The long-simmering fight between some of L.A.’s best-known billboard attorneys and Uber, one of their most frequent targets, is poised to spill out of the courtroom and onto the November ballot.
The ride-share giant is gathering signatures for an initiative that, if passed by voters, would cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases. The company pledges the change will give victims a larger cut of their settlement money, alleging predatory attorneys are inflating medical bills to increase their own profits.
Lawyers claim it will decimate their lucrative niche — car crash lawsuits in the automobile haven that is California — and ultimately leave thousands of people with small or challenging cases unable to sue because they can’t find an attorney.
This fight, lawyers say, is existential.
Attorneys from Sweet James and Jacoby & Meyers — the names and faces of which will be imprinted in the minds of most California drivers — have given almost $1 million to a committee opposing the ballot measure, according to campaign filings. Dozens of other deep-pocketed attorneys have joined, raising an impressive war chest already surpassing $46 million.
“Uber knows darn well what they’ve done,” said Nicholas Rowley, among those leading the opposition. “This law is designed to wipe out ordinary working people’s ability to get representation.”
Attorneys have condemned the fee cap as a Trojan horse meant to trick voters into wrecking the delicate math behind personal injury lawsuits. Currently, personal injury attorneys typically take 33% to 40% of a client’s payout. That is enough, they say, for them to earn a living and risk taking cases on a contingency fee basis — meaning, if they lose, they don’t get paid.
Uber’s proposal would cap attorney fees for car crash cases at 25% and require extra costs — filing fees, depositions, experts — to be calculated before the fee split rather than coming out of the client’s portion.
The two sides have conflicting views of who would be expected to pay for medical fees, which often drain a significant portion of an injured client’s payout. Attorneys said in order to guarantee clients get 75% of the money, lawyers will have to foot the bill for these medical costs, opening the possibility they would walk away with nothing. Uber said the question of who covers medical costs is “not contemplated by the measure” andit expects clients would pay.
The measure would tightly limit what medical expenses can be claimed and curb most damages to rates based on insurance. A doctor-led political action committee opposing the measure has raised more than $4 million, according to campaign finance records, arguing it will prevent Californians from getting treatment.
Uber said in a statement that nothing in the measure prevents car accident victims from securing doctors and lawyers. Instead, the company said, the measure is aimed at tackling a perennial problem in California’s legal system: attorneys pushing car crash victims into expensive surgeries in order to fatten their fees. The only Californians impacted, Uber claims, will be “shady billboard lawyers whose business model relies on abusing auto accident victims for their own personal gain.”
“Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over billboard lawyers,” said Adam Blinick, Uber’s head of public policy. “Capping attorney fees, banning kickbacks, and ending inflated medical billing are common-sense reforms that will protect auto accident victims and lower costs, and we’re confident voters will agree.”
Uber has poured fuel on the fire with federal racketeering lawsuits targeting both Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, and Jacob Emrani, two prominent personal injury law offices in Southern California. The lawsuits allege the attorneys had “side agreements” with certain doctors to inflate medical bills for unnecessary procedures to get a larger payout.
In an Instagram post, DTLA called the lawsuit a “calculated attempt by a billion-dollar corporation” to suppress legitimate claims. An attorney representing Emrani called it meritless and part of a campaign “to shut the courthouse doors to victims injured by Uber drivers.”
Gearing up for a fight, Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful trial lawyer trade group, is pushing three ballot measures of its own, including one seeking to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver and the other aiming to nullify the fee-capping measure if it passes. Billboards have sprung up across Los Angeles reminding Californians that Uber is the subject of a string of recent New York Times investigations into sexual assault by drivers.
The company said it has invested billions in keeping riders safe and has “done more than any other company to confront” sexual violence.
Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group that sponsored some of the billboards and receives funding from trial attorneys, put out a “consumer alert” branding the fee cap as a “license to kill” measure, claiming it would ultimately pave the way for Uber to move forward with robotaxis without worrying about getting sued. Uber said this was “flat-out untrue” and the measure has nothing to do with autonomous vehicles.
The push by Uber comes at a tense point for California’s legal bar. The Times reported this fall on private investors looking to bankroll California sex abuse cases, and separate allegations of fraudulent lawsuits and unethical conduct by Downtown LA Law Group, a firm known for car crash lawsuits that played a prominent role in L.A. County’s $4-billion sex abuse settlement.
DTLA has denied all wrongdoing and said it operates “with unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.”
Some attorneys worry about how voters will perceive their industry when it’s time to cast ballots.
“I’ll tell you straight up, we could do a better job policing ourselves,” said Rowley, who said he believed the State Bar had historically been weak on California lawyers. “It creates a situation where Uber can do what it’s doing.”
The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group at 601 N. Vermont Ave. in Los Angeles.
(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)
Calls for reform within California’s legal community have gained momentum in recent months.
Joseph Nicchitta, the county’s interim chief executive officer, called on the State Bar to implement “badly needed ethical reforms” that would make big personal injury cases less profitable for lawyers. Attorney and business advocacy groups have made public pleas to keep private equity out of the state’s legal landscape, worrying it fuels frivolous lawsuits. Gov. Gavin Newsom has similarly expressed unease.
“Our legal system is meant to provide justice, transparency, and accountability — not a business model that uses survivors of abuse or trauma as a revenue stream,” said a spokesperson for the governor. “California can — and must — hold two truths at the same time: standing unequivocally with survivors and victims, while also demanding integrity within the law firms and other businesses that work within our legal system.”
Californians unhappy with problem law firms already have a way to ding them without the ballot measure, Uber’s opponents argue. A new law went into effect Jan. 1 giving private citizens the right to sue an attorney for unethical practices. Many such practices are already illegal but seldom prosecuted. That includes advertising containing false promises and using third parties to solicit clients.
The Times reported this fall that nine plaintiffs represented by Downtown LA Law Group were paid by recruiters to sue the county for sex abuse in juvenile halls, four of whom said they were told to make up claims. The firm has denied paying anyone to file lawsuits.
“This is exactly why we wrote the bill,” said Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), a lawyer who oversees the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to The Times Dec. 31 story on the firm. “I expect that someone will take it upon themselves to actually enforce that law.”
