Originally Posted by SteveZ

When people sue for personal injury of any kind, they have two options - hire the attorney at his/her rate (hourly or fixed), or go "{no money unless you win) contingency fee. Contrary to popular thought, there's a lot of work involved in preparing and conducting a good case. The "standard" for contingency fee arrangements is attorney to receive 30% of recovery if settled, and 40% if it goes to trial. The major difference is if the VA or the Federal Tort Claims Act is involved, and then it's 20% and 25%, respectively. If the matter is a VA disability claim, it gets worse, and the potential for recovery end up involving appellate court followed by agency hearings taking up to several years. So, in all cases, the attorney has invested considerable labor over what can be several years before and if the first dime is paid for services. Not many professions are willing to provide that much "credit" up front and for so long for any reason.

I can agree that "punitive damages" being awarded to the plaintiff (if they are ever received due to downstream appeals and negotiations) seems "jackpot-like." Unfortunately, under the laws of today, the court and the juries can't tailor awards to non-parties of the lawsuit. To do that would take legislation which could - as an example - say that ___% of punitive damage awards go to the plaintiff (who went through all the aggravation of suit), and the remainder go to the general treasury of the state (or fed, if that court is involved) as recompense to society in general. Trying to target punitive damages funds to specific organizations or causes would require more government committees and obvious abuse in deciding who gets what. Does this type of approach seem "fair?" (it does to me)

I am concerned that if attorneys find it unprofitable to take personal injury cases, obtaining quality legal counsel may dry up or disappear entirely, as law firms, just like any other business, seek greener pastures. While Personal injury is the most visible of practice areas, it's only one of approximately 50. If that happens, no matter how meritorious a person's claim may be or how notorious a company's actions are, no one will take the case.

As an example. while there are thousands of attorneys handling personal injury, those willing to take veterans disability claims appeals (and subsequent agency hearings) are few and ffar between, and the reason is that the deck is so stacked against even recovering costs that veterans claims are mainly handled as charity work - at high cost - because of nonprofitability.

As a further example. the American Immigration Lawyers Association (the major attorney group representing aliens) has over 11,000 members, while the National Organization of Veterans Advocates (the major legal group supporting veterans claims) has fewer than 200 attorney members. So, illegal aliens have greater availability to legal help at a ratio of over 50:1 than veterans, and it's due to market conditions created by federal restrictions on attorneys being paid for services. Most who handle veterans claims do so knowing they will never see a dime and will pay all the costs, even when they win the case. Not many can afford to stay in business in that environment.

This isn't to seek praise for attorneys, but recognition that when the government gets into fee-setting and fee-monitoring for litigation, the better litigators will just go into different markets, just like any businessperson. While some will say, "that's a good thing," what veterans with disability claims have learned is that the result is non-attorney "volunteers" trying to do legal battle against the government (loaded with attorneys at all levels), and usually losing.