Martin Hoke: “what this piece of legislation does with this amendment to H.R. 988 is essentially to codify in Federal law what is…”

“what this piece of legislation does with this amendment to H.R. 988 is essentially to codify in Federal law what is already the legal code of just about every State bar association in all of the United States. Here is the problem. What it does essentially is it says there will not be a contingent fee allowed when there is no contingency. Over the last several decades it has become increasingly easier to successfully prosecute a tort claim; that is, to seek and receive compensation for injury or damages to one's property. During that same period the risks of an attorney representing a client under a contingent fee agreement have likewise decreased, and the attorney's compensation has increased dramatically. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that contingent fees are earned only when there is a real contingency; that there be the potential of a large reward only when there is a proportionate risk. A number of other good results will flow from this legislation. First, where there is no question of liability, which, as I have said, is in most of the cases where you have personal injury lawsuits, the injured consumer will end up with substantially more of the compensation, not the attorney. It is very pro-consumer. Second, because this amendment strongly encourages realistic early offers from defendants, injured parties would be compensated much quicker.”