Ted Frank of Overlawyered and Point of Law usually approaches contingency fee
issues a bit differently than I do. He is far more steeped in economics than I, and
he brings the perspective of a “tort reformer.” As ethicalEsq said in July 2003,
tort reform is a matter of political and social policy, not legal ethics, and it is not
my fight. My perspective — by temperament, and after a dozen years practicing
antitrust law at the FTC — is that of a consumer and competition advocate. I want
legal clients to receive the benefits of both professional responsibility rules (with
related fiducial rights) and competition, and I believe that a well-informed client can
protect his or her interests far better than one treated like a mushroom (viz., kept
in the dark and covered with manure).
ATLA: at least bar association
Personal injury lawyers, however, seem to get just as upset with me as they do with
tort reformers, even though I have never advocated limiting the right to sue (except when
a claim is truly frivolous — that is, without a colorable basis in fact or law), nor capping
the amount paid out in damages. However, although I want clients to get all that they
deserve, that means having their lawyers take only the fees that they deserve. That’s
what has gotten me in hot water with the personal injury bar from the very first time I
questioned whether application of a “standard” or customary contingency fee to virtually
every client is ethical — before I had ever heard of a tort reform movement.
What does this have to do with the title of today’s post? Well, this week, Ted Frank
wrote at Overlawyered (“Search Engine Index,” March 27, 2006) about the interesting
(but not surprising) fact that:
“Six of the eight most expensive Google AdSense search terms are for
attorneys . . . with “mesothelioma lawyers” topping the charts.” [per
In addition, at Inside Opinions, Robert Ambrogi pointed to Ted and pointed out that:
Other chart-topping search terms include “tax attorney,” “car accident lawyer” and
“auto accident attorney.”
Ted concluded that the lawyers were willing to pay very high click-through rates
for AdSense “because there is a lot of easy profit to be made.” He then asks:
“The interesting question is what market failure has occurred such that
this gigantic profit is not being competed away by, say, offering clients
a smaller attorneys’ fee. This is surplus that should be going to clients,
not to Google.”
“googleSign”
That’s where the tort-reforming economist in Ted starts sounding an awful lot
like the ethicist-trustbustin’ consumer advocate in me.. . .
. . . . please click to read the rest of this post,
which is part I of a four-part series, that includes:
contingency fees: risk matters April 3, 2006
contingency fees: do “standard” fees still exist? April 5, 2006
contingency fees: ethical duties April 7, 2006
.
April 2, 2006
contingency fees: market failure
Comments Off on contingency fees: market failure
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.