f/k/a . . .

June 7, 2003

FTC Opposes Inflated Fees Based on Face Value of Coupons

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 11:01 pm


The Federal Trade Commission announced in a press release on June 6th, that its staff had filed an amicus brief opposing the proposed class action settlement in the Texas case of Haese v. H&R Block, Inc. — due mostly to excessive attorneys fees.  The plaintiffs claimed that H&R Block helped them get income tax “refund anticipation loans,” but failed to disclose it was receiving a “kick back” from the lending bank on each RAL.  The settlement would give the 700,000 class members coupons for a $20 H&R tax prep rebate, software and planning booklet for five years.  Based on the alleged face-value of the coupons, plaintiffs’ lawyers estimated the value of the settlement at $261 million, and requested attorneys’ fees of $49 million.


In its amicus brief, the FTC staff:



  • explained at length why the purported face value of the coupons “wildly exaggerates the true value of the settlement to class member”
  • noted the apparent strength of the case on the merits, and that the attorneys’ fees would comprise “the only cash relief provided to anyone”
  • opined that the reqested $49 million fee draws into question the adequacy of counsel’s representation, and suggests the settlement may not have been the result of arms-length negotation
  • called for using the “lodestar” method for calculating the fees (hours worked times an appropriate hourly rate), due to the inability to estimate the true value of the settlement;
  • pointed out why the class counsel’s offer to divert $26 million of its fees to the class (if it got the whole $49 million) “raises concerns that warrant the Court’s scrutiny.”
  • concluded that the excessive fee request shows the settlement on the whole to be improper and contrary to the public interest

Prior efforts by the FTC to limit excessive attorney fees in class action suits, as part of its Consumer Protection mission, are described in a 9/29/02 Washington Post article.  The Commission’s targets have included instances where the suits are “piggybacking” on government cases and the lawyers were therefore neither taking much risk nor doing much “heavylifting.” FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris is quoted saying: “if it’s a choice between the money going to consumers or to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, we’ll take the consumer every time.”



  • Two Cents from the sidekick Jack Cliente: We’ve been online for a week, and one kibitzer has already complained that we’re a “Johnny one-note” harping on excessive contingency fees.  Seems to me, we’d have a lot more topics and good news to report, if bar associations and courts would start promoting programs to better inform clients of their rights, and maybe enact some enlightened ethics rules (like those proposed here).

ethicalEsq?ethicalEsq?


Thanks to Ken at the Crimlaw blawg for mentioning us tonight. Public P.S. to Ken:  As my alter ego Jack Cliente says above, I wish we had more non-contingency-fee news. After my first eight days blawging, 5 of my 10 substantive postings have been on other topics — but, I had to “create” the topic, there was no actual news to report.  Plus, none of those other topics has garnered a comment. 


By the way, I don’t dislike the use of contingency fees.  I dislike applying a  Standard Rate without taking into account the circumstances of each client’s case — e.g., the likely risk and the amount of work.  That’s kind of like all criminal lawyers charging a fixed, flat fee that assumed you’d have a full-blown trial.  Please tell your buddies in those small p/i firms that they might soon be big firms, if they tried attracting clients from the start with lower contingency rates tailored to each case, rather than only cutting rates to prevent client defections.  Bravo for the clients who know enough to bargain.


Thanks also to the eclectic Jeremy of  too many topics, too little time for linking to ethicalEsq?.  How do you young folk get so much done?

FTC Opposes Inflated Fees Based on Face Value of Coupons

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 11:01 pm


The Federal Trade Commission announced in a press release on June 6th, that its staff had filed an amicus brief opposing the proposed class action settlement in the Texas case of Haese v. H&R Block, Inc. — due mostly to excessive attorneys fees.  The plaintiffs claimed that H&R Block helped them get income tax “refund anticipation loans,” but failed to disclose it was receiving a “kick back” from the lending bank on each RAL.  The settlement would give the 700,000 class members coupons for a $20 H&R tax prep rebate, software and planning booklet for five years.  Based on the alleged face-value of the coupons, plaintiffs’ lawyers estimated the value of the settlement at $261 million, and requested attorneys’ fees of $49 million.


