Although the blithe denials of a couple of sources who spoke to The Hill might suggest otherwise, contingency-fee representation of states and other public bodies in damages claims was deemed ethically improper over most of American history. It’s a story I tell in The Rule of Lawyers, where I talk about Dickie Scruggs’ pioneering venture in the early 1990s in representing the state of Mississippi in claims for removal of asbestos from government property:

The United States [as of this point] had long justified its departure from other countries’ [bans on contingent fees] on the grounds that otherwise [given our lack of “loser-pays”] some poorer clients might be unable to obtain a lawyer at all. But no one was seriously claiming that no lawyer could be found to handle the asbestos case for the state of Mississippi on an hourly fee basis.

Until quite recently the notion of letting lawyers represent government on a contingency-fee basis would have been seen as pernicious, absurd, or both. But as Scruggs was no doubt aware, times were changing fast. Many of America’s legal authorities had begin to regard contingency fees — and the encouragement they gave to speculative litigation — not as a lesser evil that should be limited to the cases where it was necessary, but as something wholesome and beneficial in itself. The first experiments had already been noted by the end of the 1980s, with the state of Massachusetts hiring private lawyers on contingency for asbestos rip-out cases. If contingency fees for public lawyering could pass the ethical smell test in the state that was home to Harvard Law School, why shouldn’t they do so in Mississippi, too?

Since the Great Tobacco Robbery steered billions of dollars in fees to the pockets of politically influential law firms, the practice has been the subject of continued lively controversy, with legislative proposals in many states aiming to curtail or eliminate the opaque or even undisclosed deals by which private law firms get themselves cut themselves in on a share of public moneys by attorneys general dependent on their political support. Earlier on the contingency-fee angle in the climate subpoena affair here and here.

Confirmed: climate denial heresy hunt based on contingency fee deal is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Earlier generally here and specifically on the subpoena of the Competitive Enterprise Institute here and here.

Climate advocacy subpoenas, III is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

There have been many flattering reactions already, scroll down from the interview to this comment from Margaret Little which made me particularly happy:

Overlawyered made an enormous contribution to understanding where lawyers were taking the legal system over the past several decades and it continues to fill a vacuum in the discourse about law. For too long that discourse was plaintiffs vs. defense lawyers, with both sides vulnerable to attack for self-interest. Worse, the defense bar, which has an economic interest in the expansion of liability, is often silent or even complicit in the game. While Overlawyered’s postings were made with much-appreciated wit and style, the sheer comprehensiveness of the empirical data, and the mind-boggling attention to detail in its analysis makes it a gold mine for research and a landmark accomplishment. Well done! Don’t quit!

Whole thing here.

“I myself escaped by a bare whisker from attending law school…” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Silicone breast implants: “sad history of a government approved scare” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Charles Murray’s recommendations for books on the U.S. legal system is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

May 18 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

I don’t mean to single out CBS for criticism. Plenty of other media outlets share the blame. For 30 years they have treated us to Jeep, Suzuki, and Isuzu Trooper rollovers, Audi unintended acceleration, side-saddle gas tanks exploding, police cars catching on fire, Firestone tires blowing out, and then the Toyota case. And each time the media took the word of those with a vested financial interest in the outcome—and every time they got burned for doing so.

I wrote about this in my article “It Didn’t Start With Dateline NBC” and in the chapter “Trial Lawyer TV” of my book The Rule of Lawyers.

Plus: For comic relief, here’s a New York Times editorial claiming the findings “did nothing to dispel concerns” about safety. And welcome listeners of Ray Dunaway’s morning show on WTIC (Hartford).

“Toyota: The Media Owe You an Apology” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The Rule of Lawyers reviewed is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

I end where I started. Lawyers have too much power. We play with the lives of others with impunity. I think Olson’s on to something.

I await his next book, and encourage him to take a look at the lives or ordinary lawyers. Not all of us own jets. I’m thrilled with first class on the few times I’ve tried it. Most often I fly coach.

Whole thing here.

Pattis on “The Rule of Lawyers” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Letting jurors ask questions during trials is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system