Newsflash: It's Not Just Plaintiff Lawyers Who Stand to Lose Revenue Due to BP Claim Funds
The Wall Street Journal ran this article on Thursday about plaintiffs' lawyers and the BP oil spill. The article states:
Plaintiffs' attorneys are scrambling to avoid being frozen out by a $20 billion fund aimed at compensating Gulf of Mexico oil-spill victims outside of court.
According to Louisiana attorney Daniel Becnel:
"People are firing their lawyers left and right," said Daniel Becnel, a Louisiana attorney who has filed numerous claims against BP on behalf of fishermen, shareholders and others.
This is a big change of tune for Becnel since early May, when he predicted that he would settle with BP within 90 days.
It does appear that the claims fund will negate the need for a lot of litigation. Claims fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg is universally respected and has the trust of both BP and the government to be fair in administering claims. Feinberg is hopeful that claims will be paid within 60–90 days after being submitted. A claimant who decides to hire an attorney on a 40% contingency fee contract would need to collect 40% extra just to break even. So it makes sense for victims to try to resolve their claims on their own before hiring lawyers.
Obviously, plaintiffs' lawyers who hoped to generate revenue from oil spill litigation may end up disappointed. But they will not be the only ones. Defense firms who were gearing up for a decade of contentious litigation will be sick. BP hired $500 per hour lawyers who stand to make hundreds of millions from the litigation.
When the dust settles, I bet that defense lawyers would earn more in fees from protracted litigation than plaintiffs' lawyers. And the defense lawyers shoulder none of the risks. Unlike plaintiffs lawyers, defense lawyers are not responsible for payment of litigation expenses and bill their clients either monthly or quarterly. This means that they typically do not run the risk of having to pay for office overhead for an extended period of time with no revenue coming in. Further, the longer and more contentious the litigation, the more money defense lawyers make.
Plaintiffs lawyers, on the other hand, can put so much time and money into a case that it winds up working out badly for the lawyers.
On the whole, defense lawyers make more money than plaintiff lawyers and they do it within a less risky business model. This fact is conveniently omitted from the WSJ article and virtually every article that mentions plaintiff attorneys' fees.
Very interesting article. It was so good, I decided to put some excerpts from the article on our site, http://www.gulfoilspilllitigationnews.com with credit to you of course. If for any reason that is a problem, let me know.
If you would ever like to write some guest posts on gulf oil spill litigation issues for our site let me know.
My claim against BP was dismissed by BP as being "Real Estate and pricing". BP reason for denial was; how could they tell how much of the drop in real estate prices were related to the spill. Yet They paid a gulf shores Alabama condo developer who was going belly up on a condo project five years prior to the spill $37 million for the effect it had on him. Or basically corporations protecting corporations. The common man has not a chance against this legal system or the corporations. Plaintiff Attorneys and the common man are really getting the injustice in all cases against BP. Along with the new "pliable" corporate Judges and legal system promoted by the large corporations. In Mississippi Judges can deny you the inviolate right to a jury trial. If you are granted a jury trial the Judge can dismiss the jurors decision. In Mississippi Judges can totally omit from final Court recorded Judgment; evidence proving a corporations wrong doing, such as in may case against Regions Mortgage. When I sent the court filed yet omitted evidence, along with the court filed jury request denial to The Mississippi, Judicial Perfomance review board. My response was a basic form letter expressing how sorry they were that I was unhappy.No answer as to how a Judge could ommit evidence or how a judge could pick and choose which part of the constitution he wanted to invoke.