That's absurd that the lawyers took 53%. Most jurisdictions require contingency fees to be reasonable. 30% I can see. Even 40%. 53%? It's hard to see that as reasonable in a case like this.
The only thing I can imagine is that no lawyer would take the case on a typical 30% fee because 1) the facts were against them and 2) the likely award, if any, was going to be quite low, so 53% was reasonable under the circumstances. Risk to the lawyer is, and should, be factored into a determination whether a contingency fee is reasonable, in my opinion, though reasonable minds can disagree.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq ... k-matters/
