The lawyers in the Wal Mart case will make out with millions.

[bluestateguy]

And the workers? Well...

I agree with the sentiments in this daily kos post about the lawyers raking in millions from the Wal MArt case in Oakland, while the workers will get table scraps (and even then, only after months and years of appeals and paper pushing). This kind of bothers me, and I think something needs to be done to limit lawyers fees in these class action cases.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/154959/29

Yesterday, a jury in Oakland, California awarded 116,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees a total of $172 million dollars in compensation for not receiving their statutory meal breaks.

The jury found that Wal-Mart knowingly violated a provision of the California Labor Code which requires employers to provide workers who work a 6+ hour shift with a 30 minute unpaid lunch break. Violation of this rule by employers requires the employer to pay the employee one extra hour of pay. If this extra hour pay is not provided upon violation of the statute, further damages are possible.

While I think the jury's decision will undoubtedly send a message to corporations operating in California--that they will have to pay the price if they don't provide adequate breaks--I think the real winners here are the plaintiff classes' attorneys. When you break down the reward, the average class member (worker) will receive about $1500. The article stated that Wal-Mart might be required to pay the plaintiff's legal fees. If the attorneys in this case charged the typical 1/3 plus costs, this means that Wal-Mart might be on the hook for an additional $60 million plus expenses (probably about another $5 million at least). So, if Wal-Mart is not required to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, the workers' rewards will be reduced and they will receive less than $1000 each, on average.

But how much will the attorneys receive? The LA Times was unclear about how many attorneys worked on this case, but let's assume their were 10. Each of these guys will make about $6 million from this case, enough to allow them to retire. Even if 20 attorneys worked on this case (extremely unlikely), they'll receive $3 million each. Is it right for attorneys to basically "hit the jackpot" because 116,000 workers were being abused by their employer? And while the lawyers count their fees--and that should take them a LONG time--most of the workers will probably have already committed their whopping $1000 to the necessary costs of living.

more

[Loonman]

1. Whoah...

So the employees will get like $5.

[napi21]

3. No. If the legal fees are not paid by WM, each plaintiff will get roughly

$1,000.

These Class Action guys aren't cheap! However, partly in their defense, this case has lasted for 7 years! There are usually a number of lawyers heading the case, and lots and lots of legal grunt work the whole time, and all those people have to be paid.


The lawyers do make a lot of money, for sure, but it takes a lot of work, time, and support staff to win one of these things.

[Somawas]

2. The number of assumptions

in that fee analysis is staggering. So let's wait a little and see what actually happens before deciding to reform a system that might not need any fixing.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. That is the system.

Yes the lawyers get rich off of it. The argument is that they have to front the rather huge expenses to fund this sort of lawsuit. I think some states put an absolute cap on what the lawyers can get. Anyhow, the system actually works, which is why the corporatist thugs are so dead set against it. It is a self-funding check on corporate greed - driven ironically by lawyer-greed.

Imagine a world where there was no class action suit check on corporate malfeasance. That's where we are heading if more people get suckered into the corporatist meme on this one.

I think the 116,000 walmart workers who will be getting an unexpected $1,000 bonus and LUNCH BREAKS are not exactly complaining about this, so why are you?

[Sanity Claws]

5. Any limit on what defense attorneys can charge?

Of course not. The defense attorneys are getting paid by the hour with no cap on their hourly fee or the total amount they can charge. On the other hand, plaintiff's counsel are paying all the costs up front and not getting any fees unless they win. If they do win, it's years later. Unless they have a chance of recovering a substantial sum, there is no reason to take the chance of taking this kind of case on a contingency.
If you cap what plaintiff's counsel can recover without restricting defense counsel in any way, then defendants know that they just have to string the thing along and make it unproductive and unprofitable for plaintiff's counsel to take this kind of case.

[sandnsea]

6. Not exactly

I don't know how many attorneys there were, but there were also paralegals, secretaries, bookkeepers, receptionists, office cleaners, etc. Attorneys also pay better and provide better benefits than most other professionals. So yeah, they could probably "get by" on a smaller contingency, but they didn't walk away with the whole swazoo either.

[iconoclastNYC]

7. Do you work for free?

Sure Lawyers are overpaid, but this got the story out into the Media ether and Walmart might think twice about it's labor practices.

You should try to check your jealousy and focus on the positive things that resulted from this case.

[bluestateguy]

8. S

Some of the replies here resemble the talking points of the Trial Lawyers Association of America. I wonder if some of them were copied and pasted straight from their website.

They can take $200,000 a pop (oh, boo hoo, I feel so sorry for them) and give the rest to the Wal-Mart workers.

[Bozita]

9. and your solution to the Walmart lunch thing is?

Let me guess. You've got a hardon for lawyers.

Solution, please.