Attorney Fees
Paraplegic Ferry Victim OK with Paying Lawyer $2.5M in Additional Fees
Posted Jun 5, 2009 7:49 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A former fish market worker who was paralyzed in the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash really liked his lawyer—and doesn’t mind giving him an extra $2.5 million.
Testifying Wednesday, James McMillan told a federal magistrate in Brooklyn that he doesn’t support a judge’s ruling reducing his lawyer’s cut from one-third of his personal injury award to 20 percent, the New York Daily News reports.
McMillan’s lawyer, Evan Torgan, had counseled his client to go to trial rather than accept a $10 million settlement offer. McMillan ended up with an award of $18 million. U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein then cut the fee, saying it was unfair because the case had a strong likelihood of a substantial award. The judge also noted that McMillan was in the hospital when he signed the contingency fee agreement with Torgan.
But McMillan said he’d like Weinstein to know that he’s satisfied, according to the Daily News account.
"There's a hundred lawyers on TV saying, 'I'm the best,' but this man has walked with me through many things people wouldn't understand. He said, 'James I'm your lawyer,' and I needed that comfort."
"I don't need that extra," McMillan testified. "I want him to have it. He worked for it."
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
JN
Jun 5, 2009 8:01 AM CST
I’m sending this to all my clients. It made my morning.
Flag this comment
joe
Jun 5, 2009 11:15 AM CST
clients would give it to a trial lawyer. no corporate client would give it to big law. they already charge way to to much
Flag this comment
philip
Jun 5, 2009 12:35 PM CST
So the lawyer gets 80% more for the client. To get it, he spent hundreds of thousands more, and bore vastly more risk. At the end of which the judge decided on his own to cut the fee by 40%. Because the client was “in the hospital” when he signed up.
Unreal. These judges have no conception of the real world. I guess sitting from the pedastal, it all looks so easy.
Flag this comment
malhereuse
Jun 5, 2009 12:54 PM CST
Perhaps there should be a petition to reduce judge Weinstein’s lifetime salary and benefits on the fed bench. Obviously the defense did not feel there was such a “strong likelihood” of a significant award if counsel had to take the risk of trying the case to obtain it for his client.
Flag this comment
CJ
Jun 7, 2009 1:25 PM CST
Yes, I think that any employment agreement the judge signs should be reduced by 40%.
BTW, if the client doesn’t want the fee decreased, who’s pushing this lawsuit???
Flag this comment
Andy Hoffman
Jun 9, 2009 1:43 PM CST
The fact is without contingency fee arrangements, most of those injured due to the negligence of others would have no access to justice in a court of law. http://tinyurl.com/mrgw6l The judge in this case grossly overstepped his authority. Both Mr. McMillan and Mr. Torgan are to be commended.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.