{"id":3727,"date":"2005-04-01T23:48:17","date_gmt":"2005-04-02T03:48:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/04\/01\/atla-condemns-standard-contin"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:50","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:50","slug":"atla-condemns-standard-contingency-fee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/04\/01\/atla-condemns-standard-contingency-fee\/","title":{"rendered":"ATLA Condemns Standard Contingency Fee"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
– an April 1st dream by <\/em><\/strong>Prof. Yabut<\/strong><\/span><\/a> –<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n

I<\/strong><\/em>n a <\/span>press release<\/span><\/a> made available late this evening (April 1, 2005), the American Tort<\/span> Lawyers Association <\/span>announced the adoption of new ethical standards that should mean the end of the Standard <\/span>Contingency Fee among its members.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The press<\/span><\/span> release explained:<\/span><\/p>\n

J<\/em>ack Cliente, ATLA\u2019s consumer rights ombudsman, said \u201cWe\u2019re tired of<\/span> being known as the \u201cAt-Least-a-Third Law Association<\/em>.\u201d <\/span>A small but committed group of members were able to convince their colleagues that their<\/span> ethical duties were inconsistent with the automatic application of a \u201cstandard\u201d percentage fee.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"one Cliente\u00a0explained that the percentage fee charged should reflect how likely the client is <\/span>to win, how much money is likely to be rewarded and collected, and how much work and expense<\/span> the lawyer is likely to put into the case.\u00a0 At the\u00a0press conference,\u00a0Cliente frequently\u00a0quoted<\/span> trial lawyer and former Florida Bar president <\/span><\/span><\/span>Rutledge R. Liles<\/span><\/a>.<\/span> For example: <\/span><\/div>\n

“While it is easy to defend the philosophy of the contingent fee, it is impossible <\/span> to defend its abuses.\u00a0 . . . It has been accurately said, in justification of the contingent <\/span> fee, that it is the ‘poor man’s key to the courthouse.’ Professionalism, however,<\/span> demands that we be ever mindful that keys are made of brass — not solid gold.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As of today, April 1, 2005, all ATLA members must give to each client, and thoroughly<\/span> explain and implement, an <\/span>Injured Consumers\u2019 Bill of Rights for Contingency Fees<\/em><\/span><\/a>, which<\/span> lawyer <\/span>and client must sign.\u00a0 At the core of the Bill of Rights is the requirement that a<\/span><\/span> lawyer take a list of enumerated factors into account in evaluating each client’s case, and<\/span> discuss each factor with the prospective client, before <\/em>they negotiate and agree upon<\/span> <\/span><\/span>the percentage\u00a0fee to be charged in a contingency fee\u00a0agreement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Cliente noted that this position (although now mostly\u00a0\u201chonored in the breach\u201d) is the profession\u2019s traditional<\/span><\/span><\/span> approach to the use of contingency fees.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n