Crooked defense witness "excoriated" for testifying that plaintiff's lawyer should earn far less than defense lawyer
Ever notice how the "reform" movement and the defense bar is very concerned with how much plaintiff's attorneys earn? At least one judge has now called them out for paying an "expert" witness to testify that an experienced plaintiff attorney should earn $125 per hour less than a fresh-out-of-law-school defense attorney:
Feldman said Marquess said he should be paid $235, $125 less than a DLA Piper associate....
The defense legal team has spent 7,100 hours on the case and attorneys have billed at rates "ranging from $560 to $595 higher than the rates requested by plaintiff's counsel," Bernstein said in the Kia case.
"The defense bar often accuses the plaintiffs bar of using junk science," Donovan said. "From my perspective, it's the other way around. From my perspective, the defendants are equally responsible for putting up junk science and junk witnesses."
The defense strategy is simple: try and make plaintiff work so unrewarding that injured consumers can't find a lawyer to take their cases.