In its amicus brief, the FTC staff:



  • explained at length why the purported face value of the coupons “wildly exaggerates the true value of the settlement to class member”
  • noted the apparent strength of the case on the merits, and that the attorneys’ fees would comprise “the only cash relief provided to anyone”
  • opined that the reqested $49 million fee draws into question the adequacy of counsel’s representation, and suggests the settlement may not have been the result of arms-length negotation
  • called for using the “lodestar” method for calculating the fees (hours worked times an appropriate hourly rate), due to the inability to estimate the true value of the settlement;
  • pointed out why the class counsel’s offer to divert $26 million of its fees to the class (if it got the whole $49 million) “raises concerns that warrant the Court’s scrutiny.”
  • concluded that the excessive fee request shows the settlement on the whole to be improper and contrary to the public interest

Prior efforts by the FTC to limit excessive attorney fees in class action suits, as part of its Consumer Protection mission, are described in a 9/29/02 Washington Post article.  The Commission’s targets have included instances where the suits are “piggybacking” on government cases and the lawyers were therefore neither taking much risk nor doing much “heavylifting.” FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris is quoted saying: “if it’s a choice between the money going to consumers or to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, we’ll take the consumer every time.”



  • Two Cents from the sidekick Jack Cliente: We’ve been online for a week, and one kibitzer has already complained that we’re a “Johnny one-note” harping on excessive contingency fees.  Seems to me, we’d have a lot more topics and good news to report, if bar associations and courts would start promoting programs to better inform clients of their rights, and maybe enact some enlightened ethics rules (like those proposed here).

ethicalEsq?ethicalEsq?


Thanks to Ken at the Crimlaw blawg for mentioning us tonight. Public P.S. to Ken:  As my alter ego Jack Cliente says above, I wish we had more non-contingency-fee news. After my first eight days blawging, 5 of my 10 substantive postings have been on other topics — but, I had to “create” the topic, there was no actual news to report.  Plus, none of those other topics has garnered a comment. 


By the way, I don’t dislike the use of contingency fees.  I dislike applying a  Standard Rate without taking into account the circumstances of each client’s case — e.g., the likely risk and the amount of work.  That’s kind of like all criminal lawyers charging a fixed, flat fee that assumed you’d have a full-blown trial.  Please tell your buddies in those small p/i firms that they might soon be big firms, if they tried attracting clients from the start with lower contingency rates tailored to each case, rather than only cutting rates to prevent client defections.  Bravo for the clients who know enough to bargain.


Thanks also to the eclectic Jeremy of  too many topics, too little time for linking to ethicalEsq?.  How do you young folk get so much done?

Access/Self-Help/Pro Se

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 7:11 pm


– below are ethicalEsq postings and annotated web resources on this topic. use the Google Search Box to locate other postings covering the topic since the ethicalEsq weblog became f/k/a in May 2004 –


find our full list of annotated ethics links by clicking Ethics Resources on the Navigation Bar



Self-Help Resources


  • The website of ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services, which has the “mandate to improve the delivery of legal services to the public, with a concentration on those of moderate income.“
  • The Pro Se Law Center, whose website is designed as a resource center on self-representation in civil legal matters. It provides a collection of materials and resources that can be used to create legal service delivery systems that are based on the concept of “pro se” or “self” representation within federally funded legal services programs, courts, pro bono programs, and other community-based programs. Especially, delve into the  links to court pro se sites state by state — to see what other states are already doing to provide meaningful self-help assistance (through computers, personnel, brochures, hot-lines, directories of attorneys who unbundle, and more) and to consider what your state or county can and should be doing..
  • Examples of Court-Based Self-Help Centers: The pioneering self-help centers provided by the courts in Arizona’s Maricopa County (with information and over 400 court forms available online, covering domestic violence, family law, guardianship, estate, dependency, small claims, and tax appeal); and, programs throughout Florida (with comprehensive family law assistance).  Also, newer programs at  Center for Self-Representation.in the Lake County (Illinois) Courthouse (mentioned in our posting on 7/13/03), and Wisconsin Self-Help Center (discussed in our 7/8/03 posting).

  • For an excellent example of online statewide self-help resources, see the California Courts Online Self-Help Center, which “will help you find assistance and information, work better with an attorney, and represent yourself in some legal matters.”  



