Attorneys, I need assistance

M

MaximumBarnes

100+ Posts
In regard to the City of Austin utility class action settlement notification I just received in the mail, I'd like to complain. If there is one thing I absolutely hate, it is plaintiff's attorneys getting rich by representing mass amounts of people who don't know they're involved in a class action. I am personally thankful for the opportunity to exclude myself from the lawsuit, but there has to be a lot of people in Austin who will continue to be involved in the class action without their knowledge or authorization. The average person should not have to thumb through pages of legal jargon to be notified that the city they live in is being sued on their behalf without their approval. Even worse, it is not the law firm representing the plaintiff who notified me. I was notified by the City of Austin, the defendant, presumably at taxpayer expense.

This is particularly infuriating because if I remain a plaintiff in the action, I will be entitled to a settlement of $4.46 multiplied by the number of years I have paid utility fees to the City of Austin. This comes to a whopping total of $22.30. I suppose this would offer a modicum of satisfaction in the event that the City of Austin had been committing an egregious and fraudulent gouging of its citizens, but it sounds to me like this is the result of an accounting error. It would still be reasonably tolerable but for the fact that the firm bringing the suit will collect $2,592,775 in fees. I cannot stand for that.

So, here is where I need help. The packet I received provides an opportunity to submit a written objection to the action. Are there any legal grounds on which I can object or is there a legal procedure to enter a complaint into the record? I don't expect to change anything; I just think it would make me feel better if I could express my distaste at the fact that this firm will be pocketing millions while representing countless people who have not approved of their actions. Meanwhile, the City of Austin will have to account for $9 million (the total settlement) so my $22 will be burnt up when my rent goes up because my apartment complex will have to pay higher property taxes. The pot hole I run over every morning at Congress and Cesar Chavez will just keep getting bigger, wearing my shocks and knocking my wheels out of alignment and, in addition to paying higher rent, I'll have to drop hundreds of dollars getting my car fixed. Meanwhile, some lawyer will now be driving the more expensive BMW while thinking how nice it is to finally be able to buy that summer home in Vermont.

And before you issue the recommendation that if I don't like it I should go to law school, I'll be starting in August. The only way I'll ever be able to fight these guys is to know their game, so I'm going to learn. In the meantime, is there anything I can do?
 
It's my understanding that under the rule allowing class action litigation that you have three options.

1) The Plaintiff's attorney has to present all potential class members with an Objection Form for filing in the event you want to appear and state your objections to the action.

2) There should also be an additional form that would allow you to be excluded from the class. This would allow you to pursue a claim separate from the class.

3) Do nothing, and as a member of the class, receive a check.

Remember that the Plaintiffs' attorney in this action has assuredly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours going through document after document piecing this action together. Since there has been no agreement, as you say, they could still be out the money and down the river. It's a risk not many are willing to take. Plus, accounting error or not, sounds like Austin has illegally exacted $9MM from its residents. I wonder if they would have paid without this litigation?
 
It's puzzling why you would choose to run down an attorney you don't know while asking for free legal advice from attorneys you don't know.
 
Why did HSG delete his $375K question? What do you think someone would find if they spent 2250 hours, or whatever it was, investigating the law firm's billing practices?
 
Well, you can stop your bellyaching because HB4 limits attorney fees on class actions to the lodestar amount, although this case was filed before it went into effect.
 
Opt out, get nothing, and stop bitching. I guess you think it's neat that Austin overcharged its customers by $9 million (probably more like $40 million), but some folks think obeying the law is important.

Again, just opt out. You will get nothing and you can keep your sanctimonious attitude.

If you contest the fees, you will need to present evidence to show that the fee is not reasonable. Since you are not an expert on attorney's fees, you will need to go retain an expert witness (a lawyer). I think you should. It will cost you about $10,000.00 for you to do this.

Or you could cash your found money and be grateful someone was enforcing the law on your behalf (and yes, getting paid to do it).
 
in today's climate, class actions (which are an invaluable tool for any civilized society) are more of a risk than playing slot machines in Vegas, plus the stakes are much higher. For a nationwide class action, attorney expenses alone (not including time) can run into the millions of dollars. To say they shouldn't be rewarded handsomely for their willingness to take a huge risk for the betterment of society is nearsighted.

