Ready2Squeeze
an hour ago
Having experienced this on a very small scale for an organization I work with - the whole concept of contingency fee based lawfare needs to be addressed. We went through a lawsuit where a disgruntled party shows up with a slip and fall lawyer and made ludicrous claims on us owing money for a project. We had the numbers and cancelled checks to prove that the claims were crazy and by the time we were about to go to trial 90% of the original ask of a 7 figure number were thrown out or withdrawn by the plaintiff. Just before going to trial the plaintiffs lawyer offered a deal for a tiny fraction of the original claim. Our trial lawyer indicated that if we went to trial our costs would be close to 6 figures - he was sure that the plaintiffs remaining claims would be denied and that we were more than likely to win on our countersuit for legal fees (this had dragged on for YEARS so they were substantial - again multiple 6 figures) and for shoddy work on the original project which were originally not interested in pursuing for complicated reasons. He also said that even if we won - we would not collect a penny as the plaintiff already had multiple judgements against them and had no assets in their name. So we wound up paying for having been put through this as that amount was a fraction of what a trial would have cost - with no reward for winning.

How did we get to that point - the plaintiffs lawyer had nothing to lose - he just put in some time (very minimal based on what he turned over in discovery) for the possibility of a large chunk of a 7 figure settlement. The amount we wound up paying him probably easily covered his time and expenses. In the meantime - we had to PAY our legal bills and had no way of recovering the costs from the plaintiff - who never would have pursued this lawsuit if he had to pay for his lawyer up front. So the plaintiff swung and missed, the plaintiffs lawyer didn't make a windfall but did alright, and we were f**ked.

Here's the point - in these contingency cases - the lawyer is not just providing legal assistance - they are forgoing payment in lieu of what they hope to be a big payday if they win. If they lose the only thing invested is some time. The lawyer in a contingency case is actually a party to the lawsuit as they have a monetary vested interest in the outcome of the case, therefore they should be on the hook for at least legal costs if they lose and their client can't/won't pay. This would eliminate tons of these lawsuits and make it worthwhile for defendants to aggressively push back and not settle to avoid continuing legal fees.