  • FindLaw for the Public!  Findlaw.com says “site is here to help you find solutions to your legal issues by providing you with easy and comprehensive access to lawyers and legal information.”   Find the topic index here.  Its Lawsuits & Lawyers page lists many articles of interest, including on being sued, deciding to bring a lawsuit, representing yourself, small claims courts, and more. 


    Small Claims Court Reform



  • HALT’s Small Claims Reform Project. HALT believes that one key method of improving citizen access to the civil justice system is through small claims courts — which use simplified procedures, require plain English, provide consumer aids and often prohibit lawyers — because they can help empower ordinary people to take charge of their own routine legal needs. HALT is seeking a number of reforms that would make small claims courts fulfill their promise, including increasing significantly their award limits.


    Supersize Small Claims This article, written by ethicalEsq?’s David Giacalone for Prairielaw.com (August 2000), advocates raising the limit on small claims awards to $20,000, to improve access to justice for the average consumer. It notes: “In a nation that loves lawyer-bashing and lawyer jokes, the lack of political support for court reform can be understood only in the context of the immense power of the legal establishment and its mighty efforts to preserve control of our justice system.”


    Unbundled Legal Services



    Self-help often works best when consumers can use lawyers for discrete tasks — when they “unbundle” their services.  


     “Unbundled” Legal Services  This website offers extensive information on the need for, ethics and mechanics of unbundling services, with relevant materials from many states, papers from conferences, sample retainer agreements, and much more for the court system or law firm interested in tapping into and encouraging the unbundling phenomenon.


    Handbook on Limited Scope Legal Assistance  The Modest Means Task Force of the ABA’s Section of Litigation has released this “Unbundling Handbook” in October, 2003.   The 155-page document appears to live up to its billing as a “soup-to-nuts” guide for the practitioner.  The Forward by Committee Chair Scott J. Atlas gives a taste of the purpose, scope and utility of the document:



    The Handbook is a practical guide to providing legal services in a way that permits clients, who otherwise could not afford or would not choose to hire a lawyer, to obtain critical legal representation for discrete and important tasks in the course of resolving disputes.  The Handbook discusses all aspects of limited-scope representation, including the formation and termination of the relationship, the performance of discrete tasks, and the ethical issues and procedural rules involved in this service method. 

    • Access/Self-Help/Pro Se

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 7:11 pm

    – below are ethicalEsq postings and annotated web resources on this topic. use the Google Search Box to locate other postings covering the topic since the ethicalEsq weblog became f/k/a in May 2004 –

    find our full list of annotated ethics links by clicking Ethics Resources on the Navigation Bar

     

    Self-Help Resources

  • The website of ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services, which has the “mandate to improve the delivery of legal services to the public, with a concentration on those of moderate income.”

  • The Pro Se Law Center, whose website is designed as a resource center on self-representation in civil legal matters. It provides a collection of materials and resources that can be used to create legal service delivery systems that are based on the concept of “pro se” or “self” representation within federally funded legal services programs, courts, pro bono programs, and other community-based programs. Especially, delve into the links to court pro se sites state by state — to see what other states are already doing to provide meaningful self-help assistance (through computers, personnel, brochures, hot-lines, directories of attorneys who unbundle, and more) and to consider what your state or county can and should be doing..

  • Examples of Court-Based Self-Help Centers: The pioneering self-help centers provided by the courts in Arizona’s Maricopa County (with information and over 400 court forms available online, covering domestic violence, family law, guardianship, estate, dependency, small claims, and tax appeal); and, programs throughout Florida (with comprehensive family law assistance). Also, newer programs at Center for Self-Representation.in the Lake County (Illinois) Courthouse (mentioned in our posting on 7/13/03), and Wisconsin Self-Help Center (discussed in our 7/8/03 posting).