If there is not a possibility for huge reward, attorneys will slowly stop taking on class action lawsuits. At the end of the day, corporations will have no check and consumers will be hurt.

The system isn't perfect, but the reward must be worth the risk.
 
So lawyers qua legilsators didn't do a good job, therefore lawyers qua lawyers are not good private attorney generals? The disconnect in that logic chain is wider than the grand canyon.

Let me say it again. The basis for an objection is typically someone thinking the lawyers are being overpaid. That is the initial complaint. You can't just wander in off the street and say "that's a lot of money and this is ********." You have to present evidence that the fee is unreasonable, which requires expert testimony. Otherwise you have no evidence and you have no case. Courts are funny about wanting peopel to actually prove what they say.

I encourage him to do it. He needs to hire a lawyer who can testify about reasonable fees. I hope he does do it.

Why so sensitive? Because it irks me that someone comes on here to seek free advice from lawyers on how to go demonize lawyers for doing him a free service. Legally they are authorized to represent him until he opts out. That is the way it works. We don't have to go solicit 500,000 people individually on a class action.

He got his notice, and now he can opt out. The system worked exactly as it was intended to. Private attorneys discovered an illegality that had cost private citizens millions. The state did nothing. So, the private consortium of attorneys invests their own money, proves their case, and now they get rewarded. Meanwhile, the class members get money they otherwise would never have seen. The state stops its illegal practice in the future (hopefully).

The funny thing is if the lawyers somehow got ******, everyone would love it. But because they make money, everyone gets pissed. As usual, the criteria for not liking this is that you don't like lawyers to make money.
 
I agree that the session was disappointing. I have no idea how many of the legislators are attorneys, but it used to be a fairly high number. It's pretty rare that they actually practice law or have much of a real practice. Just because they have a law degree and have been elected doesn't really mean that they are being lawyers when they are legislators. They certainly aren't acting as litigators. I do now understand what you were trying to say, though.

I'm well aware that there are some attorneys who deserve disrespect, but I hope you don't have to only toil on behalf of disabled orphans in order to be granted some measure of respect. That type of devotion is not required of doctors or accountants or stock brokers or teachers or policemen... ...

I understand that lawyers suffer from an image problem and suttree's sarcasm isn't going to help in that regard. Part of the problem is that there are jillions of lobbyists spewing bile and disinformation and attorneys (who aren't nearly as evil as we are made out to be) really don't have a PR machine. Most people operate their lawyer hate machine fueled by misunderstandings and disinformation. Suttree's sarcasm is born of that frustration as well as an amazing phenomenon here at HornFans that also occurs in real life. People on here bash the crap outta lawyers while at the same time enjoying an unbelievable amount of free legal advice. And good legal advice. It is often the very same person who bashes a lawyer on Monday and then asks for free legal advice on Wednesday. It gets really ******* annoying.

Try for a moment to sit in my chair. Someone comes into my office or calls on the phone. They have the audacity to open up the conversation with "Well, I never dreamed I'd ever find myself speaking with a plaintiff's attorney." Like its so ******* shameful to have to consort with scumbags. It's tantamount to saying something like "I never thought I'd sink so low as to have to sit on the bus next to a nigger" and then be surprised that the black man took offense. The way I read what MB said was that he's going to go to law school to fight the evil plaintiff's attorney while at the same time asking attorneys for free legal advice. It's like going into a Chinese restauarnt and proclaiming your hatred for Chinese people and then asking for a free meal. Would you like phlegm or just spit with your spring rolls?

I didn't create this litigous society and neither did attorneys. While there are definitely some attorneys that chase ambulances, they can't make someone hire them to file suit over some matter. Very few people are talked into suing against their wishes. A much greater number than that try to talk lawyers into taking cases that are ultimately turned away. People are very happy to bash the system, but by golly if they get injured or someone cheats them they are going to go avail themselves of the services of an attorney and they are going to go get "justice" for themselves. It's amazing how many people think they are "unique" in deserving compensation. Having hired an attorney and concluded their business, they go home, take a shower or two, and assume their rightful place among the washed who are intellectually and morally above the civil justice system. It's just absolutely an amazing thing to watch.

