This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter). Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon

Categories

Calendar

November 2004
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Florida Proposed Amendment No. 3

OK, that last one finished up Page 2 of my sample ballot. Now time for Page 1! Still going backwards from the end of course. Next is:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE I, SECTION 26

THE MEDICAL LIABILITY CLAIMANT’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT

Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.

And the full text…

Section 1. Article I, Section 26 is created to read “Claimant’s right to fair compensation.” In any medical liability claim involving a contingency fee, the claimant is entitled to receive no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs, whether received by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of defendants. The claimant is entitled to 90% of all damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This provision is self-executing and does not require implementing legislation.

Section 2. This Amendment shall take effect on the day following approval by the voters.

OK. First, the negotiation of how to split fees between a client and their lawyer should be between the client and laywer, and should be a point of negotiation between them, and a point of competition between lawyers attempting to get the client’s business. Government has no business mandating who those arrangements should or should not be.

Second, of course, as could be easily guessed by my opinions on the other proposed amendments, something like this has no business in a constitution.

My vote: NO

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.