In the typical personal-injury case, the agreement is that, if the plaintiff collects some money, the lawyers will be reimbursed for expenses they've laid out, and will receive, as a fee, one-third of the remainder (the net recovery).
BUT this was obviously not a typical case. The plaintiff, who sued the City of Birmingham over the conduct of its police officers, almost certainly brought a 1983 action -- so dubbed because Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code allows you to recover from a government entity if you've been deprived of civil rights by a person acting under color of law. The significance of that is that these actions are an exception to the usual "American rule" that each party bears its own attorney's fees. (In some countries, the general rule is "loser pays" so that you don't have to pay your lawyer if you win.) In a 1983 action, 42 U.S. Code § 1988 authorizes the award of attorney's fees to a prevailing party.
So this is not a case where a jury decided that fair compensation for the plaintiff's injuries would be $460,000, but the greedy shyster lawyers grabbed 99.8% of it. Even in Alabama, I can't believe a judge would allow that. What's far more likely is that the City of Birmingham was looking at its exposure at trial, and settled because it might have to pay out way more in attorney's fees (under section 1988) than in actual damages. The terms of the settlement reflected that exposure. (Attorney's fees under section 1988 are NOT limited to one-third of the recovery. The usual standard is to determine how much time the lawyer(s) put in and what would be a reasonable hourly billing rate.)
Note that the police attack on this plaintiff came at the end of a high-speed chase during which he ran over a police officer (apparently deliberately, because he was convicted of attempted murder for it) and also hit a school bus. Do you fancy presenting that case to any jury, let alone one in Alabama? The plaintiff was lucky to find a lawyer who'd take his case at all. Note that these greedy lawyers also fronted $100,000 in expenses, which, in case of a defendant's verdict at trial, they would never have recouped.
I'm sure the plaintiff had to sign off on this settlement. He probably put a high value on getting some vindication, as opposed to going to trial and losing. There also may be a side agreement between the attorneys and the plaintiff (which would be none of the City's business) by which the lawyers agreed to donate part of their fee to his family.
So, while all the lawyer-bashing in this thread is good clean fun, I think it's completely wrong. Kudos to the lawyers who took this case, and three cheers for the federal civil rights statutes that made it possible.
= new reply since forum marked as read
