Political Quotes

“Directly on this point, I learned in law school sometimes it is hard for people to get a lawyer to take their case if they do not have a very good case. Lawyers charge a higher and higher and higher contingency case. But if the case was a pretty good case, back when I was in law school, contingency fees were pretty low. As I understand your amendment, limiting the contingency fee to one-third of what is recovered is a pretty high contingency fee. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, since the late 1940s, the limit has been 25 percent, and there has been no dearth of cases. It is actually higher than we already have under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Continuing this line of thought, if you have a good case, then the contingency fee tends to be lower. The worse the case is--the less likelihood of succeeding--generally, the higher the contingency fees. What would you say to the argument that we have to have no limit on the contingency fees or cases will not be taken? I say to my friend from Arizona there is no evidence that there are not lawyers willing to take the cases. What this underlying amendment is about is protecting the victim and giving the victim more of the money and giving the lawyer a little bit less without taking away any incentive. Statistics indicate the poor victims, on the whole, get about 48 percent of the money; 52 percent goes to the lawyers and the costs and the courts.”