  • For an excellent example of online statewide self-help resources, see the California Courts Online Self-Help Center, which “will help you find assistance and information, work better with an attorney, and represent yourself in some legal matters.”
  • FindLaw for the Public!  Findlaw.com says “site is here to help you find solutions to your legal issues by providing you with easy and comprehensive access to lawyers and legal information.” Find the topic index here. Its Lawsuits & Lawyers page lists many articles of interest, including on being sued, deciding to bring a lawsuit, representing yourself, small claims courts, and more. Small Claims Court Reform
  • HALT’s Small Claims Reform Project. HALT believes that one key method of improving citizen access to the civil justice system is through small claims courts — which use simplified procedures, require plain English, provide consumer aids and often prohibit lawyers — because they can help empower ordinary people to take charge of their own routine legal needs. HALT is seeking a number of reforms that would make small claims courts fulfill their promise, including increasing significantly their award limits.
  • Supersize Small Claims [reproduced here] This article, written by ethicalEsq’s David Giacalone for Prairielaw.com (August 2000), advocates raising the limit on small claims awards to $20,000, to improve access to justice for the average consumer. It notes: “”[O]ur lawmakers could give a big chunk of the civil justice system back to the people by simply increasing the dollar limits allowed in small claims courts.” Unbundled Legal Services

    Self-help often works best when consumers can use lawyers for discrete tasks — when they “unbundle” their services.

    “Unbundled” Legal Services This website offers extensive information on the need for, ethics and mechanics of unbundling services, with relevant materials from many states, papers from conferences, sample retainer agreements, and much more for the court system or law firm interested in tapping into and encouraging the unbundling phenomenon.

    Handbook on Limited Scope Legal Assistance The Modest Means Task Force of the ABA’s Section of Litigation has released this “Unbundling Handbook” in October, 2003. The 155-page document appears to live up to its billing as a “soup-to-nuts” guide for the practitioner. The Forward by Committee Chair Scott J. Atlas gives a taste of the purpose, scope and utility of the document:

    The Handbook is a practical guide to providing legal services in a way that permits clients, who otherwise could not afford or would not choose to hire a lawyer, to obtain critical legal representation for discrete and important tasks in the course of resolving disputes. The Handbook discusses all aspects of limited-scope representation, including the formation and termination of the relationship, the performance of discrete tasks, and the ethical issues and procedural rules involved in this service method.

     

     

    • ___ Informing Consumers

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 7:04 pm


    – below are ethicalEsq postings and annotated web resources on this topic. use the Google Search Box to locate other postings covering the topic since the ethicalEsq weblog became f/k/a in May 2004 –


    find our full list of annotated ethics links by clicking Ethics Resources on the Navigation Bar


    [for resources relating to Self-Help Centers and Pro Se Litigants, click Access and Affordability]



    Need a Lawyer? Judge for Yourself The Federal Trade Commission has issued this consumer guide to choosing a lawyer, including advice about keeping fees low and choosing between price and quality.


    Before You Hire a Lawyer Know Your Rights This is a helpful e-pamplet from HALT (also available in print).


    Legal Consumer’s Bill of Rights. HALT’s Legal Consumer Bill of Rights Project was launched to educate policy makers, the media and the public about the rights of legal consumers. This project seeks to promote increased accountability in the legal profession. HALT has developed model legislation that requires attorneys to include a Legal Consumers Bill of Rights in their contracts and retainer agreements. Similar protections have already been adopted in Illinois (for matrimonial cases) and in New York. HALT’s Legal Consumers Bill of Rights spells out four basic rights that every American citizen should expect from the civil justice system - the right to control your own legal affairs; the right to affordable legal services; the right to competent legal representation; and emthe right to an accessible and accountable legal system.


    FAQs from NOBC  The National Association of Bar Counsel has put together brief answers to frequently asked questions from the public about Legal Ethics and the Attorney Discipline System. The questions addressed are: What are “Legal Ethics? What conduct is covered? What conduct is not covered? Who makes the rules? Who determines if the rules have been broken? How do I file a charge of unethical conduct against a lawyer? Will the Disciplinary Agency reimburse money that a dishonest attorney stole from me? What is Fee Arbitration?


    Counselors Oughtta Counsel (Not Conceal)  This column, by ethicalEsq?’s Editor, was published by Prairielaw.com in 2001, and shows the failure of the American Bar Association’s new model rules of professional responsibility, proposed by the ABA Ethics 2000 Commission, to ensure that legal clients are fully-informed consumers who have the benefits of competition and innovation (meaningful information and meaningful choices).  [Editor's Note: Ethics 1000 would have been a better name for this ABA project -- in many ways, more appropriate for a medieval guild than for a group of "responsible" professionals in the Third Millennium.]


