Bill Targeting Contingency Fees Survives Crucial Vote It’s Intended To Cut Legal Costs, Insurance Rates
A bill that would enact sweeping changes in people’s ability to sue for damages in civil court survived a crucial vote in a House committee Wednesday, keeping the controversial measure alive for further consideration.
The bill is intended to reduce legal costs and bring down insurance rates. Critics say it locks nonwealthy victims out of the courts and is a blow to consumers.
Democrats on the House Law and Justice Committee tried to keep the bill from coming to a vote. Even some Republicans who voted for the bill - approved 7-6 - had serious reservations.
“There are huge problems with this bill, and I think it goes too far,” said Rep. Mark Sterk, R-Spokane Valley.
But then Sterk cast the deciding vote, saying he wanted to support Rep. Larry Sheahan, R-Rosalia, the committee chairman. Sterk also said he expected the bill to be amended as it wends its way through the legislative process.
The bill, HB1804, is pushed by the Liability Reform Coalition, a powerhouse of interests, including the state’s largest corporations, doctors, insurers, hospitals, cities and counties.
On the other side are consumer groups and the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, one of the most active and best-funded lobbies in Olympia.
The bill changes how civil cases would be treated in the courts.
Attorneys representing people bringing lawsuits for damages frequently charge contingency fees - paid only if they win the case. Under the bill, those fees would be limited to 20 percent of the damages collected in many circumstances. That’s a big drop from the customary fee of one-third of the award.
Sterk opposed the cap earlier this week, saying it’s not government’s business to set those rates. “I came here to reduce the size of government,” he said. “What will we do next, set ballplayer’s salaries? Where does it stop?”
On Tuesday, Sterk doubled the original 10 percent limit to 20 percent with an amendment.
Opponents say the bill would lock many people out of the courts because it would be hard to find lawyers willing to take on cases, especially complex ones, at such a reduced contingency fee.
Without contingency fees, people who can’t afford high hourly rates are denied access to the courts and negligent companies, governments and doctors are off the hook, Spokane lawyer Richard Kuhling said.
“You can’t afford me. I charge $175 an hour,” he said.
The bill puts no limit on the amount defendants, including corporations and governments, can spend to defend themselves against suits.
Clifford A. Webster, spokesman for the Liability Reform Coalition, said the bill would encourage defendants to settle earlier and for more money. Webster also supported another element of the bill that requires plaintiffs to show their case has merit before it can go to trial.
Opponents argue that requiring plaintiffs to make their case before it starts puts them at a tremendous disadvantage.
Cities and counties backed one of the most controversial parts of the bill. It makes people liable for damages only to the proportion that that they are at fault when someone is hurt.
Current law allows minor players to a tragedy to carry the full burden of making victims whole if other guilty parties have no money or cannot be located.
Taxpayers wind up being the deep pocket too often in those situations, said Gary Lowe of the Washington Association of Counties, which supports the bill.
Business advocates said the bill is needed to keep the cost of insurance down. But the state trial lawyers’ association has launched a full-scale assault against the bill, which it argues is the worst attack on consumers in years.
“It’s very anti-family, very anti-consumer legislation,” said Richard Eymann, a Spokane attorney and president of the state association.
David West of Washington Citizen Action, a consumer group, called the bill “a grab bag for business. If this legislation passes we would have one of the most anti-consumer liability laws in the nation.”
, DataTimes