Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Department of Justice Emails Description An account of the resource The Department of Justice received more than 11,000 e-mails in response to the agency's public solicitation for comments upon its plans to distribute the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 established by Congress to benefit the victims of September 11 and their families. These e-mails have been organized here by date. September 11 Email September 11 Email: Body The basic content, as unstructured text; sometimes containing a signature block at the end. Tuesday, November 06, 2001 2:06 PM Topic 234 - Should there be a Restriction on Fees? Kenneth L. Zwick, Director Office of Management Programs U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Main Building, Room 3140 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Zwick: Your call for comments states: "In addition, the Department welcomes comments on whether the Special Master has the authority to limit the types and amounts of fees that can be charged by legal counsel, accountants, experts or others who are retained by claimants to assist them in filing and pursuing compensation claims, and whether such fees can and should be paid by the Special Master directly out of compensation awards. The Department welcomes information about practices in this regard with respect to other federal compensation programs, and welcomes specific suggestions on any appropriate fee schedule or policy." I am a trial attorney, a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers, its Aviation Section and have spoken around the country more than 20 times on trial lawyer issues. In addition, I handle a limited number of social security claims. I believe it is imperative that an opportunity for an oral hearing be allowed each claimant. First, your call for comments implies, that if the Special Master had the authority to limit fees, he/she would do so. I believe that this is a flawed assumption. Even if the Special Master had such right, there is no basis upon which to presume that doing so would be in anyone's interest, unless it was the perceived interest to protect the treasury, under the theory that the claimant who does not get to choose his only attorney, will recover less. What other purpose would be served by limiting fees? First, the claimants have the opportunity of choosing free representation if they choose, because of the TLC program. Second, the potential size of the claims eliminates any concern that the claimant's will somehow lack the economic power to negotiate a fair fee. In fact, by nature of the no-fault nature of the Fund, some of the best aviation law firms, are offering to do these cases for less than standard 1/3 contingency. As a result of a confluence of different factors, including TLC, the no-fault basis of the Fund, the relative large claims for many individuals, the public interest in these cases, there should be no difficulty in the free market affording substantial choices, at reasonable costs, to claimants. Third, while certain federal benefit programs do have limitations on attorney fees, the policies that might justifythe implementation of fee structures in such programs, do not appear relevant herein. For example, social security allows for a contingent fee, but not to exceed 25%. However, as a practical matter, the fees in such cases are often limited to sums that do not exceed $4,000. However, with the social security claimant, you are dealing with a disabled or older individual whose total benefits are going to be relatively limited, when compared to the possible sums at stake in claims under the Fund. Likewise, with Veteran's Benefit programs. In contrast, most of the claimants to the Fund, will be personal representatives of significant estates, who to a remarkable degree, because of the demographics of most of the victims, will be sophisticated or have ready access to sophisticated assistance. We believe that the market will dictate attorney and other fees in these cases, at a level that certain individuals will be more than happy to pay such amounts, under the belief that representation of their choice, will net them more than they might otherwise recover. The presence of TLC as an alternative, will almost guarantee it. However, if the Special Master does elect to put a limitation on fees, we submit that it should be a limitation on the percentage of a contingent fee, not a limitation based upon hourly rate. Just the adminstrative investment of time to calculate the hourly fee process, would be a valid reason for the Special Master to stay out of that process. As the amount to be recovered under a government benefit program increases, the amount that is allowed as an attorneys fees also goes up. Many states allow for attorneys fees in workers comp cases of 20-25% on a contingent fee basis. And in the largest cases under federal law, such as Civil Rights and Federal Tort claims (which have a 25% cap), contingent fees are allowed. These type of claims would appear to be far more analogous to 1983 actions and Federal Tort claims, than to disability claims, especially in light of the fact that the Fund is premised upon Victims foregoing their right to bring what might be huge tort claims. If you take away the contingent fee system, you not only deny claimants access to the best lawyer of their choice, you also deny them access to the best experts, as it is the contingent fee attorney, who invariably fronts the cost of the preparation of the case. It is clear that if the Special Master limits a claimants free choice to contract with their lawyer as they choose, you will take away that claimants choice of representation. If you want this Fund to achieve the policy goals behind its creation, assuring full compensation for claimants, must be allowed. While there are those who would choose to try to obtain full compensation through the choice of a free lawyer, those who would prefer to hire an attorney on a contingent fee basis, because of the complexity of their cases, or the overriding belief that you get what you pay for, should not have such choice taken away from them. Individual Comment September 11 Email: Date The local time and date when the message was written. 2001-11-06 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource dojW000239.xml 911DA Item Elements describing a September 11 Digital Archive item. Status The process status of this item. approved Consent Whether September 11 Digital Archive has permission to possess this item. full Posting Whether the contributor gave permission to post this item. yes Copyright Whether the contributor holds copyright to this item. yes Source The source of this item. born-digital Media Type The media type of this item. email Created by Author Whether the author created this item. yes Described by Author Whether the description of this item was submitted by the author. no Date Entered The date this item was entered into the archive. 2001-11-06