Rethinking the Application of Contingency Risk Multipliers in Fee Awards Should Florida Courts Recede from Quanstrom?

Basically, a legal firm is representing a person who got hurt in a car accident. The person who caused the accident has insurance, but the firm is trying to get more money from them. The legal firm is asking the insurance company to pay more to cover the person’s medical bills and other expenses. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal recently made two decisions about increasing attorney fees using a contingency risk multiplier, despite a previous Florida Supreme Court ruling that said it shouldn’t be used. The court asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider whether a multiplier can be used to increase attorney’s fees in certain cases. The Florida Supreme Court must now decide whether to change its previous decision about using a multiplier. The Florida Supreme Court should probably change its decision based on a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the specific types of cases involving fees. The use of the contingency fee multiplier in court cases depends on how likely the plaintiff is to win. If it’s very likely, a lower multiplier is used. If it’s 50-50, a higher multiplier is used. And if it’s unlikely, an even higher multiplier is used. It’s important to note that Florida courts got this idea from federal courts, but federal courts have been using the multiplier less recently. The U.S. Supreme Court made decisions in Blanchard v. Bergeron and Delaware Valley about how to calculate attorney fees. They said that the “lodestar” amount is the reasonable fee and that an extra fee for taking a risk on a case is not usually allowed. The Court also said that adding this extra fee would be like counting the same thing twice. The Florida Supreme Court in Quanstrom didn’t say that the extra fee always has to be added, but that it should be considered and decided if it’s needed. Florida courts have recognized that in some cases, a plaintiff may need an extra fee to encourage lawyers to take on their case, especially when the defendant is an insurance company with more resources. This is to make sure the plaintiff can find a good lawyer to represent them. However, things have changed since this rule was made, and now there are more lawyers who can help plaintiffs, especially in insurance cases. This means that the original reason for the extra fee may not be as important anymore. Florida courts have ruled against the general use of the contingency fee multiplier in insurance cases. They believe that the multiplier is not necessary in many cases because both the insurance company and the person making the claim have equal access to legal representation. In some cases, the courts have even said that the multiplier may not be needed at all. This is because the legal firms representing the people making the claims are often just as big as, if not bigger than, the legal firms representing the insurance companies. As a result, the risk to the legal firms representing the people making the claims is not as high, so using the multiplier creates more problems than it solves. The federal courts and Florida courts used to allow lawyers to get extra money through something called a contingency fee multiplier. But now, it’s not really needed because there are a lot of lawyers and it just causes more problems. An attorney named Aaron Leviten and some other lawyers think the courts should stop allowing it. “To teach members to do their job well, help people, and learn more about the law.”

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/rethinking-the-application-of-contingency-risk-multipliers-in-fee-awards-should-florida-courts-recede-from-quanstrom/