Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[vol_scouter]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I see. So sexual abuse victims should not be allowed to hire lawyers? Seek civil damages? That's your position?

Or perhaps it is that sure, let sexual abuse victims hire lawyers, but those darn lawyers better not be paid one thin dime!

So, it is either

1) Ban lawyers from sexual abuse civil cases, in which case the victims are only allowed to proceed pro se.

2) Allow lawyers, but only if they promise not to get paid/they work entirely pro bono. There's no way THAT won't result in few or no attorneys taking on such cases.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying it.

Clearly, you have challenges in reading comprehension.

Your logic is simply wrong.  Attorneys should not be able to charge such exorbitant fees as in this case 30% of the ~$1.4 B being offered.  As a physician, about 20% of the patients that I saw were 'no pay', i.e. they had no insurance or means to pay so I saw them in attorney terms, pro bono.  About 60% of my practice was Medicare that does not pay well and sets physician fees.  For hospital care, Medicare assigns how many days that the admitting diagnosis allows and that is what one gets paid.  So perhaps a patient is admitted for pneumonia and the DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) is 4 days (this is illustrative as I have not seen the DRG's in some time).  That is all that you get paid.  If the patient needs to be in the hospital 6 days, you still get paid for 4 days.  Same for the hospital.  So neither of your options are accurate, were implied or stated, and are certainly not Scout-like.

 

 

[ThenNow]

33 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I see. So sexual abuse victims should not be allowed to hire lawyers? Seek civil damages? That's your position?

Or perhaps it is that sure, let sexual abuse victims hire lawyers, but those darn lawyers better not be paid one thin dime!

As a retired attorney, this is a blast. Better than a high level ping pong match. Let me posit an idea that is in fact true across the practice of representing child sexual abuse victims. Many such good and moral attorneys are deeply and passionately involved in this case.

You start out as a small practitioner and take on a case of child sexual abuse. It’s an awful story with a very broken family and utterly destroyed client. You slog through discovery, depositions, interrogatories, trail prep, witnesses...and you win a good award for your client. The case takes a toll on you and your family. You have recurrent nightmares. You begin to build a reputation and take on more child sexual abuse cases. More darkness and devastation. Black hole darkness. Massive devastation. More nightmares. Fast forward 20 years and you’ve repeated the representation scenario 100’s of times.

Now, men start calling you and you notice a pattern. They were abused in the Boy Scouts of America. Next thing you know, this very organization has thousands and thousands of viable claims of child sexual abuse against them, regardless their shiny history or years of positive impact. Might you become a crusader? Might you be a white knight and not a vulture? Some of you really would do yourself a favor to face reality and stop acting like this is a John Grisham novel or Guy Ritchie movie. I am one victim/survivor. If I had represented 100 people like me my hackles would be so far up and my saber so sharp I would stop at nothing. This case is about boys being abused. And, math. 

Before you pounce, I do not condone claims mining or false or misleading advertising or machine signatures on Proofs of Claim or any of that other shenanigans. Think about one lawyer and how he or she would feel representing these men. Please. 

PS - As to the contingency fees when someone represents a large number of sexual abuse victims in a Chapter 11 like this, I take issue with an unlimited, uncapped fee. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by ThenNow
PS

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

This case is about boys being abused. And, math. 

There are a lot of people in this forum that want to ignore the abuse, pretend those boys didn't exist, and instead focus on the Evil Lawyers(tm) .

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Think about one lawyer and how he or she would feel representing these men.

Oh no! It is so much simpler to hate the Evil Lawyers(tm)  than to think about the abuse and how BSA and the LCs and COs will have to now pay for it.

Better to just blame lawyers, deny victims their right to a day in court, and hope that all these lawsuits and sexual abuse claims just go away so BSA can go back to the way it was.

[mrjohns2]

46 minutes ago, David CO said:

Lawyers represent their clients.  You can't attack the one without attacking the other.

Uh, not in cases where the lawyer gets a percentage of the verdict. They represent their clients AND themselves. If they only got paid T&M, then sure. If they get a windfall by winning? You bet they are representing themselves as much or more than the client. 

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Uh, not in cases where the lawyer gets a percentage of the verdict.

And on contingency, when the lawyer loses and gets 0%? Just don't worry about that, right? Just focus on the Evil Lawyers(tm)  and "windfalls".

I'm focused on the victims.

Edited April 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[mrjohns2]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

And on contingency, why the lawyer loses and gets 0%? Just don't worry about that, right?

You don't think they were representing themselves in that case? They just didn't make out. They choose wrong, I guess, or did a bad job. I assume if they see the 0% coming, they will do their best, within the law, to cut their losses. Again, representing their client AND themselves. Just like an agent does. 

