Contingency fee-o-rama

Anyone interested in the ethical, practical and philosophical case for and against the lawyers’ contingency fee (or contingent fee; usage varies) should be sure to check out two new resources: * At Point of Law, the new Featured Discussion just underway pits George Mason lawprof Alex Tabarrok, who’s generally supportive of contingency fees, against Jim […]

Anyone interested in the ethical, practical and philosophical case for and against the lawyers’ contingency fee (or contingent fee; usage varies) should be sure to check out two new resources:

* At Point of Law, the new Featured Discussion just underway pits George Mason lawprof Alex Tabarrok, who’s generally supportive of contingency fees, against Jim Copland of the Manhattan Institute, who’s critical;

* David Giacalone, who has written extensively on the problems inherent in protecting clients from overreaching by their lawyers, has now posted a four-part series (one, two, three, four) laying out his views on the pluses and minuses of the contingency fee more systematically than his blog posts have done up to now.

For my own views, see Chapter Two of my 1991 book The Litigation Explosion, which Point of Law has posted in PDF format.

One Comment

  • Debating contingent fees

    Don’t miss this entertaining featured discussion over at PointofLaw.com in which PofL’s Jim Copland and Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution fame debate contingent legal fees. Jim is the director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institut…