Contingent Legal Fee Reduced to 20% in Staten Island Ferry Case

The legal fees for a firm that tried one of the cases resulting from the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster has been dropped by 40% by Eastern District Judge Jack B. Weinstein. The accident killed 11 and injured dozens more. This represented a fee reduction from one-third, as set forth in the retainer agreement, to 20%. (New York Law Journal: Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Award to Ferry Victim)

The case involved a victim that had been left paralyzed from the shoulders down after the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel had previously rejected a $10M offer and went to a finding before an advisory jury. The resulting $22.9M verdict was then reduced by the court to $18.3M (which both sides apparently agreed to).

Fee reductions will happen on occasion in New York when the court must oversee the settlement of someone that is incapacitated, either due to being a minor or having medical problems. But on those occasions that a reduction occurs, it generally happens only if a case settles early or easily. This one, by contrast, concerned a plaintiff that didn’t have a brain injury, and the case was litigated in full. It also occurred after a $10M settlement offer was rejected, thereby increasing the risk to the plaintiff and counsel.

Essentially, plaintiff’s counsel received no credit from the court for the risks inherent in rejecting the settlement and increasing the award from $10M to $18.3M.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Will Staten Island Ferry Crash Test NY Anti-Solicitation Rules?
  2. Tornado Hits Brooklyn and Staten Island
  3. Medical Malpractice Award Reduced from 200K to 20K
  4. New York Verdict On AIDS Phobia Reduced By Appellate Court
  5. How much are the legal fees in a personal injury case?

Tags:

September 18, 2008 · No Comments ·

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.