Top Law Schools

"Since our founding forty years ago, Lieff Cabraser has participated in many of the most important individual and class action lawsuits in the United States, helping recover over $85 billion in verdicts and settlements for our clients"

Is this correct? Something seems incredibly wrong about this firm existing. Do they actually get a third of that?

Anybody else find their "Justice . . . " quotes kind of corny?

Anonymous User wrote:"Since our founding forty years ago, Lieff Cabraser has participated in many of the most important individual and class action lawsuits in the United States, helping recover over $85 billion in verdicts and settlements for our clients"

Is this correct? Something seems incredibly wrong about this firm existing. Do they actually get a third of that?

Anybody else find their "Justice . . . " quotes kind of corny?

They probably get less than a third. Still big big money. $85 billion is probably accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieff_Cabr ... _Bernstein

Why is it wrong?

Anonymous User wrote:"Since our founding forty years ago, Lieff Cabraser has participated in many of the most important individual and class action lawsuits in the United States, helping recover over $85 billion in verdicts and settlements for our clients"

Is this correct? Something seems incredibly wrong about this firm existing. Do they actually get a third of that?

Anybody else find their "Justice . . . " quotes kind of corny?

What makes you think their take (i.e. fees) is a 1/3 of the recovery?

With a typical securities case, the recovery is based on a fee's motion and the actual fees award can vary on a variety factors, e.g. whether the court uses a lodestar method, etc.

Lieff also does qui tam lawsuits, and for those it is the relator (or plaintiff) that actually recovers anywhere from 20-30% of any settlement amount. I'd imagine that Lieff's take is at best another 1/3 of that recovery. So to make the math easy for you, if the settlement is 100, plaintiff gets 30, then Lieff gets ~10 (assuming a 30% recovery for both plaintiff and lawyer).

So there's nothing corny, or incredibly wrong about their statements.

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:"Since our founding forty years ago, Lieff Cabraser has participated in many of the most important individual and class action lawsuits in the United States, helping recover over $85 billion in verdicts and settlements for our clients"

Is this correct? Something seems incredibly wrong about this firm existing. Do they actually get a third of that?

Anybody else find their "Justice . . . " quotes kind of corny?

What makes you think their take (i.e. fees) is a 1/3 of the recovery?

With a typical securities case, the recovery is based on a fee's motion and the actual fees award can vary on a variety factors, e.g. whether the court uses a lodestar method, etc.

Lieff also does qui tam lawsuits, and for those it is the relator (or plaintiff) that actually recovers anywhere from 20-30% of any settlement amount. I'd imagine that Lieff's take is at best another 1/3 of that recovery. So to make the math easy for you, if the settlement is 100, plaintiff gets 30, then Lieff gets ~10 (assuming a 30% recovery for both plaintiff and lawyer).

So there's nothing corny, or incredibly wrong about their statements.

jfc, they made at least $8B from lawyering?

Anonymous User wrote:

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:"Since our founding forty years ago, Lieff Cabraser has participated in many of the most important individual and class action lawsuits in the United States, helping recover over $85 billion in verdicts and settlements for our clients"

Is this correct? Something seems incredibly wrong about this firm existing. Do they actually get a third of that?

Anybody else find their "Justice . . . " quotes kind of corny?

What makes you think their take (i.e. fees) is a 1/3 of the recovery?

With a typical securities case, the recovery is based on a fee's motion and the actual fees award can vary on a variety factors, e.g. whether the court uses a lodestar method, etc.

Lieff also does qui tam lawsuits, and for those it is the relator (or plaintiff) that actually recovers anywhere from 20-30% of any settlement amount. I'd imagine that Lieff's take is at best another 1/3 of that recovery. So to make the math easy for you, if the settlement is 100, plaintiff gets 30, then Lieff gets ~10 (assuming a 30% recovery for both plaintiff and lawyer).

So there's nothing corny, or incredibly wrong about their statements.

jfc, they made at least $8B from lawyering?

Joe Jamail got 12 bilyawn dollars.

Anonymous User wrote:

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:"Since our founding forty years ago, Lieff Cabraser has participated in many of the most important individual and class action lawsuits in the United States, helping recover over $85 billion in verdicts and settlements for our clients"

Is this correct? Something seems incredibly wrong about this firm existing. Do they actually get a third of that?

Anybody else find their "Justice . . . " quotes kind of corny?

What makes you think their take (i.e. fees) is a 1/3 of the recovery?

With a typical securities case, the recovery is based on a fee's motion and the actual fees award can vary on a variety factors, e.g. whether the court uses a lodestar method, etc.

Lieff also does qui tam lawsuits, and for those it is the relator (or plaintiff) that actually recovers anywhere from 20-30% of any settlement amount. I'd imagine that Lieff's take is at best another 1/3 of that recovery. So to make the math easy for you, if the settlement is 100, plaintiff gets 30, then Lieff gets ~10 (assuming a 30% recovery for both plaintiff and lawyer).

So there's nothing corny, or incredibly wrong about their statements.

jfc, they made at least $8B from lawyering?

Probably. TBF, they are a very large firm as plaintiff's side boutiques go.

Anonymous User wrote:

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:"Since our founding forty years ago, Lieff Cabraser has participated in many of the most important individual and class action lawsuits in the United States, helping recover over $85 billion in verdicts and settlements for our clients"

Is this correct? Something seems incredibly wrong about this firm existing. Do they actually get a third of that?

Anybody else find their "Justice . . . " quotes kind of corny?

What makes you think their take (i.e. fees) is a 1/3 of the recovery?

With a typical securities case, the recovery is based on a fee's motion and the actual fees award can vary on a variety factors, e.g. whether the court uses a lodestar method, etc.

Lieff also does qui tam lawsuits, and for those it is the relator (or plaintiff) that actually recovers anywhere from 20-30% of any settlement amount. I'd imagine that Lieff's take is at best another 1/3 of that recovery. So to make the math easy for you, if the settlement is 100, plaintiff gets 30, then Lieff gets ~10 (assuming a 30% recovery for both plaintiff and lawyer).

So there's nothing corny, or incredibly wrong about their statements.

jfc, they made at least $8B from lawyering?

Let's assume your math is right (but I don't think it is, because their fees recovery is probably less). That would be 8B/40 years = 200M/year. That's gross revenue, not net profit.

Which doesn't even crack them into the AmLaw 100 based on total revenue. So it's not very much when you think about it in context.

Granted LCH&B has only about 70 (or so) attorneys, so while it's alot of money, it's not as much nearly as you think it is.

That said, it's still a nice tidy sum (again, assuming your basic assumptions on 8B is correct). This is why people go into plaintiffs' side work. The payoff can be great (although not as great as you think it may be just by looking at the bare, absolute numbers).

I believe it.

do they do profit sharing