You got us, we’ve created a system where poor people have no access to civil justice. No really, they never file lawsuits! All the plaintiffs are already rich.

Well, the market rates of Ms. Muniz’s attorneys were apparently zero, since, in this case at least, she was probably paying them nothing. That’s what market rate means — what willing buyers are willing to pay.

Willing and/or able to pay. Therefore, only the wealthy are entitled to justice in conservativeopia.

ie, UPS could afford to spend hundreds of thousands on dollars for legal representation. Ms. Muniz could not.

I’m a plaintiffs’ lawyer. I have no problem with big contingency fees because I think there is a method to the madness. But this is spending 700k in legal fees on a 27k case. I have some real concerns with that as a citizen.

Given that the damage awarded is currently one-thirtieth the amount spent to achieve it, this counts as using an A-bomb to deal with a fly.

Of course, one cannot put a price on justice…. oh, wait, we can. Always, of course, assuming that 27K is justice. And the 700K is the price. This time.

Bob

Well, the market rates of Ms. Muniz’s attorneys were apparently zero, since, in this case at least, she was probably paying them nothing. That’s what market rate means — what willing buyers are willing to pay. UPS’ attorneys, by contrast, competed for UPS’ legal work in an incredibly competitive market. The notion that Ms. Muniz’s attorneys should be paid commensurate with UPS’ attorneys is specious. A better, though far from perfect, measure would be a market contingent fee, so about 1/3 of the recovery. That is a far better approximation of the price Ms. Muniz would be willing to pay and what her attorneys would have charged.

The amounts are not diminished based on the size of the recovery, because overcoming the formidable and well-funded opposition of UPS and STILL proving that company broke discrimination laws has a value in and of itself. What’s more, no taxpayer dollars were spent on behalf of Ms. Muniz, she and her attorney enforced the laws entirely on their own and at risk.

Most likely, UPS is spending even more money now, preparing for another appeal. Shouldn’t Ms. Muniz’s attorneys be compensated for the work and delay they are put to?

Don’t fool yourself. Defense attorneys also benefit from the system. UPS got screwed. They discriminated and caused $27,000 in damages, but ended up paying $27,000 to the claimant, $700k to her attorneys, and an unknown amount (surely in the six figure range) to their own attorneys.

According to their losses, and not according to the fault of the defendant? It seems you are suggesting that, though it’s not clear. If so, I don’t see it as a realistic solution, especially given the ever-widening scope of “losses” the law sees fit to compensate.

I might be able to agree to a more strict liability system if the scope of possible claims was very narrow and the tort system was radically revised to make its administrative costs a small fraction of what they now are. Of course, the biggest opponents of such a system would be the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

I don’t know what the proper answer is. But, if UPS ends up paying its lawyers to defend a losing case, Plaintiff’s counsel should get at least as much for prosecuting a winnning case.

The best system possible would be for a lawyerless process whereby aggrieved claimants could be compensated according to their losses. Find that and I think we have a solution.