From smcpher1@earthlink.net Mon Feb 2 14:23:30 2004 Received: from mxu5.u.washington.edu (mxu5.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.164]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id i12MNTuL007266 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:23:29 -0800 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mxu5.u.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id i12MMtFK023817 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:22:55 -0800 Received: from dialup-67.73.195.102.dial1.chicago1.level3.net ([67.73.195.102] helo=Susan) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AnmSu-0001sj-00 for forensicguidelines@u.washington.edu; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:22:48 -0800 Message-ID: <001301c3e9db$1542b9f0$66c34943@Susan> From: "Sandra B. McPherson, Ph.D." To: References: <1d6.197cbcab.2d50187d@aol.com> Subject: Re: contingent fees Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:22:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C3E9B1.2BA6C9E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report='HTML_WITH_BGCOLOR 0.106, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.003, MAILTO_LINK 0.001, REFERENCES 0.000' This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C3E9B1.2BA6C9E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have also veen aware of the potential for poor folk to be ata = disadvantage -- however, gtiven the impact of anything other than an = interdiction on contingency fees, I think what we ought to have is an = expectation that some pro bono work will be done. I believe the lawyers = have an affirmative duty to do some pro bono as part of fulfilling their = ethics. Perhaps we ought to have such an obligation as well and then = there would at least be some chance that the underprivileged would get = service. (In a "good" case, the lawyer stands to earn a significant = amount due to the percentages involved -- they can afford the up front = fees for us if they really want to, which is another aspect...) Sandy Incidentally, I haven't had the occasion to introduce myself: Sandy = McPherson, Cleveland, also of the Fielding Graduate Institute of Santa = Barb ara (it's a real hardship this time of year to have to go out there = to teach); practice involves substantial family court work, occasional = civil, some criminal and I am considered to have expertise in death = penalty mitigation. Hello to all. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: SBloom271@aol.com=20 To: SGFP Revisions Disscussion=20 Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 4:17 PM Subject: contingent fees The issue of contingent fees cited below contained in the 1991 = guidelines IV-Relationships, B. (below) causes some problems that I = think should be addressed. I agree with the intent of the issue = regarding contingent fees, that basically I work shouldn't be influenced = by whether or not we are going to collect a fee and secondly that we = don't give such an appearance. But this creates an unintended = consequences for the indigent, working poor or just plain low income = folks. They don't get the psychological services they need when they are = plaintiffs in PI cases, unless their attorneys can pay us up front. So, = if they don't hire a prominent or upscale law firm they don't get the = service. Typically the defendant can afford to pay us. It seems we have = created a problem for ourselves. Unfortunately, I don't have a great = answer, but felt that we should look at the issue. Steve Bloomfield B. Forensic psychologists do not provide professional services to = parties to a legal proceeding on the basis of "contingent fees," when = those services involve the offering of expert testimony to a court or = administrative body, or when they call upon the psychologist to make = affirmations or representations intended to be relied upon by third = parties. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C3E9B1.2BA6C9E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have also veen aware of the potential = for poor=20 folk to be ata disadvantage -- however, gtiven the impact of anything = other than=20 an interdiction on contingency fees, I think what we ought to have is an = expectation that some pro bono work will be done.  I believe the = lawyers=20 have an affirmative duty to do some pro bono as part of fulfilling their = ethics.  Perhaps we ought to have such an obligation as well and = then there=20 would at least be some chance that the underprivileged would get = service. =20 (In a "good" case, the lawyer stands to earn a significant amount due to = the=20 percentages involved -- they can afford the up front fees for us if they = really=20 want to, which is another aspect...)
 
Sandy
 
Incidentally, I haven't had the = occasion to=20 introduce myself:  Sandy McPherson, Cleveland, also of the Fielding = Graduate Institute of Santa Barb ara (it's a real hardship this time of = year to=20 have to go out there to teach); practice involves substantial family = court work,=20 occasional civil, some criminal and I am considered to have = expertise in=20 death penalty mitigation.  Hello to all.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 SBloom271@aol.com
To: SGFP Revisions=20 Disscussion
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 = 4:17=20 PM
Subject: contingent fees





The issue of = contingent fees=20 cited below contained in the 1991 guidelines IV-Relationships, B. = (below)=20 causes some problems that I think should be addressed. I agree with = the intent=20 of the issue regarding contingent fees, that basically I work = shouldn't be=20 influenced by whether or not we are going to collect a fee and = secondly that=20 we don't give such an appearance. But this creates an unintended = consequences=20 for the indigent, working poor or just plain low income folks. They = don't get=20 the psychological services they need when they are plaintiffs in PI = cases,=20 unless their attorneys can pay us up front. So, if they don't hire a = prominent=20 or upscale law firm they don't get the service. Typically the = defendant can=20 afford to pay us. It seems we have created a problem for ourselves.=20 Unfortunately, I don't have a great answer, but felt that we should = look at=20 the issue.
Steve Bloomfield


B. Forensic psychologists do = not=20 provide professional services to parties to a legal proceeding on the = basis of=20 "contingent fees," when those services involve the offering of expert=20 testimony to a court or administrative body, or when they call upon = the=20 psychologist to make affirmations or representations intended to be = relied=20 upon by third parties. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C3E9B1.2BA6C9E0-- .