Lawyers and their fees

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Elfie
In cases like this.....the client should be getting the vast majority of the settlement.

As Vudak pointed out, the plaintiff's got the ability to negotiate the contigency fee. 25%, I believe, is on the low end of the average, and for the big cases, it can be lower. Yes, it is quite possible that this lawyer was a crook, but he did nothing that his client wouldn't have known about in advance and agreed to before dollar one was allocated.

The biggest issue with ambulance chasers, I believe, isn't their cut, it's their eagerness to grab the settlements without fighting it out. Financially, this is the best thing to do, for the client as well as for the lawyer, because even in the event of a big jury trial victory, awards aren't garuanteed, and could take years to pay out. Settlements comprise the vast majority of civil trials for this reason, and judges, believe it or not, push for them much of the time.

[Holden McGroin]

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

The lawyers accept the jury's decision on the outcome of the case and the amount of the damages, why would they not be qualified to decide the value of the lawyers?

Evidence could be presented...

[Elfie]

the plaintiff's got the ability to negotiate the contigency fee.

In the few cases where I have needed an attorney, I wasn't given an option to negotiate the percentage. It was a set fee and if I didnt like it I could go elsewhere.

Yes, it is quite possible that this lawyer was a crook, but he did nothing that his client wouldn't have known about in advance and agreed to before dollar one was allocated.

From what I recall of the story, even other attorneys were shocked at this outcome. The client could have shopped around for a different attorney I suppose. From what I recall, the father wanted to go with a different attorney part way through the process, but the attorney was charging some pretty high hourly fees and the man couldnt afford them.

Wish I could recall more of the specifics of this case. You guys likely could shed alot more light on it if I could.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Evidence could be presented...

It would require a whole seperate trial to then figure out the worth of the lawyer, which goes against one of the directives of our judicial system--efficiency. As it stands, the test of his worth is in the case itself. He wins, he gets paid a percentage, so his fee is decided by his effectiveness already. The amount of the settlement is also one of those factors that's more or less out of the lawyer's hands. He can prove damages, he can add them up, he can propose punitives, but, in the end, the jury decides, and even then, the judge can always modify.

If, however, you feel like you got screwed by the attorney, there's always a potential malpractice case in it, where you, with the help of, yes, another lawyer, sue your first lawyer for various infractions. This is also on a contingency basis, generally, but the fact is, nobody is ever litigation-proof, which tends to keep lawyers on the right side of the law, if not ethics.