Only $1,000 of $460,000 police brutality settlement goes to unsavory victim

[repoman]

The rest to lawyers of course.

And yes it is in the Deep South. Oh, and the lawyers are white and he is black. Hmmm, oh never mind, must not mean anything.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-usa-alabama-police-idUSKCN0IC05720141023

This is what happened in 2009:

http://www.tadias.com/05/20/2009/5-alabama-police-officers-fired-over-beating-caught-on-camera/



Listen, I am not trying to be a bleeding heart liberal here. If one of his victims were to legitimately sue him for part of his settlement to cover some of the damage he did that would be fine. But this is not the right way to cut him out of the money.


If the newspaper article is correct, this is one of his lawyers:

http://www.bloomstoncallaway.com/Attorneys/Alyson-H-Rains.shtml

the info is in the spoiler box for reducing clutter and in case they pull her page for a while:

Show

Alyson Hood Rains

Location:
Birmingham, Alabama
Phone:
205-994-6142
877-315-0043 (Toll Free)
Fax:
205-212-9701
Email:
E-mail Me
Alyson Hood Rains is an associate in the Birmingham law firm of Bloomston & Basgier. She concentrates her practice in the areas of federal and state civil litigation including constitutional law, civil rights, employment practice, sexual harassment, contract disputes and personal injury.
Alyson graduated from Birmingham- Southern College with a B.A. degree in Political Science and a concentration in Pre-Law in 2008 before she attended Samford University Cumberland School of Law and received her J.D. in 2011. She co-authored the Alabama Drug Offender Accountability Act Manual and the Alabama Risk/Needs Protocol while working at the Alabama Supreme Court.
Alyson has spoken on the areas of constitutional rights violations, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, common law marriage, and the use of private investigators in domestic relations litigation.
Alyson currently serves on the Alabama Women's Section Executive Committee, Birmingham Bar Scholarship Committee and Co-Chair for the Alabama Family Law Section. She is also a member of the Birmingham Young Lawyer's Section and Birmingham Inns of Court.
Areas of Practice
Constitutional Law
Civil Rights Litigation
Personal Injury
Employment Law
Contract Law
Sexual Harassment
Criminal Law
Bar Admissions
Alabama, 2011
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama
U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, 2011
Education
Cumberland School of Law, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama
J.D. - 2011
Honors: National Team for Trial Advocacy
Honors: American Journal for Trial Advocacy
Honors: Dean's List
Honors: National Order of Barristers
Honors: Senator Marc Keahey Recognition for Continued Excellence in the Practice of Law (Act No.2011-11)
Birmingham-Southern College - 2008
Honors: Dean's List
Major: Political Science & Pre-Law
Professional Associations and Memberships
Alabama Bar Association, Alabama Family Law Section
Alabama Bar Association, Alabama Women's Section
American Bar Association
Birmingham Bar Association
Birmingham Inns of Court
Birmingham Young Lawyers Association
Past Employment Positions
Crew & Howell, P.C, 2010 - 2014
Supreme Court of Alabama
Fraternities/Sororities
Phi Alpha Delta

As a useless gesture I left a voicemail saying "Wow, $1,000 of $460,000. Good job for your client."

Here is Cameron Hogan:

http://www.lloydhoganlaw.com/about-us/cameron-hogan.html

Here is Wendy Brooks Crew:

http://crewandhowell.com/attorneys/wendy-brooks/

Are the City Attorneys trying to get work in these firms after doing work for the city?

 

[barbos]

Wow, what a bunch of greedy bastards

 

[barbos]

I think he should sue his lawyers now.
But seriously, I think there should be 50% limit on how much lawyers get.

 

[barbos]

And taxpayers should sue these law firms too and demand all these moneys back.

 

[doubtingt]

The entire settlement should have a lien placed on it until after the taxpayers and the wounded officer get their share (all of it) from suing the violent murder-attempting criminal (aka the "victim").

More generally, there should be a cap on % that can go to lawyers. Juries award settlements under the assumption it is goes to the victims. All that they award should go to the victim, and the state should set some addition % that is paid by the defendant for the legal fees. The jury should be informed of all this when they decide on the settlement amounts.

 

[KeepTalking]

The entire settlement should have a lien placed on it until after the taxpayers and the wounded officer get their share (all of it) from suing the violent murder-attempting criminal (aka the "victim").

More generally, there should be a cap on % that can go to lawyers. Juries award settlements under the assumption it is goes to the victims. All that they award should go to the victim, and the state should set some addition % that is paid by the defendant for the legal fees. The jury should be informed of all this when they decide on the settlement amounts.

Except juries don't award settlements, settlements are made to avoid the intrusion of a jury.

 

[Trausti]

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation. Five years of attorneys working up the case. Also note that the attorney's fees amount was $359,000; $100,00 was for expenses. Maybe the attorneys' fee rates were too high. Maybe they excessively billed the file. If so, criticism should fall on the city's attorneys for not more aggressively challenging the reasonableness of alleged fees and expenses.

 

[Derec]

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation.

So the "Civil Rights Act" is really a "Lawyer Enrichment Act". That's what we get when the vast majority of lawmakers are lawyers and write laws to benefit themselves and their kind. Maybe Dick the Butcher was right about killing all the lawyers ...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation. Five years of attorneys working up the case. Also note that the attorney's fees amount was $359,000; $100,00 was for expenses. Maybe the attorneys' fee rates were too high. Maybe they excessively billed the file. If so, criticism should fall on the city's attorneys for not more aggressively challenging the reasonableness of alleged fees and expenses.

$359k at $200 an hour is 1795 hours or about 45 40-hr weeks of full time, notable lawyer effort. $100k in expenses? Are they flying across the country in first class weekly?!

