Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
It is always about the non econ. which is what the plaintiff gets to keep. The hard costs are part of it but by the time everyone gets reimbursed what does that leave the Plaintiff? 700k? attorney gets half of that so more like 350ish give or take.
A lot of tort cases don't actually have a huge non economic component to them. You think juries award much in pain and suffering for a typical slip and fall injury? I'll tell you from experience, they don't. The value in economic damages is that (1) they are measured by some standard and not simply the whim of the jury and (2) they do compensate the plaintiff for the costs he or she has to pay. Win or lose in a personal injury case, for example, the plaintiff has those medical bills to pay. But if the plaintiff wins, he/she doesn't have to pay those bills — the defendant effectively pays them. When we win a judgment our firm negotiates with the various medical providers, etc., on payment so that even after we take our fee the plaintiff often has no bills to pay and does walk away with cash in hand. The fact that all the bills are paid is itself a benefit to the plaintiff, one that you seem to be unwilling to recognize.
I am not going to attack you like your posts come off to me.
I'm not attacking you. I am questioning where you are getting the figures you are seemingly pulling out of thin air.
I will say this, there are only roughly 100-150 actual good trial lawyers in complex civil litigation.
This figure is one of those. How did you determine that there are only roughly 150 good trial lawyers in the whole country for complex litigation? Do you actually have some independent source for that, or did you, if you'll excuse the phrase, just pull that figure out of your ass? If the former, what is that source? If the latter, I expect you won't admit to that, though I'd be impressed if you did.