KPA Continues Initiative to Develop Plaintiff Attorneys through Sponsorships

In a press release issued last Friday, KPA announced their sponsorship and leadership commitments for the first half of 2010. 

Not only devoting money to sponsor events such as the Capitol Hill Reception at the upcoming AAJ Minority Caucus Lobby Days and the Keynote Lunch featuring Roger Dreyer at the CAOC Tahoe Seminar, KPA also vows to dedicate thought leadership through judging the AAJ Student Trial Advocacy Competition, presenting at the CAOC Tahoe Seminar, and contributing articles to the AAJ Women's Caucus and Minority Caucus Newsletters.

Look for the KPA attorneys at each of these amazing events.  They continue to dedicate themselves to developing programs that create discussion between plaintiff attorneys across the country, will you?

 

Subscribe to the KPA Monthly Newsletter!

Keep up with the latest developments in plaintiff-litigation!  Follow this link to the KPA Newsroom page and subscribe to the KPA Newsletter by entering your contact information on the right side of the page!

 

Read the latest edition of the KPA Newsletter NOW!

Plaintiff's Attorneys Earn their Fees

Almost every plaintiff attorney at some point has been approached by their client and asked if they will reduce their fee from the amount stated in the retainer. The reasons for such requests cover the entire spectrum.   Clients will complain that the case settled so quickly and therefore the large fee is not justified for so little work…….the expert fees and other costs incurred are unreasonable…….the liens were not properly negotiated…….the case dragged on for so long, the large fee is not justified for making the client wait so long for their recovery. Much of the impetus comes from the supporters of tort-reform who have never met a plaintiff’s lawyer they like. Despite the irrational logic behind agreeing to such a request, almost every plaintiff attorney has agreed at some time to reduce their fee. Should plaintiff attorneys continue to do so, or is this a bad precedent to set? That is a personal decision for each attorney when the situation arises. But one thing plaintiff attorneys will not do is to ask their clients to reimburse them for the costs incurred and some portion of the attorney’s time when a case is unsuccessful. That’s what separates plaintiff attorneys from defense attorneys. 

Take a look at the top 50 law firms in the United States and tell me which one of these will represent your uncle who was exposed to toxic fumes at his workplace, or your brother that had a heart attack and died from a pharmaceutical product? The answer is none will, because they are representing the defendants and being generously compensated for their time and efforts. Plaintiff attorneys represent people that cannot afford an attorney through contingency fee arrangements which are closely monitored by the state rules of professional responsibility. 

When clients complain and the tort-reform critics jump onboard, there is no consideration given to the inherent risk undertaken by the plaintiff attorney in this type of arrangement. If the plaintiff prevails the plaintiff attorney gets paid. But sometimes (unfortunately) the plaintiff loses and nobody gets paid. Well not exactly, because the defense attorneys always get paid, win or lose. Whether it was a toxic tort, pharmaceutical, rollover, or tobacco plaintiff verdict, the defense always got paid for losing! Yet, somehow plaintiff attorneys are expected to reduce their hard earned fees when they prevail. 

There are no plaintiff firms listed among the top earners in this country, but apparently the way to break into the top 50, (top 3 actually), is to find some gullible client that will pay you almost $19 million in six months, to lose.