Legislation amending the state Constitution to reduce plaintiff attorney contingency fees to a maximum of 33 percent of the amount recovered on behalf of the injured party passed a House committee today.Currently, contingency fees are capped at 50 percent, in addition to attorney expenses and costs. Because of that, many plaintiffs often receive less than half of the final recovery in a lawsuit.
If House Bill 1602 is approved by the Legislature, the change would go to a vote of the people.
The limit on contingency fees would be set at 33 percent of the first $1 million recovered, and 20 percent on awards above that amount. Attorneys would still be able to collect costs and expenses on top of the contingency fees collected in a case.
“This legislation would ensure injured parties receive more money than their attorneys,” said Rep. Dan Sullivan, House author of the bill. “We have a responsibility as legislators to look at what is a reasonable level for these fees, and this bill lets the people of Oklahoma ultimately decide.
“A vote ‘no’ on this bill is a vote for upholding the interests of attorneys over those who have been injured. It is as simple as that,” said Sullivan, R-Tulsa.
Contingency fees are often used in cases where clients cannot afford to pay for an attorney up front, and instead must commit to giving the attorney a large portion of any award recovered in the case.
House Speaker Chris Benge said this legislation is part of the House Republican agenda to build a pro-growth business climate in Oklahoma.
“We have made no secret that lawsuit reform is one of our top priorities this session,” said Benge, R-Tulsa. “Reducing frivolous lawsuits is critical to attracting business to our state and also reducing the cost of health care for working families. We hope this is the year we can get meaningful tort reform into law.”
The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee today and now moves to the full House for a vote.
1 comment:
This sounds beneficial at first, but doesn't that mean that since attorneys will get less money, and there's no cap on what corporations can spend, won't the corporations end up with significantly better lawyers? It's basically saying, the injured Oklahoman can only spend "X" amount of dollars, but the insurance company can spend as much as they want..
Post a Comment