 

[KeepTalking]

If so, criticism should fall on the city's attorneys for not more aggressively challenging the reasonableness of alleged fees and expenses.

Why should they do that? Once the old skeletons finally come out of the closet, and their career of public service no longer has the chance of becoming a political career, they are going to need to join a private law firm. All the better if that firm is flush with cash, and owes them a favor or two (counted in the millions).

 

[dismal]

In a case like this the city is just paying them to go away. They have made a calculation it is more expensive to fight than settle. The sharing of the proceeds would be determined by the contract between the lawyers and the plaintiff. It sounds like they negotiated just enough to get the client a little something. The client would have had to sign off on this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation. Five years of attorneys working up the case. Also note that the attorney's fees amount was $359,000; $100,00 was for expenses. Maybe the attorneys' fee rates were too high. Maybe they excessively billed the file. If so, criticism should fall on the city's attorneys for not more aggressively challenging the reasonableness of alleged fees and expenses.

Thank you for clarifying the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation.

So the "Civil Rights Act" is really a "Lawyer Enrichment Act". That's what we get when the vast majority of lawmakers are lawyers and write laws to benefit themselves and their kind. Maybe Dick the Butcher was right about killing all the lawyers ...

Without it there would be no justice at all--no lawyer would have taken the case given the expected payout.

 

[Derec]

Without it there would be no justice at all--no lawyer would have taken the case given the expected payout.

I am sure it could have been solved differently other than mandating huge payouts for the lawyers. Given how many lawmakers are lawyers themselves, it smacks of cronyism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thank you for clarifying the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation.

So the "Civil Rights Act" is really a "Lawyer Enrichment Act". That's what we get when the vast majority of lawmakers are lawyers and write laws to benefit themselves and their kind. Maybe Dick the Butcher was right about killing all the lawyers ...

Without it there would be no justice at all--no lawyer would have taken the case given the expected payout.

Just how much payout is needed?! Were 1500 or so hours required for this case? $100k in expenses?!

 

[laughing dog]

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation. Five years of attorneys working up the case. Also note that the attorney's fees amount was $359,000; $100,00 was for expenses. Maybe the attorneys' fee rates were too high. Maybe they excessively billed the file. If so, criticism should fall on the city's attorneys for not more aggressively challenging the reasonableness of alleged fees and expenses.

Or even settling earlier to avoid this sizable expense. The size of the payout is the future disincentive effect of such violations. How that award is divied up between the plaintiff and the lawyers is immaterial to the disincentive effect. How the award is divvied up is material to the incentive to take the case effect.

 

[dismal]

Without it there would be no justice at all--no lawyer would have taken the case given the expected payout.

I am sure it could have been solved differently other than mandating huge payouts for the lawyers. Given how many lawmakers are lawyers themselves, it smacks of cronyism.

It wasn't a mandate it was a settlement.

 

[dismal]

Thank you for clarifying the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

There is some confusion here. The settlement was for $1,000, not $460,000. This was a civil rights claim and built into that statute is an attorney's fees provision. Attorney's fees provisions are added to certain statutes because many claims might not be brought otherwise. Like this one. The plaintiff - who was headed off to prison in any case - alleged he was kicked by cops. Excessive force? Okay. But what actual damages? It's not as if he had medical expenses or lost wages or suffered a physical or mental disability. Yeah, alright, you're rights were violated, here's $1,000. If it wasn't for the attorney's fees provision of the civil rights act few if any attorneys would take his case. But as a matter of public policy we want to prevent public actors from violating civil rights. Hence, the attorney's fees incentive. Note, reading the article is appears the lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settlement was not until this year. So five years of litigation.

So the "Civil Rights Act" is really a "Lawyer Enrichment Act". That's what we get when the vast majority of lawmakers are lawyers and write laws to benefit themselves and their kind. Maybe Dick the Butcher was right about killing all the lawyers ...

Without it there would be no justice at all--no lawyer would have taken the case given the expected payout.

Just how much payout is needed?! Were 1500 or so hours required for this case? $100k in expenses?!

Expert witnesses, depositions, it adds up fast. At the end of the day we are in no position to make a factual challenge of their hours and expenses.

This is not to say plaintiffs lawyers can't be the scum of the earth. Often times what they are doing is legalized extortion.

 

[Nexus]

What needs to happen is a requirement that law enforcement agencies carry "malpractice" insurance paid for out of their payroll budget. If they don't have problems within their department everyone could have a higher paycheck. If their "few bad apples" as they like to call them assault too many people the insurers can up their malpractice rates for both the individual and group until it becomes impossible for the bad cops to have a salary. Right now judging by all the jurisdictions under federal review for police misconduct the current system of suing the municipality is too far removed to be an adequate deterrent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Expert witnesses, depositions, it adds up fast. At the end of the day we are in no position to make a factual challenge of their hours and expenses.

1500 hours seems absurdly excessive. That is almost a year, full-time for a single high paid lawyer.

 

[dismal]

Expert witnesses, depositions, it adds up fast. At the end of the day we are in no position to make a factual challenge of their hours and expenses.

1500 hours seems absurdly excessive. That is almost a year, full-time for a single high paid lawyer.

I dunno. It was at least 3 of them since 2008, plus they bring in others when needed. I've gotten bills on work issues from lawyers that had 20 lawyers charging hours 3 or 4 of which I was actually aware of.

But as I said, I dunno.

What seems odder to me is that it must have been a contingency deal. I thought generally in a contingency deal the expenses came off the top but the hours were at risk.

But ultimately it's whatever they agree to, I guess.

It's quite possible this guy was jobbed pretty bad by these lawyers, but it's also quite possible the case was looking pretty bad and they agreed to settle for just enough to get the client a little money on their agreed terms.

Again, the client has to agree with the settlement.