[ThenNow]

16 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

As a physician, about 20% of the patients that I saw were 'no pay', i.e. they had no insurance or means to pay so I saw them in attorney terms, pro bono.  About 60% of my practice was Medicare that does not pay well and sets physician fees.  For hospital care, Medicare assigns how many days that the admitting diagnosis allows and that is what one gets paid.  So perhaps a patient is admitted for pneumonia and the DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) is 4 days (this is illustrative as I have not seen the DRG's in some time).  That is all that you get paid.  If the patient needs to be in the hospital 6 days, you still get paid for 4 days.  Same for the hospital

With complete respect and with several doctors in the family, the “function” of a physician charged with treating patients cannot be compared apples to apples with an attorney who’s responsibility it is to advocate for her client. One seeks to make whole or well, and minimize pain and maximize quality of life. The other, seeks to maximize the benefit to their client. The law and society set the boundaries for fees and any good advocate will push to the boundary on behalf of the client. You’re attempting to compare two different universes. That said, I agree 100% the tort system has fallen into the muck. Regrettably, it may be irretrievably so unless Congress acts.

[jr56]

Excellent point,  I think we are all in agreement on a tort system in the muck.   Not slamming the victims.

[vol_scouter]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Oh no! It is so much simpler to hate the Evil Lawyers(tm)  than to think about the abuse and how BSA and the LCs and COs will have to now pay for it.

Better to just blame lawyers, deny victims their right to a day in court, and hope that all these lawsuits and sexual abuse claims just go away so BSA can go back to the way it was.

No one is advocating denying anyone their day in court but getting $412 M dollars for the attorneys seems unjustified.  They should have the amount that they earn in what is essentially a single case and not make a lifetime of money in a single case.  If they are genuinely concerned with the welfare of the claimants, then they would take only the portion of their yearly earnings times the percent of their effort for the year (or whatever the time is).  Making many hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions is not right. (This is about their personal earnings - not about paying for research, etc.)

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

You don't think they were representing themselves in that case? They just didn't make out. They choose wrong, I guess, or did a bad job. I assume if they see the 0% coming, they will do their best, within the law, to cut their losses. Again, representing their client AND themselves. Just like an agent does. 

You’re condemning anyone who works on commission. My real estate agent represent me, but she’s not doing it for free. She’s doing it to make a living and a good one, at that. The commission you’re poking at just happens to be potentially huge. Not saying I agree with or completely condone it. Watch Erin Brockovich (or many other books and films) to get a feel for what it takes to bring large cases on contingency. “Choose wrong” and you could go out of business unless you get help from a more flush firm or, as today, an investor. You’re talking about a business model, not one profession, per se.

[vol_scouter]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

With complete respect and with several doctors in the family, the “function” of a physician charged with treating patients cannot be compared apples to apples with an attorney who’s responsibility it is to advocate for her client. One seeks to make whole or well, and minimize pain and maximize quality of life. The other, seeks to maximize the benefit to their client. The law and society set the boundaries for fees and any good advocate will push to the boundary on behalf of the client. You’re attempting to compare two different universes. That said, I agree 100% the tort system has fallen into the muck. Regrettably, it may be irretrievably so unless Congress acts.

ThenNow, I do not agree.  I want to relieve pain and suffering, cure when that it possible - that is maximize the benefit to my patient.  Our professions are similar though when patients arrive at the hospital and need care, I cannot turn them down for treatment and must provide the same standard of care to all.  Attorneys can turn down any case.

The tort system and a sense of trying to achieve justice are not doing well at this time.  My attorney friends laugh derisively when I talk about justice - they tell me that the first day of law school they were told that law has nothing to do with justice.  I would like to think that they are a poor sample or are not truthful.

Sorry for the pain and anguish that you have suffered.  I have cared for patients who were sexually abused as children and the problems are often life long.  It seems to me that the best justice is the conviction of the perpetrator that seems to be unavailable to you.  Financial compensation, in the experience of my patients, brings much less satisfaction.  May the end of this process, whatever the outcome, bring you some peace and resolution.  

[mrjohns2]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

My real estate agent represent me, but she’s not doing it for free. She’s doing it to make a living and a good one, at that. The commission you’re poking at just happens to be potentially huge.

It is the potentially huge part. Commissions on a house are very very different. There isn't a windfall potential in that case. The value is more or less known, upfront, without a chance to blow up by 1000%. 

I can't think of many other commission situations that result in windfalls beyond the work put in. 

[David CO]

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

They represent their clients AND themselves. 

True.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

I want to relieve pain and suffering, cure when that it possible - that is maximize the benefit to my patient. 

There is a big difference between law and medicine.  It would be unethical for a doctor to help his patient by harming someone else.   Do no harm.