|
|
|
|
|
|
by 394852034
2976 days ago
|
|
|
I think there is a risk that some will say something along the lines of that in the example you give it is unfair for the plaintiffs to only get $5k and the lawyers $2.1M. Reality though is that not only would a lot of these cases never see the courts at all if the Lawyers were not paid, but also it is expensive as fuck to bring these cases and to the research and front end work, with a huge risk that you may not win the case at all. I would be for courts to calculate compensation to plaintiffs as a ratio of, but on top of the award, i.e., if the punitive or compensatory award is X, the plaintiff's ratio is a minimum of 1/5, with total award being 1.2X. I am not all that against blood sucking lawyers taking a pound of flesh and am open to the notion of their compensation being controlled and limited (which would NEVER happen considering the power and strangle hold the legal profession has on government ... bar (yes, that's intentional) lawyers from government and lobbying maybe???). |
|
|
The benchmark in the Ninth Circuit is 25% of the common fund, but district courts almost always also ask for a "lodestar cross-check," which is the hours expended by the plaintiffs' firms multiplied by their customary hourly rates, plus expenses. It's often a very contentious battle to establish a reasonable hourly rate and will turn on the relevant legal market (SF has higher rates than, say, Tulsa even for the same sort of work), the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and so on. And the judges often cut hours, saying they were duplicative or excessive for whatever reason. This can be used to increase or (more commonly) decrease from the 25% benchmark.