class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
   
   
 
   

FORUM

« ABA to back jury reforms | Kerry on med-mal: symbolism over substance »

August 24, 2004


Richard Painter's response, guest blogger

Professor Richard Painter's response to Professor Lester Brickman in their contingency fee Featured Discussion has been posted. Professor Painter finds much agreeable about Professor Brickman's early offer proposal but continues to maintain that the New American Rule is worthy of consideration since it is less procedurally complex, does not involve discovery, operates whether or not there is a settlement offer, and only involves bilateral negotiation between the plaintiff and client without involving the defendant. Professor Painter believes that his proposed Rule would solve the primary problem in the contingency fee market, which is information asymmetry.

I will note that those disappointed by the delay in this posting should blame me, not Professor Painter, as I have been away from mid-Friday afternoon through this morning and was unable to facilitate the posting sooner. Also, though we will typically try to close our Featured Discussions within a week when possible, given that Professors Brickman or Painter were on a somewhat slower posting schedule than our editor and Professor Krauss in our first discussion, I will extend the ability for further comment to our participants if they feel that they have additional substantive points to add to the discussion. I would like to thank both Professors Brickman and Painter for their time, and their valuable thoughts on contingency fee reform.

ALSO: We expect to have a guest blogger who has written extensively on the topic of legal abuse and tort reform later this week. Stay tuned!

Posted by James R. Copland at 09:46 AM | TrackBack (0)



categories:
Attorneys' Fees and Ethics









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.