Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword: Sorting Out Our National Liability Crisis by Richard A. Epstein
- Acknowledgments
- LAWYER BARONS
- Introduction
- 1 The Origin of the Contingency Fee
- 2 How Profitable Are Contingency Fees?
- 3 Are Contingency Fee Profits “Reasonable”?
- 4 How Tort Lawyers Have Increased Their Profits by Restraining Competition
- 5 Why the Market Has Failed to Correct the Absence of Price Competition
- 6 Impediments Imposed by the Bar to Price Competition
- 7 The Effects of Incentives Created by Contingency Fees
- 8 How the Quest for Profits Influenced the Development of the Tort System
- 9 Lawyers' Role in the Expansion of Tort Liability
- 10 The Role of the Judiciary in Tort System Expansion
- 11 Current and Future Expansions of Tort Liability
- 12 The “Litigation Explosion”
- 13 Measures of the Rate of Expansion of Tort Liability
- 14 The Relationship between Injury Rates and Tort System Costs
- 15 The Impacts of Substantial Increases in Tort Lawyers' Effective Hourly Rates
- 16 Class Actions
- 17 Fees in Class Actions
- 18 How Class Action Lawyers Game Fee Setting
- 19 Securities Class Actions
- 20 Regulation through Litigation
- 21 A New Role for Punitive Damages
- 22 For-Profit Partnerships between State Attorneys General and Contingency Fee Lawyers
- Conclusion
- Appendix A A Critique of Alex Tabarrok
- Appendix B Calculating Tort Lawyers' Effective Hourly Rates in 1960
- Appendix C Electronic Discovery and the Use of Contract Lawyers
- Appendix D The HMO Litigation
- Appendix E The GM “Side Saddle” Truck Litigation
- Appendix F Modern Class Actions Undermine Democratic Precepts
- Appendix G Other Ways Lawyers Game Class Action Fees
- Appendix H Nonrecourse Financing of Tort Litigation
- Appendix I Political Contributions by Tort Lawyers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Appendix J Special Rules Favoring Lawyers
- Appendix K The Ultimate Medical Expense “Buildup”: Whiplash
- Appendix L The Effect of Punitive Damages on Compensatory Awards
- Index
3 - Are Contingency Fee Profits “Reasonable”?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword: Sorting Out Our National Liability Crisis by Richard A. Epstein
- Acknowledgments
- LAWYER BARONS
- Introduction
- 1 The Origin of the Contingency Fee
- 2 How Profitable Are Contingency Fees?
- 3 Are Contingency Fee Profits “Reasonable”?
- 4 How Tort Lawyers Have Increased Their Profits by Restraining Competition
- 5 Why the Market Has Failed to Correct the Absence of Price Competition
- 6 Impediments Imposed by the Bar to Price Competition
- 7 The Effects of Incentives Created by Contingency Fees
- 8 How the Quest for Profits Influenced the Development of the Tort System
- 9 Lawyers' Role in the Expansion of Tort Liability
- 10 The Role of the Judiciary in Tort System Expansion
- 11 Current and Future Expansions of Tort Liability
- 12 The “Litigation Explosion”
- 13 Measures of the Rate of Expansion of Tort Liability
- 14 The Relationship between Injury Rates and Tort System Costs
- 15 The Impacts of Substantial Increases in Tort Lawyers' Effective Hourly Rates
- 16 Class Actions
- 17 Fees in Class Actions
- 18 How Class Action Lawyers Game Fee Setting
- 19 Securities Class Actions
- 20 Regulation through Litigation
- 21 A New Role for Punitive Damages
- 22 For-Profit Partnerships between State Attorneys General and Contingency Fee Lawyers
- Conclusion
- Appendix A A Critique of Alex Tabarrok
- Appendix B Calculating Tort Lawyers' Effective Hourly Rates in 1960
- Appendix C Electronic Discovery and the Use of Contract Lawyers
- Appendix D The HMO Litigation
- Appendix E The GM “Side Saddle” Truck Litigation
- Appendix F Modern Class Actions Undermine Democratic Precepts
- Appendix G Other Ways Lawyers Game Class Action Fees
- Appendix H Nonrecourse Financing of Tort Litigation
- Appendix I Political Contributions by Tort Lawyers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Appendix J Special Rules Favoring Lawyers
- Appendix K The Ultimate Medical Expense “Buildup”: Whiplash
- Appendix L The Effect of Punitive Damages on Compensatory Awards
- Index
Summary
IN VIRTUALLY ALL STATES – NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA BEING notable exceptions – state supreme courts exercise nearly exclusive control over the practice of law. In some states, this power is conferred by a specific provision in their constitutions. In most states, however, state supreme courts claim the exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law simply by fiat. The courts use this purloined power to fend off regulation of lawyers by state legislatures and to advance lawyers' interests in a variety of ways.
As part of their exercise of control over the legal profession, states' high courts have promulgated codes of ethics, which are typically adaptations of model codes of ethics drafted by the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA adopted its first code, the Canons of Ethics, in 1908. As noted, Canon 13 recognized the validity of contingency fees, provided they were reasonable in light of the risk borne by the lawyer. In 1963, the ABA replaced the Canons of Ethics with the Model Code of Professional Responsibility. In 1983, the ABA extensively redid the Model Code and titled the new version, The Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Today, every state but California has adopted, through judicial approval, the Model Rules in full or in substantial part. The ABA has extensively modified its code since 1983, and state supreme courts have adopted many of these modifications, albeit with changes.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Lawyer BaronsWhat Their Contingency Fees Really Cost America, pp. 47 - 56Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011