[flkiwi]

Morgan and Morgan is a plaintiffs firm specializing in personal injury (though they have other areas of practice). For those not familiar with the US system, if someone hits a victim with their car, a victim slips and falls in a store, etc. and the victim sues, Morgan and Morgan commonly handles that type of case for the victim. Basically the usual "Americans will sue each other for anything" type of law firm (though I don't strictly mean that to be criticism). Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. They also depend heavily on advertising. Regardless of what happens next, this story is a free "Morgan and Morgan stands up to the big guy for you" headline.

Apropos of nothing, the firm's founder, John Morgan, has been instrumental in attempting to legalize marijuana in Florida, which some have identified as a potential, but very funny, conflict of interest given the type of work Morgan and Morgan does.

[technothrasher]

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation.

To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.

[flkiwi]

That's true, though I wonder at times how much of that is because of the way plaintiff's firms set the market up. And, again, I don't really mean to criticize them--I tend to err on the side of access to justice--as much as to explain to anyone non-US who tf M&M are and why this is interesting.

[toast0]

Jury trials involve a lot of time, costs, and uncertainty. Juries are human and their verdicts need not be rational.

For claims significantly less than the defendant's assets, if the defendant is likely to be found liable, they may need to pay the plaintiff's losses as well as lawyer and court costs; settling before court most likely reduces the cost and provides certainty. For the plaintiff, settling before court may reduce the award, but provides it faster and with certainty.

For claims larger than the defendant's assets, typical cases involve an insurance company and in some cases a trial award that's above policy limits may be payable the insurance company if a settlement offer below the limits was offered by the plaintiff and not accepted by the insurance company (keyword: excess judgement), but if the plaintiff is on their own they may not care one way or the other --- a settlement they can't pay might be the same as a judgement they can't pay, perhaps delay and hope is preferred, perhaps they may be able to negotiate a settlement that they can pay. For the plaintiff, if there's only $X from the defendant, using it on legal costs is a loss, so settlement is preferable, especially if there's a chance of the defendant making the assets unavailable.

The incentives for settlement aren't so much about what plaintiffs' lawyers or defendants' lawyers are up to, but about how courts operate. Certainly lawyers have some influence on operation of courts, but it's a big combination of things, and IMHO, it falls more under government policy than anything else. If courts were staffed such that you could reliably expect to take an injury case from complaint to judgement in 6 weeks, maybe more people would do it. Of course, that might require more omniscience than is possible.

[freejazz]

The idea that cases settle before trial because of Plaintiff's and not defendants is pretty silly. I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that the powerful people in this country are personal injury attorneys and not the gigantic insurance companies they are always battling.

[thaumasiotes]

> That's true, though I wonder at times how much of that is because of the way plaintiff's firms set the market up.

My understanding is that over 90% of criminal cases also settle before trial commences.

[umpalumpaaa]

And to be even more fair:

It is strictly regulated how much money Morgan and Morgan can get out of someone who they represent.

[abduhl]

I’ve never heard of a regulation governing attorney’s fees. Which regulations might you be referring to?

[flkiwi]

For example, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(a) prohibits "clearly excessive" attorney's fees, while 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) sets several criteria for contingency fees (typically the sort of fees a plaintiff's firm would charge) that, if not met, renders a fee presumptively "clearly excessive".

[jrs235]

Most Florida contingency fees will be about 1/3 of collectible settlement/awards.

[wbshaw]

...after expenses which can be considerable.

[JohnMakin]

Presumably talking about damages.

[softwaredoug]

This is basically what we have in the US instead of a strong regulatory state. One of the few ways consumers might seek justice against a giant corporation.

[flkiwi]

That's why I called out that I didn't mean my description of their work as criticism, strictly speaking.

[hearsathought]

> They also depend heavily on advertising.

They are all over social media ( tiktok,youtube ) crime videos. Never heard of them until I started watching crime videos online.

> Apropos of nothing, the firm's founder, John Morgan, has been instrumental in attempting to legalize marijuana in Florida

Makes sense. There is some correlation between drug use and crime.

[raybb]

I think when places have such huge advertising budgets does that means you're paying more or getting less. Do you think that applies to law firms like Morgan and Morgan?

[anonymouskimmer]

Who's cheaper: The mom-and-pop, or Walmart? According to Wikipedia, Morgan & Morgan has 108 offices and over 3000 employees.

[burnt-resistor]

And it's advertised relentlessly on Youtube like Honey, BetterHelp, SurfShark, NordVPN, RocketMoney, Incogni, and Ground News so it's probably trash too.