Uber, often sued for car accidents, pushes for law to limit attorney fees

The long-simmering fight between some of Los Angeles’ best-known lawyers and Uber, one of their most frequent targets, is poised to spill out of the courtroom and onto the November ballot.

The ride-hailing giant is gathering signatures for an initiative that, if passed by voters, would limit the amount lawyers can earn in vehicle collision cases. The company promises the change will give victims a larger share of their settlement, alleging that predatory lawyers inflate medical bills to increase their own profits.

Lawyers claim it would decimate their lucrative niche — car accident lawsuits in the automotive paradise of California — and ultimately leave thousands of people with small or difficult cases unable to sue because they can’t find a lawyer.

This fight, lawyers say, is existential.

Attorneys from Sweet James and Jacoby & Meyers — whose names and faces will be etched in the minds of most California drivers — gave nearly $1 million to a committee opposing the ballot measure, according to campaign filings. Dozens of other deep-pocketed lawyers have joined in, collecting an impressive war chest already exceeding $46 million.

“Uber knows very well what it has done,” said Nicholas Rowley, one of the opposition leaders. “This law is designed to destroy the ability of ordinary workers to gain representation. »

Lawyers have condemned the fee cap as a Trojan horse intended to trick voters into destroying the delicate calculations behind personal injury lawsuits. Currently, personal injury lawyers typically take between 33 and 40 percent of a client’s payment. That’s enough, they say, to make a living and risk taking cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning if they lose, they don’t get paid.

Uber proposal would cap attorney fees for car accident cases at 25 percent and require that additional costs — filing fees, depositions, experts — be calculated before fees are split rather than coming from the client.

The two sides have divergent views on the question of who should pay medical bills, which often drain a significant portion of an injured client’s compensation. Lawyers said that to guarantee clients they get 75 percent of the money, they will have to foot the bill for those medical expenses, opening up the possibility they could walk away with nothing. Uber said the question of who pays medical costs is “not contemplated by the measure” and that it expects customers to pay.

The measure would tightly limit medical expenses that can be claimed and reduce most damages to insurance-based rates. A doctor-led political action committee opposing the measure raised more than $4 million, according to campaign finance records, arguing it would keep Californians from seeking treatment.

Uber said in a statement that nothing to this extent prevents car accident victims from seeking help from doctors and lawyers. Instead, the company said, the measure aims to address a recurring problem in California’s legal system: Lawyers pushing car accident victims to undergo costly surgeries in order to increase their fees. The only Californians affected, Uber claims, will be “shady lawyers whose business model relies on abusing car accident victims for their own personal gain.”

“Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over billboard advocates,” said Adam Blinick, Uber’s head of public policy. “Capping attorney fees, banning kickbacks, and ending inflated medical bills are common-sense reforms that will protect car accident victims and reduce costs, and we are confident voters will agree.”

Uber has added fuel to the fire with federal racketeering charges targeting both the Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, and Jacob Emrani, two prominent personal injury law firms in Southern California. The lawsuits allege that the lawyers entered into “side deals” with certain doctors to inflate medical bills for unnecessary procedures in order to obtain greater compensation.

In an Instagram jobDTLA called the lawsuit “a calculated attempt by a billion-dollar corporation” to suppress legitimate claims. A lawyer representing Emrani called it baseless and part of a campaign “to close the courthouse doors to victims injured by Uber drivers.”

Gearing up for the fight, Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful trade group of trial lawyers, is proposing three ballot measures, including one aimed at increasing legal liability for ride-hailing companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver and another aimed at overturning the fee-capping measure if it passes. Billboards have cropped up in Los Angeles, reminding Californians that Uber is the subject of a series of recent New York Times investigations into sexual assaults by drivers.

The company said it has invested billions to keep passengers safe and has “done more than any other company to combat” sexual violence.

Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group that has sponsored some billboards and receives funding from trial lawyers, issued a “consumer alert” calling the metering fee cap a “license to kill,” saying it would ultimately pave the way for Uber to move forward with robotaxis without fear of being sued. Uber said this was “completely false” and that the measure had nothing to do with autonomous vehicles.

Uber’s push comes at a tense time for the California bar. The Times reported this fall that private investors were looking to finance California sex abuse cases and separate allegations fraudulent prosecution and unethical to drive by Downtown LA Law Group, a firm known for its car accident lawsuits that played a leading role in Los Angeles County’s $4 billion sexual abuse settlement.

DTLA denied any wrongdoing and said it operated “with unwavering integrity, putting customer well-being first.”

Some lawyers worry about how voters will perceive their industry when they vote.

“I’ll tell you straight, we could do a better job of policing ourselves,” said Rowley, who said he thinks the state bar has historically been weak on California lawyers. “It creates a situation where Uber can do what it does.”

Calls for reform within California’s legal community have intensified in recent months.

Joseph Nicchitta, the county’s interim chief executive officer, called on the state bar to implement “much-needed ethics reforms” that would make serious injury cases less profitable for attorneys. Lawyer and business advocacy groups have made public pleas to keep private equity out of the state’s legal landscape, fearing it would fuel frivolous lawsuits. Governor Gavin Newsom also expressed unease.

“Our legal system is supposed to provide justice, transparency and accountability – not a business model that uses survivors of abuse or trauma as a source of revenue,” a spokesperson for the governor said. “California can – and must – hold two truths at once: stand unequivocally with survivors and victims, while also demanding integrity within the law firms and other businesses that work within our legal system.

Californians unhappy with struggling law firms already have a way to attack them without going to the ballot, Uber opponents say. A new law took effect on January 1, giving private citizens the right to sue a lawyer for unethical practices. Many of these practices are already illegal but rarely prosecuted. This includes advertising with false promises and using third parties to solicit customers.

The Times reported this fall that nine plaintiffs represented by Downtown LA Law Group were paid by recruiters to sue the county over sexual abuse in juvenile facilities, four of whom said they were asked to make up claims. The company has denied paying anyone to file the lawsuit.

“This is exactly why we wrote the bill,” said Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), a lawyer who oversees the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to the Times on Dec. 31. history on the company. “I expect someone will take it upon themselves to enforce this law.”