Ever notice that statutory limits on contingency fees are never pushed by everyday Americans who use contingency fee attorneys, but rather by special interest lobby groups representing those who get sued? Or that “free market” corporate lobbyists are pushing government-imposed wage and price controls, directly interfering with the contractual arrangements between people and their own attorneys? Where’s the free market in that?
These and other fun questions are answered in the Center for Justice & Democracy’s new study, , such as:
Why do so many conservatives support the contingency fee system, and why do even its critics recognize its value?
How is it that the U.S. insurance industry supports drastic limits on contingency fees, but outside the U.S., the industry thinks contingency fees are the greatest thing since sliced bread?
What kind of financial risks do contingency fee attorneys actually take? (Like any other profession would risk never being paid for years of work.)
What in the world were jurists in the 19th Century saying about contingency fees?
How many states now block access to the courts with contingency fee limits, and is there a to repeal these laws?
Who is more likely to drain judicial resources and increase litigation costs – insurance defense lawyers paid by the hour, or contingency fee lawyers who are paid only if and when they win?
I think we know the answer to that one. But please learn more .