Campus study criticizes Uber ballot initiative
The UC Berkeley School of Law’s Civil Justice Research Initiative published a study arguing that a state amendment proposed by rideshare company Uber could limit legal representation for car accident victims and is likely confusing to voters.
The proposed ballot measure, named the Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act, aims to amend the California constitution to limit the amount of contingency fees that attorneys may receive in car accident cases.
This measure, according to the study, would “significantly (reduce) the availability of legal representation” for injured individuals and “dramatically (limit) their ability to recover from wrongdoers.”
The study also found that the initiative contains “confusing and potentially misleading language” that misrepresents the contingency fee system to voters.
Uber campaign spokesperson Nathan Click said in an email the initiative would prevent accident victims from being excessively charged by “ambulance lawyers” who heavily advertise and take “up to half of (clients) settlements (as) attorney fees.”
Click added that California’s lack of limits on attorney contingency fees may “drive up the cost” of care for accident victims.
However, the study claims that the initiative would “close the courthouse door” for individuals who could not otherwise afford an attorney.
Currently, attorneys may be paid for accident cases through contingency fees, which are payments lawyers receive upon successfully winning a case. These fees are common for personal injury cases such as car crashes.
California does not have a cap on attorney contingency fees for car accident cases.
The ballot initiative would limit attorneys’ contingency fees to 25% of settlement funds, while plaintiffs would get at least 75% of the awards.
Michael McCann, one of the three authors of the study and professor emeritus at the University of Washington, said the initiative presents an “incomplete, misleading and inaccurate account” of the contingency fee system.
McCann said the contingency fee system allows lawyers to “weigh the quality and the merits of the claims people bring to them,” allowing plaintiffs who would otherwise not be able to afford the costs of an attorney to bring their cases to court.
Should contingency fees be restricted through this measure, attorneys for accident cases could “end up owing money” and be less inclined to take on cases, McCann added.
“If people can’t recover damages for automobile accidents, then that will save (Uber) an awful lot of money,” McCann said.
The two other authors are Anne Bloom and Elsa Ying, a writer for The Daily Californian’s Weekender department.