    FTC Letter to Ala. Supreme Court on Lawyer Advertising In this detailed Press Release, which links to the fully-footnoted, 16-page Letter (Sept.30, 2002), the FTC staff addresses several proposed restrictions on lawyer advertising, concluding that they would restrict truthful and nonmisleading information, and rejecting a “dignity of the profession” argument.


    Public Citizen Comments on Ky Bar’s Proposed Advertising Rules This press release (June 2, 2003) describes PC’s Comments, with links to the full document (a comprehensive, fully-footnoted, 29-page-pdf. submission), and to letters sent to FTC and DOJ requesting an antitrust investigation. PC concludes that the Rules would go too far, violating the First Amendment and raising antitrust concerns.

    ___ Informing Consumers

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 7:04 pm


    – below are ethicalEsq postings and annotated web resources on this topic. use the Google Search Box to locate other postings covering the topic since the ethicalEsq weblog became f/k/a in May 2004 –


    find our full list of annotated ethics links by clicking Ethics Resources on the Navigation Bar


    [for resources relating to Self-Help Centers and Pro Se Litigants, click Access and Affordability]



    Need a Lawyer? Judge for Yourself The Federal Trade Commission has issued this consumer guide to choosing a lawyer, including advice about keeping fees low and choosing between price and quality.


    Before You Hire a Lawyer Know Your Rights This is a helpful e-pamplet from HALT (also available in print).


    Legal Consumer’s Bill of Rights. HALT’s Legal Consumer Bill of Rights Project was launched to educate policy makers, the media and the public about the rights of legal consumers. This project seeks to promote increased accountability in the legal profession. HALT has developed model legislation that requires attorneys to include a Legal Consumers Bill of Rights in their contracts and retainer agreements. Similar protections have already been adopted in Illinois (for matrimonial cases) and in New York. HALT’s Legal Consumers Bill of Rights spells out four basic rights that every American citizen should expect from the civil justice system - the right to control your own legal affairs; the right to affordable legal services; the right to competent legal representation; and emthe right to an accessible and accountable legal system.


    FAQs from NOBC  The National Association of Bar Counsel has put together brief answers to frequently asked questions from the public about Legal Ethics and the Attorney Discipline System. The questions addressed are: What are “Legal Ethics? What conduct is covered? What conduct is not covered? Who makes the rules? Who determines if the rules have been broken? How do I file a charge of unethical conduct against a lawyer? Will the Disciplinary Agency reimburse money that a dishonest attorney stole from me? What is Fee Arbitration?


    Counselors Oughtta Counsel (Not Conceal)  This column, by ethicalEsq?’s Editor, was published by Prairielaw.com in 2001, and shows the failure of the American Bar Association’s new model rules of professional responsibility, proposed by the ABA Ethics 2000 Commission, to ensure that legal clients are fully-informed consumers who have the benefits of competition and innovation (meaningful information and meaningful choices).  [Editor's Note: Ethics 1000 would have been a better name for this ABA project -- in many ways, more appropriate for a medieval guild than for a group of "responsible" professionals in the Third Millennium.]


    FTC Letter to Ala. Supreme Court on Lawyer Advertising In this detailed Press Release, which links to the fully-footnoted, 16-page Letter (Sept.30, 2002), the FTC staff addresses several proposed restrictions on lawyer advertising, concluding that they would restrict truthful and nonmisleading information, and rejecting a “dignity of the profession” argument.


    Public Citizen Comments on Ky Bar’s Proposed Advertising Rules This press release (June 2, 2003) describes PC’s Comments, with links to the full document (a comprehensive, fully-footnoted, 29-page-pdf. submission), and to letters sent to FTC and DOJ requesting an antitrust investigation. PC concludes that the Rules would go too far, violating the First Amendment and raising antitrust concerns.

    ___ Organizations, Groups, Agencies

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 6:38 pm

     


    – below are ethicalEsq postings and annotated web resources on this topic. use the Google Search Box to locate other postings covering the topic since the ethicalEsq weblog became f/k/a in May 2004 –


    find our full list of annotated ethics links by clicking Ethics Resources on the Navigation Bar



    HALT – An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform. Founded in 1978, HALT is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest group of more than 50,000 members, and proudly states that it is “the nation’s largest and oldest legal reform organization. Dedicated to the principle that all Americans should be able to handle their legal affairs simply, affordably and equitably, HALT’s Reform Projects challenge the legal establishment to improve access and reduce costs in our civil justice system at both the state and federal levels. 



