Judge Rejects $6.1 Million in 9/11 Case Legal Fees

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

The federal judge overseeing the settlement between ground zero workers and the city over health issues told the plaintiffs’ lawyers on Friday that they should absorb $6.1 million in legal expenses they had intended to pass on to their clients.

The judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, disallowed the charges at a hearing after rejecting lawyers’ justifications for the expenses, which involved interest paid on loans that helped finance about $30 million in litigation costs. Those loans had been at interest rates of 14 percent to 18 percent, and would have reduced the workers’ individual settlement amounts by from $78.23 to $2,300, on average.

Paul J. Napoli of Worby Groner Edelman and Napoli Bern Ripka, the law partnership representing the bulk of the more than 10,000 workers, argued that without the borrowed money, “it would not have been possible to litigate this case.” But Judge Hellerstein said that while he did not question the appropriateness or ethics of borrowing the money, he was concerned about the fairness of making the clients pay for it.

“The clients are entitled to the maximum return possible,” he said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/nyregion/28lawsuit.html

[Land Shark]

1. Those Land Sharks couldn't have done it without those Loan Sharks.

:evilgrin:

[DCKit]

2. Ouch!

14% to 18% on WHAT? Did the attorneys borrow money to finance the case?

Scumbags.

[TheArchangel]

3. The loser should pay

Neither the ground zero victims or their attorneys should have to shoulder the expense. The 90 government agencies and private companies responsible for the illnesses and injuries suffered by the workers should be paying all legal expenses of their victims.

First and foremost, The Environmental Protection Agency, should be bearing the vast majority of fiscal burden for assuring New Yorkers their air was "safe to breathe". A federal judge called the EPA's statements "conscience-shocking." Even the EPA's own inspector general has criticized the agency's handling of the crisis. A 2003 report found that on the basis of early tests for asbestos, which had been reassuring, the EPA made misleading pronouncements about air quality. And the White House, the report said, removed cautionary language from the agency's press releases.

The City of New York, along with its contractors and other major defendants like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, offered inadequate safety procedures and supervision to shield them from exposure to contaminants while working amid the debris in the 16-acre area, and they should be held accountable for their partial culpability. However, these rather minor defendants were following the EPA's lead as the law and the labyrinth of regulations requires them to do.