1.8 million work-related injury compensation 900,000 to the lawyer, this fee is unreasonable
■ Come on
It was a good thing to win the lawsuit, but when it came time to pay the lawyer's fees, the party who won the lawsuit was not happy.
According to reports, on July 12, 2016, Yang Changmao from Huishui County, Guizhou was unloading a cargo from a construction truck at a construction site in Guangzhou. He was hit by a crane rope and fell down, causing a burst fracture of the cervical 6 vertebrae, cervical spinal cord injury and total paralysis.
His family entrusted a lawyer from a Guangzhou law firm to handle work-related injury compensation.
On September 6 this year, Yang Changmao received a one-time compensation of 1.8 million yuan.
According to the agreement, the law firm took 900,000 yuan from it as legal fees.
Yang Changmao’s relatives found it unacceptable, and they tried to get some money back but to no avail.
After the incident was exposed, it attracted heated discussions.
This controversy caused by attorney fees reflects the unspoken rules of the lawyer industry in implementing risk agency fees for "violation" of work-related injury compensation cases.
The so-called risk agency fee is generally understood, that attorney fees are collected only when lawyers win the lawsuit.
If only from a legal point of view, the implementation of risk agency fees for work-related injury compensation cases would not be compliant-the "Lawyer Service Fee Management Measures" clearly prohibits lawyers from implementing risk agency fees for work-related injury compensation cases.
The real problem is that many migrant workers are already in poor economic conditions, and work-related injuries are even worse. They may not be able to provide sufficient lawyer fees in advance and will choose risk agents.
And this kind of risk agency for work-related injury compensation cases wandering in the gray area, on the contrary, provides them with real help.
However, the law clearly stipulates that the charging rate cannot exceed 30%.
In this case, the lawyer involved in the risk agency charges as high as 50%, which inevitably gives people the feeling of “sucking money” regardless of the target, and does not help maintain the good image of the law firm.
Moreover, although it is not allowed by the law, this move has objectively played a role in protecting the rights and interests of migrant workers and upholding justice for them.
Taking into account that work-related injury compensation cases are limited by factors such as migrant workers’ lack of contract and awareness of evidence, the winning rate is not very high, and the law firm or attorney’s agent will take considerable risks. Blindly imposing moral harshness on this is not conducive to a fundamental solution. Such phenomena.
A more proactive approach is to face up to the dual dilemma of migrant workers' rights protection and lawyers. As some professionals have pointed out, they may wish to amend relevant laws to consider including work-related injury compensation in the scope of risk agency fees, and specify the rate of collection.
In addition, increase legal aid for work-related injury compensation cases, and open a "green channel" for work-related injury compensation cases through the purchase of legal aid services by the government, trade union legal aid, and public welfare legal aid for lawyers.
□Wu Zhenhan (legal worker)