    The Legal Reformer: HALT’s Membership Newsletter This publication is available for free online, and is mailed to all HALT members. It includes articles on HALT projects and publications, as well as a roundup of legal reform news from across the nation


    Federal Trade Commission This is one government agency that understands the importance of information and competition to consumer welfare — and refuses to let professions get off the hook with their pious paternal instincts and frequently anticompetitive self-regulation. 


    Nolo.com Democracy Corner: With the rally cry of “Let’s Fix America’s Dysfunctional Legal System,” the self-help-law publisher Nolo.com presents its wish list of changes to the legal system and legal ethics. See the Nolo Contends webpage, which describes the Nolo philosophy of legal reform: Law for All, Remove Barriers to Access, Stimulate Reform of Law.  Topics covered in essays on the site include expanding small claims court jurisdicition, combating excessive contingency fees, preventing the use of rules against the Unauthorized Practice of Law to ban self-help books and software and the use of nonlawyer advisors, ending probate laws.   For a smile, see Nolo Lawyer Joke Emporium


    Overlawyered.com: Legal Ethics in Crisis Edited by Walter Olson, Overlawyered.com covers many aspects of the legal profession’s effects on society, politics, and clients, with an emphasis on the problem of excessive litigation. Overlawyer’s ethics page includes sections on excessive fees, faulty disciplinary systems, the failure to fully inform clients, and more, with links to relevant articles, sites and reports.


    SelfHelpSupport.org.  The site is a project of The National Center for State Courts.  It enables courts and legal aid programs from across the country that address the challenges of pro se litigants to share their innovations and best practices.  Its online library of resources has more than 400 items, links to articles and reports, and original documents, organized into 16 subject folders.  An excellent resource page for self-represented litigants is also provided.


    American Antitrust Institute This nonprofit thinktank has produced a Guide to Antitrust Resources on the Web that includes a major section on Lawyers and Legal Services, including sections on Applying the Antitrust Laws to the Legal Profession, Defining the Practice of Law, Protecting Clients through Competition, Information and Fair Ethical Rules, and Multi-Disciplinary Practice (MDP).


     Common Good  This social action group has its sights on the broader issue of an overly-litigious society.   However, its Early-Offer Settlement proposal is aimed at getting the victim-client a bigger share of the proceeds from cases that settle early.


    FindLaw for the Public!  Findlaw.com says “site is here to help you find solutions to your legal issues by providing you with easy and comprehensive access to lawyers and legal information.”   Find the topic index here.  Its Lawsuits & Lawyers page lists many articles of interest, including on being sued, deciding to bring a lawsuit, representing yourself, small claims courts, and more. 

    ___ Organizations, Groups, Agencies

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 6:38 pm


    – below are ethicalEsq postings and annotated web resources on this topic. use the Google Search Box to locate other postings covering the topic since the ethicalEsq weblog became f/k/a in May 2004 –


    find our full list of annotated ethics links by clicking Ethics Resources on the Navigation Bar

    HALT – An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform. Founded in 1978, HALT is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest group of more than 50,000 members, and proudly states that it is “the nation’s largest and oldest legal reform organization. Dedicated to the principle that all Americans should be able to handle their legal affairs simply, affordably and equitably, HALT’s Reform Projects challenge the legal establishment to improve access and reduce costs in our civil justice system at both the state and federal levels.

    The Legal Reformer: HALT’s Membership Newsletter This publication is available for free online, and is mailed to all HALT members. It includes articles on HALT projects and publications, as well as a roundup of legal reform news from across the nation

    Federal Trade Commission This is one government agency that understands the importance of information and competition to consumer welfare — and refuses to let professions get off the hook with their pious paternal instincts and frequently anticompetitive self-regulation.

