Author Topic: Lawyers and their fees (Read 380 times)

Neubob · « **on:** September 12, 2006, 01:10:07 PM »

For many civil trials, You can get legal counsel for free--that is, until they win and take 25-30% of the winnings.

Do you guys see this as a problem? Is 25% too much for an attorney, taken into account that if he loses he gets nothing at all, and it is his time, energy and, often his own money that goes into the preparations. Is 25% too much when considering that otherwise, this plaintiff would never get to see his day in court at all?

I'm curious as to what people think. There are initiatives in the works to limit attorney's contingency fees, especially in the big-ticket cases where lawyers stand to rake in dozens, even hundreds of millions.

Remember, contrary to popular belief, there has NOT been a marked increase in the rate of civil trials in the last few decades (my law professors have provided me with stats. I invite you to look yours up at your convenience).

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2006, 01:19:26 PM »

Or they charge you 200-500 dollars per hour at 15 min intervals.. They send you a 1 sentance email... 15 mins... you reply.. another 15 mins. Its amazing how a one paragraph electronic filing often is a 5 plus hour bill.

I know one lawyer that books 40 plus hours per day. He rarely is late for dinner.

Its been said that 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name and from my experience thats about right.

Neubob · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2006, 01:24:01 PM »

Even still the guy charging you $500/hour, at a rate of 100 or so hours a week(gonna keep it sort of reasonable), will still never make the sort of payday that will the guy who brings a tobacco or drug company to its knees with a class action.

That being said, what do you think of contingency fees as a whole?

Vudak · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2006, 01:32:03 PM »

I work for a law firm. I think contingency fees are pretty fair (they're usually 33% here, but we'll lower the price if the client needs a break, or if they send us other clients, etc - just like any other business, really).

If the prospective client doesn't like the rate, which they agree in writing to on the first day, they are more then welcome to find another attorney who charges less (very unlikely) or argue their own case.

It is worth noting that you are much more likely to get more money with a lawyer, after the contigency fee is taken into account, then you are on your own.

As far as $500 per hour... Well, we don't charge anywhere near that... I think it's about $200 per hour and if the client isn't some sort of know-it-all-******* who doesn't listen to us, tries to do everything on his own, and screws everthing up (which we must then fix), the fees don't get outrageous.

The fees also don't get outrageous if the client isn't outrageous in his/her expectations. As in divorce cases. They would be pretty quick and simple if the dolts didn't hold grudges and want to argue every last detail, down to 15 extra minutes of child visitation.

Dichotomy · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2006, 01:57:16 PM »

Vudak one point especially in divorce cases is the client needs to (and typically doesn't) DOCUMENT everything clearly and truthfully, follow the judges orders as mandated in the pretrial, and keep their pants zipped or legs closed as it applies until the divorce is final.

I took it upon myself to document and get evidence of all of my former spouses breaking the judges guidelines and got full custody of my son in Tennessee including taping our phone conversations where she stated that she didn't care what the judge said if she didn't like it she'd do what she wanted. Keep in mind this is not admissable in a court of law but can be used in a deposition which then becomes part of the court record.

Most importantly in any legal action the best thing to do is keep your head, be calm, and don't lie EVER. A good attorney can smell a lie 100 miles away.

I'm about to enter civil litigation in small claims court as soon as I get the last few pieces of evidence and I'm confident I will emerge at least 60% victorious.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #5 on:** September 12, 2006, 02:16:26 PM »

It is probably not kosher, but if I were on a jury and awarded a settlement, I would like it to say X to the plantiff for the compensatory, Y to the plantiff for the punative, and 5,000 to the law firm for their fee.

Eagler · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2006, 02:20:15 PM »

1-800-Call DaVE

I figure the majority of what goes on in civil court is bs and belongs on afternoon tv for the average democrat to sit and enjoy with his/her mid afternoon 3rd black label..

Tarmac · « **Reply #7 on:** September 12, 2006, 03:34:45 PM »

Lawyers working on contingency provides access for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to gamble their hard-earned savings on even a 90% chance of winning.

As much as I detest the American legal culture of ambulance chasers and the "sue everything bad" mentality, you've got two consenting adults (the lawyer and the plaintiff) making a deal that's beneficial to both of them... contingencies, while having definate downsides, are infinitely better than the alternative - only rich people being able to afford to sue.

