Letters to the Editor - NY Post 10/25/10
I am the court-appointed legal ethics expert in the World Trade Center first-responder litigation, and I am writing to correct errors in "Ground Zero Lawyers Use Carrot and $ticks" (Oct. 17).
I can state without hesitation that the lawyers are not playing "let's make a deal" by offering more in settlement to entice clients to accept.
The lawyers are making it clear to clients that the point formula is based on medical records and other objective factors, and that the Allocation Neutral, not the plaintiffs' lawyers, will decide on the amount of any award.
At the same time, the plaintiffs' attorneys are exploring all possible options for maximizing client recoveries within the rigid formula set out in the proposal.
The attorneys are not "pressuring" clients to accept the settlement; they are bluntly laying out the costs and benefits of opting in to the proposed settlement versus continuing to litigate.
It has been made clear to the plaintiff that whether opting in or rejecting the settlement is the client's decision alone.
Roy D. Simon, Jr.