The 'Great Equalizer'—How the Contingent Fee Provides Access to Justice
Under a contingent fee agreement, a client in a civil matter does not need to pay an attorney unless the case is successful. Often, attorneys will also front all litigation costs. Thus, the client does not have to pay anything out of their pocket. Thus, all fees and costs are paid out of the recovery.
May 16, 2019 at 12:20 PM
3 minute read
The core principle of our legal system is that all people, no matter their station in life, can bring their disputes to be heard in a court of law. That's in theory, in practice, however, justice is not always so available to those with limited means. However, one innovation has somewhat evened the playing field—the contingent fee agreement.
|Leveling the Playing Field
The pursuit of justice can be expensive, with litigation costs and attorney fees piling up quickly. The average billing rate in 2018 for Pennsylvania attorneys was $262 per hour, according to Clio, a Canadian research firm tracking legal industry metrics. Corporations and insurance companies often have unlimited resources at their disposal during litigation, putting the average person at a great disadvantage.
Under a contingent fee agreement, a client in a civil matter does not need to pay an attorney unless the case is successful. Often, attorneys will also front all litigation costs. Thus, the client does not have to pay anything out of their pocket. Thus, all fees and costs are paid out of the recovery.
|'Not Going to Get Bullied'
This arrangement has greatly expanded access to the justice system and allowed those with modest means obtain the justice they deserve. It's the only way an injured worker can go up against a big insurance company and feel comfortable and confident. You're not going to get bullied. It's a great equalizer.
The contingent fee has allowed ordinary people to sue large corporations and influential entities and receive monetary compensation. In addition, the contingent fee has given credence to the idea all should be held accountable for their actions and no one is above the law.
|Incentivizing Success
In addition, the contingent fee ensures that a lawyer's interests are fundamentally linked to those of the client. It incentivizes lawyers to provide the best quality service to clients because if they fail, they will not get paid.
The contingent fee agreement also discourages the filing of frivolous matters. It is highly unlikely that an attorney on a contingent fee agreement will take on a case that lacks merit because doing so would mean investing thousands of dollars on a case with no hope of recovery.
Contingent fees restore some fairness to the system. A powerful corporation with its economic clout and high-priced attorneys cannot simply steamroll over a litigant of modest means. The average person can still get a fair shake by hiring a worthy champion to take up their cause.
Samuel H. Pond is the managing partner at Pond Lehocky Stern Giordano, the a workers' compensation firm. For more than 30 years, he has been representing workers injured on the job. He is also the host of the Legal Eagles radio show, which aims to educate the public on the law. He can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHigh Verdicts and Venue Rule Land Pa. Courts on Top of 'Judicial Hellhole' List
5 minute readDefendant in Protection From Abuse Case Has Standing to File for Contempt
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250