If you had such an opportunity, you might understand the frustration that fuels some of the sarcasm that you will see come out around here. I've employed it as well.
 
Thanks to y'all who are sticking up for me. I got a laugh out of that. Most of the personal attacks here have been pretty trite and I don't know how offended I can possibly be by strangers on an internet message board.

I didn't mean to provoke an argument here, but that's what I get for calling on responses from lawyers, I guess. I think some of you misinterpreted my feelings about class actions in general. Certainly they have worth, and without them a lot of corporations and government entities would run around screwing people a lot more often than they do. What got under my skin about this one is that it seems that the city is not merely being required to repay what they erroneously collected from the citizens but to pay an additional $2.5 million in attorney's fees. That money will trickle back down to the taxpayers and will have to be repaid by the very people represented in this lawsuit and thousands of others who weren't affected at all. Theoretically, the only people who will come out ahead financially as a direct result of the action are the attorneys and their employees. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

It is noble to hold the city accountable for its mistakes, but who determines the cost and at whose expense does it come?
 
So, would it have been better for the city to have just kept the money? That wasn't typed with a snide tone, but that seems to be the only other option.

It seems to me (and I have VERY little familiarity with this issue) that the mess was started by the city of Austin. It also seems to me that the city of Austin could have quickly agreed to refund the ill-gotten gain and saved its citizens all of this heartache.

BTW, you seemed to be upset that it was the city that sent you notice. That was probably just part of the settlement package that the city of Austin voluntarily agreed to. I don't know about this case, but that isn't uncommon.
 
I think your math is off, but there's a real easy way to not have to pay 2.5 in attorney fees. Don't overcharge in the first place.

If MB's $22 is typical then the typical burden on a taxpayer, assuming the hershey slide is in effect, is around $8. Once. I don't think you're going to see a rent increase as a result of that. Assuming that it's spread out over a years worth of taxes its less than a dollar a month. You could probably do more for the city of Austin and your own pocketbook if you went into the next room and turned off a light every once in a while.
 
Why does it take that much money? Because that is how much it costs for a lawyer to attract capital. It is no different than any other business. If a VF firm lends a budding company $3 million and takes 40% of the stock, does anyone complain when in 2 years they cash that stock in for $10 million? No, because there is a risk their loan will never be repaid.

It is the free market. If you required the VC firm to earn a "reasonable return," say based upon the hours they dealmakers work, they would no longer be able to loan money due to risk.

The same model applies to plaintiff's lawyers. Our clients have no money. We essentially loan them our time and expenses based on our due dilgence on their case. If we are smart and good, we turn away the bad cases and therefore we make money. Warren Buffet does this pretty well, and he is an American Hero.

My personal opinion after defending my profession for 4+ years on this BBS is about 95% of the attacks are made by people who are merely rehashing tort reform rhetoric. This post is a pretty good example. We have taken the time to explain the process and give free legal advice. Nobody responds, instead choosing to drop "scumbag lawyer" and "the system is ****** up" cliches.

I realize y'all may think that a lawyer getting a $100 million payout is ridiculous, but ask yourself if you would be willing to risk 150% of your net worth on a yearly basis as part of your business model. Why on Earth should a person who takes massive risk not also enjoy massive reward if they win through their own work, talent, and acumen?

If you applied your same calculus to the rest of American business, there would be no economy.
 
Suttree is exactly right - it is a market economy. The reward has to be worth the risk.

There is a hell of a lot of free legal advice given on this board. I don't give it anymore, because there is a risk of malpractice with the advice, and to take the risk of my policy taking a hit to defend a pro se suit by some stranger on an internet board isn't worth it to me. Simple cost benefit analysis for me.

All of my clients (other than pro bono clients) are charged the same amount for my services - an hourly fee. I have no upside if I win the case, but there is an incentive to prepare well, since I am being paid by the hour and my clients have approved a budget for a particular piece of litigation. But, more significantly, if I lose, I still get paid. I have an incentive to win, because my practice will fail if I lose cases regularly.