Neubob · « **Reply #8 on:** September 12, 2006, 03:38:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is probably not kosher, but if I were on a jury and awarded a settlement, I would like it to say X to the plantiff for the compensatory, Y to the plantiff for the punative, and 5,000 to the law firm for their fee.

What if the law firm spent a year putting the case together, risked gaining nothing by bringing it to court, and ended up winning millions for a plaintiff that wouldn't have seen a penny otherwise?

Vudak · « **Reply #9 on:** September 12, 2006, 04:27:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
What if the law firm spent a year putting the case together, risked gaining nothing by bringing it to court, and ended up winning millions for a plaintiff that wouldn't have seen a penny otherwise?

Exactly. How could one justify a set solid amount ($5,000 or any figure). That'd be like telling a carpenter he'd only be reimbursed costs + $5,000 for the house his company built, regardless of its size.

Big money cases generally take much more work then little money cases. There's this thing about money - people don't like to just give it away.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #10 on:** September 12, 2006, 05:46:43 PM »

That's what the jury is for. They could decide an appropriate fee.

Vudak · « **Reply #11 on:** September 12, 2006, 06:25:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's what the jury is for. They could decide an appropriate fee.

Then let's have the local neighbors decide an appropriate fee for the construction company too, eh?

The jury already is supposed to decide the appropriate fee by deciding an apropriate total settlement.

Why attack the guys who actually do the work? Why not just cut to the root of the problem and limit what an actual client can receive? It doesn't make much sense to let the client get xmillions of dollars but limit the attorney's pay?

I have to wonder why lawyers are the real hated ones here. Especially when it is the golddigging, malingering clients who actually bring the cases to the law firm?

Neubob · « **Reply #12 on:** September 12, 2006, 06:38:55 PM »

I think it's because Lawyers are seen as the eternal middle-men of society. Nothing happens without them taking their cut, so, the usual question arises--why not cut them out of the equation altogether and just let society run itself without that extra expense. They don't actually produce anything, right?

I think it's a common misconception that society actually could run itself without people constantly keeping the respective sides of a dispute in check.

Elfie · « **Reply #13 on:** September 12, 2006, 06:41:07 PM »

Quote

have to wonder why lawyers are the real hated ones here. Especially when it is the golddigging, malingering clients who actually bring the cases to the law firm?

What about *ambulance chasers*?

There was a case that was publizied on television about a father that sued over a wrongful death of some sort of his wife. He hired a lawyer, won, and after attorney fees he had just enough left to pay medical bills. Now that family lives from payday to payday and the father has to have help to pay for childcare. IIRC the settlement was in the 7 figure range and ultimately the attorney made out like a bandit while his client is still worse off than before the lawsuit. Only positive thing for the client was the medical bills got paid.

Paraphrasing that btw just because it has been a few years since I saw that case on tv. It's also possible I could be forgetting some rather important information, but that's the story as I recall it.

In cases like this.....the client should be getting the vast majority of the settlement. After all, the family lost a mother/wife.....what did the attorney lose? Nada....attorney made out like a bandit in comparison to his client.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the attorney shouldn't get paid.

Shamus · « **Reply #14 on:** September 12, 2006, 06:55:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
What about *ambulance chasers*?

There was a case that was publizied on television about a father that sued over a wrongful death of some sort of his wife. He hired a lawyer, won, and after attorney fees he had just enough left to pay medical bills. Now that family lives from payday to payday and the father has to have help to pay for childcare. IIRC the settlement was in the 7 figure range and ultimately the attorney made out like a bandit while his client is still worse off than before the lawsuit. Only positive thing for the client was the medical bills got paid.

Paraphrasing that btw just because it has been a few years since I saw that case on tv. It's also possible I could be forgetting some rather important information, but that's the story as I recall it.

In cases like this.....the client should be getting the vast majority of the settlement. After all, the family lost a mother/wife.....what did the attorney lose? Nada....attorney made out like a bandit in comparison to his client.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the attorney shouldn't get paid.

Sounds like the medical bills were too high, maybe we should limit doctors, nurses, hospital maintenance and I.T. workers wages so the plaintiffs get to keep more of the awards in PI cases.

shamus