No. The judge said it was completely unfair and unethical for these lawyers to charge a huge percentage fee. A 'contingency fee' is meant to pay lawyers for taking a big risk—they might work for years and get nothing if they lose. But once the settlement was announced, there was no more risk; getting the money was basically guaranteed. The lawyers who signed up clients late were just filling out paperwork, which is easy. Taking a massive cut for simple paperwork with zero risk is wrong. The judge called the lawyers 'greedy' and ordered them to give back any excessive fees, stating they could only be paid a fair hourly wage for the actual work they did.

No, it's not okay for lawyers to charge full 'no win, no fee' rates after the main settlement was agreed. By February 1, 2002, the case was mostly settled, so lawyers didn't have to do much work or take much risk after that. Lawyers who are asking for full fees are being unfair and greedy. They're breaking the rules about what lawyers are allowed to charge. The court has the power to stop this and protect the people who sued. Lawyers who made agreements with clients after February 2, 2002, can only ask for payment based on the hours they worked, not a percentage of the settlement. Any agreements for percentage fees made after that date are not allowed and must be canceled. Lawyers who took too much money have to give it back and can only ask for the fair hourly payment.

Yes. A contingent fee agreement entered into after the risk of non-recovery has been substantially eliminated is unenforceable because it results in an unreasonable and excessive fee. Federal courts have inherent supervisory power over attorney's fees, particularly in class actions, to ensure fairness and protect class members. The ethical justification for a contingent fee is the attorney's assumption of risk; once the primary terms of the settlement were announced on February 2, 2002, the risk of non-recovery became negligible. Any work performed by an attorney retained after this date was primarily administrative—such as filling out claim forms—and did not involve the risk, legal skill, or effort that would justify a large percentage-based fee. By insisting on a full contingent fee instead of the reasonable hourly compensation provided under the settlement's CAP 9 procedure, these attorneys charged a 'clearly excessive fee' in violation of ethical rules, breached their fiduciary duty to their clients, and acted out of greed at their clients' expense.

No, contingent fee agreements entered post-settlement are unethical and unenforceable because they do not reflect the substantially reduced risk and effort required to finalize the claims. The critical terms of the settlement were agreed upon by February 1, 2002, which meant that any subsequent attorney efforts were minimal and non-contingent on the outcome. After this date, there was no significant risk of non-recovery, and the work required was largely administrative in nature. Attorneys insisting on full contingent fees under these circumstances are charging an excessive fee, violating ethical standards and the intent of the settlement agreement. The court has the authority and responsibility to supervise attorney fees in class action settlements to protect class members' interests. Attorneys who entered into contingent fee agreements after February 2, 2002, may only seek reimbursement through the CAP 9 procedure, which provides for reasonable hourly-based compensation. Any contingent fee agreements made after this date are deemed unethical, impermissible, and unenforceable. Attorneys who have collected such fees must return them to their clients and may only seek compensation through CAP 9.

In Re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis & Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot