In the case of plaintiff’s attorneys filing tort claims like this, usually no.  It’s based on contingency (i.e. a cut of the proceeds).  No proceeds, no payday.

Of course this case is different.  Given the affidavit that was filed last week in the Texas case in which the federal agent said that McNamee was compelled to say what he said about Clemens, I think the likelihood of Roger succeeding just went in the toilet.  It’s possible that this new suit is calculated to take advantage of that by creating a situation in which McNamee’s attorneys can go to Clemens and say:

“look, you’re going to lose and lose badly in Texas, and that will humiliate you.  Even simply settling with us now will be bad for you, because it will obviously look like you’re doing it to avoid a loss.  We’re now suing you in New York to give you a chance to make a deal:  you drop your Texas lawsuit for nothing, and we’ll drop the New York lawsuit for a $X [with $x representing how much McNamee owes in attorneys’ fees to date plus a little something extra to grow on].  Both sides mutally declare a victory of sorts, and we end this mess.”

Benefits:  Clemens can blame the cost and distractions of the New York lawsuit as his reason for dropping it while avoiding an embarassing ruling from the Texas court.  McNamee can pay his attorneys and maybe pay off a few bills, which mere victory in Texas would not have allowed.

There may be a big flaw in there somewhere, but weirder things have happened.