This 1997 book by Peter A. Bell and Jeffrey O’Connell sadly remains relevant.
From Chapter 1:
Most lawyers, when approached by a client seeking representation, need only decide whether the potential client can pay their bills. Although these lawyers may believe that they should indicate the likely outcome to the client, they often are financially indifferent to that outcome. But they do tell the client what he can expect to pay for representation. The plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer, by contrast, must quickly make careful, reliable predictions about the likely outcome of her client’s case. She has to make that forecast skillfully, because if the client loses, the lawyer will not be paid. And even if the client wins, the amount recovered may not be enough to justify her time and effort. (page 9)
Many plaintiffs’ tort lawyers will not represent a claimant in a products liability or medical malpractice case – the two most common kinds of litigated tort cases – unless the client has injury claims worth more than $100,000. (page 10)
It does not help a plaintiff to win a substantial tort judgment against a defendant who cannot pay….As a result, the plaintiffs’ tort lawyer must often see beyond the obvious defendant to secure compensation for her client and income for herself. It is second nature for her to look for responsible parties with deep pockets….The search for the deep pocket most commonly proceeds down one of two avenues. The lawyer needs to find either a legally responsible defendant who has liability insurance or a defendant, such as a corporation, with substantial financial resources of its own. Pursuit down each of these avenues has led to some unusual twists and turns in the development of tort law. (page 13)
With payment by retainer, a lawyer or law firm agrees to represent an entity in all (or in a certain number) of cases in which that entity is sued, in return for a flat fee or a per case fee. (page 17)
Even if a defendant and his attorney believe that they will not be held liable under tort law – that they will win the case – they understand that it is going to cost a substantial amount of money to win. As a result, a defendant often finds it appealing to consider paying some money to the plaintiff in settlement of a suit rather than continue to run up its defenser costs beyond what it will cost to settle. (page 18)
That delay was hardly surprising in a court system in which the average tort case is not tried until six years after it was filed….No improvement is in sight for tort cases. Budget cuts on state and federal levels mean that fewer judicial and court resources exist, relative to the number of cases being brought to court. Vermont actually suspended all civil jury trials for a substantial time a few years ago because the state had run out of money to pay juries. The mammoth machinery of criminal justice, whit its mandatory speedy trials, expands constantly, leaving courts less and less time to spend on civil matters, including tort cases. (page 20)
In the average tort suit, where a plaintiff receives compensation, he gets only 46 percent of the total amount of money expended – and that does not include court costs to the public. (page 21)