going to do it? To me that’s the problem.”
Minneapolis civil rights attorney Justin Cummins agreed that it’s going to be much more difficult to get the private bar involved if attorney fees are contingent on actual damages awarded. “It would really create a disincentive for the private bar to come forward with public interest cases.”
The legislation could impact any claim for which there is a statutory fee-shifting provision, including cases involving:
Debt collection
Landlord-tenant disputes
Civil rights
Discrimination
Whistleblowers
Overtime and minimum wage
Failure to pay wages
Full Article and Source:
Attorney fees under fire
The legislation, introduced earlier this month, would require that where a statute provides for the award of attorney fees to a successful litigant, judges must take into consideration the reasonableness of the fees sought in relation to the amount of damages awarded to the prevailing party.
The bill also contains a provision mandating that if a plaintiff claiming an award of attorney fees rejected a Rule 68 offer of judgment and failed to obtain a verdict in excess of the offer, the plaintiff will not get any fees after the date of the offer.
Opponents of the bill are concerned it will cause attorneys to refuse cases where the amount in dispute is minimal, like some landlord-tenant matters or debt collection cases.
Attorney Michael Bryant, president-elect of the Minnesota Association for Justice: “If you won’t get paid for what you put into it, why do it? Who’s going to do it? To me that’s the problem.”
Minneapolis civil rights attorney Justin Cummins agreed that it’s going to be much more difficult to get the private bar involved if attorney fees are contingent on actual damages awarded. “It would really create a disincentive for the private bar to come forward with public interest cases.”
The legislation could impact any claim for which there is a statutory fee-shifting provision, including cases involving:
Debt collection
Landlord-tenant disputes
Civil rights
Discrimination
Whistleblowers
Overtime and minimum wage
Failure to pay wages
Full Article and Source:
Attorney fees under fire
Make no mistake, lawyers will see to it that they don't lose a cent.
ReplyDeleteHaving been in this position in a landlord / tenanat dispute, I have to admit this article is showing the other side of the story.
ReplyDeleteIn our case, 1 unique, brave fine lawyer agreed to take our case and more than 40 lawyers said - NO!, no way, not enough $$$ in it for their time and efforts.
I urge you to think this through because it will be "open season" for people to take advantage of others knowing full well there will not be any recourse, no lawyer will take the case.
There is a good point in this article that if lawyers don't get their top dollar, they'll refer the case onto someone else. I'm not saying that's right but that's what they'll do.
ReplyDelete