We’re physiologically and psychologically geared towards getting the best deal possible. We haggle at the yard sales, search the internet for the lower price, and drive miles to purchase a watermelon or some other insignificant thing we find cheaper somewhere else. The same goes for products or services, everyone hates paying too much for a service or product whose price they believe is over-inflated anyway.

In the upcoming year we’re going to see a monumental amount of information regarding House Bill 1602, which recently passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives by a slight margin. The bill, and other similar to it, cap the fees attorneys can earn on contingency case to 33% of the first $1,000,000. Right now, Oklahoma lawyers may receive up to 50% of the total settlement award for their services in the matter. In contingent fee cases, attorneys will advance all the costs of the case, and expect to receive retribution for those advancements when the claim settles.

What few people realize is that these types of claims require expenses and work that many of the injured parties cannot afford. Many of the complex cases, such as those dealing with faulty products, catastrophic injuries, and questionable liability, require reports, examinations, tests, depositions, and other costly work that most people cannot afford. Unlike claims for Workers’ Compensation, where these items are paid for by the compensation carrier, and the labor required is less, contingent fee cases require independent monetary support.

House Bill 1602, and its counterparts, fails to address the question of  whether the 33% cap includes the attorney’s costs.  This scares many attorneys because they fear they won’t have the ability to recoup their costs, let alone make any type of living. This is especially troubling in those complex claims where the attorney expends $200,000 for a settlement/verdict of $750,000. At the 33% cap, the attorney receives $247,500. A $47,500 paycheck, which you might say is a hefty sum. However, the attorney incurred all the risk without any of the reward.

This is what makes me sick. If I’m willing to gamble with my money, I should be able to take the reward. In these types of cases, nobody loses. The client risks no money, and if the case is successful, receives benefits and compensation for his/her suffering. If the case is unsuccessful, the client loses nothing, yet the attorney’s wager is off the table. Yet, with the legislation that’s going through, you’re cutting my desire to play the odds.

This doesn’t make sense, and shouldn’t make sense to Republicans or Democrats. If you’re a "true red" conservative, you should be saying, "That isn’t the conservatism I know. This isn’t the free market idealism we conservatives support." But yet, our Republican lawmakers are pushing this through. I’m a Republican! This is not where I want my party to head. I’m sick about this! Not because it effects my livelihood, but because we’re allowing some politician to say how much an individual can earn. That isn’t the American dream I know or want.

I’ve spoken with my doctor friends, my realtor friends, and my blue collar friends about this issue. For a minute, think about this statement: "How do you feel when you’re told you can’t earn what you’re worth?"

For doctors, you bill insurance companies, and they seldom pay the full value of your services. For realtors, what if the legislature suddenly decides to chop your commission on each sale to 2%? You incur expenses with each sale, how much would you make now? For you blue collar guys/gals, what if your boss suddenly paid you less each week because you’re not "valuable" enough to the company? Finally, for my defense attorney friends who salivate at this legislation, think about where you’ll be when no attorneys are taking the soft tissue claims, and suddenly your billable hours are cut in half. How will you make up the excess now? The economy is tight, and you’ll be part of those massive layoffs you keep hearing about.

If you still think this is a good idea, then you’ll have your chance in November 2010 to vote yes for State Resolution ____. If you’re concerned, it’s time to support organizations that are fighting these blatant changes to Republican ideals. Please contact our office for information about helping defeat this legislation.

Remember this prediction, if Oklahomans pass this legislation, you can bet that contingent fees will decline. You can bet that when you’re injured, you’ll be covering the costs of the litigation and have to pay a hefty retainer and hourly fee for an attorney’s services. If you’re injured, there’s a high probability that you’ll lose some work time too. Without work, can you afford your home, medical, car, or other bills, let alone a $10,000 retainer plus $20,000 in costs plus a $250 hourly fee.

I’m all for reforming the way litigation occurs, and the way attorneys charge fees. I know a large number of attorneys who do what is necessary to ensure that each client receives a sizeable settlement amount. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve adjusted, or seen another attorney reduce fees because the settlement was less than anticipated. However, this method of coercion doesn’t belong. There will be unanticipated costs for everyone, not just "those greedy trial lawyers."

Finally, if you’re interested in learning about the legislation, this article in the Journal Record and this one on NewsOK.com do a fair job of highlighting the issues involved in this debate.