    Nolo.com Democracy Corner: With the rally cry of “Let’s Fix America’s Dysfunctional Legal System,” the self-help-law publisher Nolo.com presents its wish list of changes to the legal system and legal ethics. See the Nolo Contends webpage, which describes the Nolo philosophy of legal reform: Law for All, Remove Barriers to Access, Stimulate Reform of Law. Topics covered in essays on the site include expanding small claims court jurisdicition, combating excessive contingency fees, preventing the use of rules against the Unauthorized Practice of Law to ban self-help books and software and the use of nonlawyer advisors, ending probate laws. For a smile, see Nolo Lawyer Joke Emporium

    Overlawyered.com: Legal Ethics in Crisis Edited by Walter Olson, Overlawyered.com covers many aspects of the legal profession’s effects on society, politics, and clients, with an emphasis on the problem of excessive litigation. Overlawyer’s ethics page includes sections on excessive fees, faulty disciplinary systems, the failure to fully inform clients, and more, with links to relevant articles, sites and reports.

    SelfHelpSupport.org. The site is a project of The National Center for State Courts. It enables courts and legal aid programs from across the country that address the challenges of pro se litigants to share their innovations and best practices. Its online library of resources has more than 400 items, links to articles and reports, and original documents, organized into 16 subject folders. An excellent resource page for self-represented litigants is also provided.

    American Antitrust Institute This nonprofit thinktank has produced a Guide to Antitrust Resources on the Web that includes a major section on Lawyers and Legal Services, including sections on Applying the Antitrust Laws to the Legal Profession, Defining the Practice of Law, Protecting Clients through Competition, Information and Fair Ethical Rules, and Multi-Disciplinary Practice (MDP).
    Common Good This social action group has its sights on the broader issue of an overly-litigious society. However, its Early-Offer Settlement proposal is aimed at getting the victim-client a bigger share of the proceeds from cases that settle early.
    FindLaw for the Public!  Findlaw.com says “site is here to help you find solutions to your legal issues by providing you with easy and comprehensive access to lawyers and legal information.” Find the topic index here. Its Lawsuits & Lawyers page lists many articles of interest, including on being sued, deciding to bring a lawsuit, representing yourself, small claims courts, and more.

    ___ Fees

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 5:59 pm

    – below are ethicalEsq postings and annotated web resources on this topic. use the Google Search Box to locate other postings covering the topic since the ethicalEsq weblog became f/k/a in May 2004 –


    find our full list of annotated ethics links by clicking Ethics Resources on the Navigation Bar



     


    ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees) and Comments thereto.


    Intro to ABA Statement on Principles in Billing (American Bar Association; The Task Force on Lawyer Business Ethics, 1996).  Plaintalk on the ethical use of the billable hour, and on charging for costs. In a nutshell, you can comply with Model Rule 1.5 by (a) basing the fee on the experience and capabilities of the lawyer, and complexity of the matter; (b) performing in an efficient and competent manner; and (c) keeping the client well-informed.  See Rule 1.5 and the Task Force Report for more details.


    The Objective of Professional Licensing In “What is the Objective of Professional Licensing? Evidence from the US Market for Lawyers” (Nov 2004), Turin Univ. Profesoor Mario Pagliero finds that the objective of such regulation in the USA is explained by capture theory, rather than public interest theory, and that “licensing increases annual entry salaries by more than $20,000, ” with a total welfare loss of over $6 billion. This link accesses an abstract, but the entire study is available with a free registration.


    Brickman Testimony on Contingency Fees Cardozo Law professor Lester Brickman presented these comments to the ABA’s Ethics 2000 Commission, stressing the need for explicit rules that would help prevent excessive contingency fees by linking fees to risk, and by informing clients of their right to choose other fee options, such as hourly or flat fees, and to negotiate the level of a contingency fee.



    FTC and class action fees In a Washington Post article (9/30/02), staff writer Caroline Mayer describes steps taken by the FTC to keep class action fees in line with the risk taken by the lawyers involved.


    Florida Bar Continency Fee Rules Through Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, clients entering into contingency fee arrangements have greater protection than in any other state, including a Statement of Client’s Rights for Contingency Fees (stating, among other things, that there is no set percentage fee and that the client has the right to negotiate the fee level), a 3-day “cooling off” period to reconsider after signing an agreement, and step-down maximum fee levels as the amount awarded increases. 


    Sue City: The Case Against the Contingency Fee (Policy Review, Winter 1991) .