Plaintiffs attorneys do not have the luxury of a steady flow of accounts receivables or a guaranteed payment regardless of the outcome of a case. They need to win to be paid. There is no incentive to take bad cases, because they will collect nothing and they will lose both time and money (from costs and fees not collected from other cases that can be won).

This is just capitalism - regulated capitalism, but the market forces still work to some degree. Remove the incentive to recover damages for valid claims and some of those costs are absorbed by society as a whole in many forms (including higher healthcare costs or in this case, higher utility costs).

Tort reform is nothing but governmental regulation of a sector of the economy. If you think government regulation is wise public policy, then tort reform fits your philosophy.
 
Fascinating post.

MaximumBarnes entitles his thread: "Attorneys, I need assistance." Whereupon he engages in lawyer-bashing to an extent reserved only for the most unreasonable.

Then, before his final plea from said attorneys for directions as to what he should do, MaximumBarnes ends his post by saying, "[t]he only way I'll ever be able to fight these guys [guys = attorneys] is to know their game, so I'm going to learn."

Hubris. Arrogance of the first degree. Amazing.

Best of luck in law school, young man. It will, no doubt, be a most edifying experience for you.

Oh, and welcome to "the game."
 
zzzz,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about attorneys, but you really need to work on your math. You aren't entitled to an opinion on math.
 
I don't have a low opinion of attorneys. I think most of you are nice, intelligent men/women. I think its disingenuous though to pretend every class-action case is about the greater good.

As for my math...

$2,592,775 to plaintiff's lawyers
$876,000 authorized as of October for defense lawyers.

-------------------

$3,468,775 for attorney's fees. Throw in associated costs for city employees and I'm pretty sure you'll get close to $4 million.

If you're alluding to $9M>$4M, the point of the post was that the $9M was already spent and would have to be made up somehow. So ultimately, the taxpayer/ratepayer will end up paying both the $9M and the $4M (as it's unlikely the city will cut $9M out of its budget).
 
So, zzzz, you disagree that ending this abuse by the City of Austin is for the greater good?

You will concede there to be an abuse by the City of Austin, will you not?
 
To clarify: guys actually = class action plaintiff's attorneys who (as described by previous posts) risk their entire worth on multi-million dollar settlements while representing members of the general public without their authorization.

The scope of my criticism is narrow and the activity sounds strangely similar to a game. I have not made any blanket criticism on lawyers.
 
MaximumBarnes, you probably did consent to be in this class. You were most likely given notice a while back, and you did not opt out of it.

If that is your criticism, it is silly. There are always going to be notice issues in a class. Are you suggesting we not have class actions because the attorney should get express written authorization from every class member before proceeding? That would be the end of class actions.

By the way, I got a notice on Saturday regarding the class action settlement for Ipods. I am going to get a $50.00 certificate for Itunes because my 2nd Gen Ipod had a crappy battery. I spent about 3 minutes filling out the form, and presto bingo, I get $50 of free music.

Those heartless attorney ******** strike again.
 
This board typically reacts with horror anytime you see a big number.

They got 2mm? OMGZ it's too much. No discussion of what was spent. If the lawyers spent 1.9MM was it too much? What if they spent 3 mm?

Any wrong is ok if the person affected by the wrong is rich enough.
 
There is a great deal of economic research in Europe, where they dont have contingent fees or class actions, tending to substantiate that the lawsuits that these fee arrangements produce are not economically rational. Meaning that the net cost of the suit exceeds the net benefit, from a societal perspectve.

However, we Americans tend to view it as vindicating the rights of the individual against the government, corporations, what have you. Therefore it must be a good thing.

I tend to think that these suits are a needless drag on the economy. But there is certainly room for disagreement.

HOOKEM
 
Apple's stock fell because the market reacted to Apple's settlement agreement. Apple sold a product that wildly overrstated battery life. My 2nd Gen IPOD says the battery lasts up to 8 hours. I never got more than 5 out of it, and after one year it held a charge for 1.5 hours, max. This was not an isolated situation.

I guess if your defense is "big business should be able to do whatever they want," then we have nothing to talk about. But I fail to see why lawyers are to blame for Apple's investors reacting to a deal it agreed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top