Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like all professional's, there are some bad apples in the legal community. Unfortunately, many of them get all the press.
2 months I met with my attorney. She updated my Living Trust, Will, POA for Health Care, and POA for Finances. She knew about some changes tax-wise that will affect me. Advised me on setting up a Special Needs Trust for a niece, etc.
Worth every penny. I could not have done these things on my own, and I am blessed to have a trustworthy, ethical, honest and brilliant attorney.
How about those huge billboards one sees out west along the major roads: "Personal injury? Get what you deserve. Call 888-SHARK-LAW for a free consultation." That's the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name and promote a general reputation of sleaze.
If the population were so wild about lawsuits as you suggest, such billboards would not exist. They are simply proof that you were wrong in your beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
If they're "all flat broke" then how do they continue operating?
Many of them don't. The ones you seem so impressed by are non-profit pro bono efforts that target low-income and indigent clients and provide legal information much more than legal representation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
But, now, when you say "hefty tax increases", what do you mean, exactly...
There isn't any way to tell exactly. The system you suggest has not been well specified and there are exactly no metrics about it available for examination. But we could probably take a few hundred thousand dollars per case as being a start point, then try to guess how many cases there might be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
...since obviously you know so much more about it and have done all the calculations. This man in the street is clearly uneducated so please help me out here.
Well see, that's a problem. Since this is your proposal, YOU are the one who should have gone through all this and reasoned it out.
No it wouldn't. It would remove the most frivolous cases from the courtroom. A typical plaintiff is a corporation, not an individual. There are lots of people who shout, "I'll sue!" at the drop of a hat. But if they had to pay for that suit, they'd think twice.
Oh... what about all those people who are taken advantage of by large corporations? Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Frivolous lawsuits have sucked the country dry, and now all those David-versus-Goliath cases have to pay the price.
Why not work on an hourly basis, so you'll get paid regardless of win or lose? Lawyers will be more willing to take losing cases, but their wins and losses should be a matter of public record. If Joe Sleazo says he'll take your case at $250 an hour, and your handy Check-Your-Lawyer app on your phone informs you that he's lost 18 out of 20 cases this year, then maybe you should just go somewhere else. An ethical lawyer would advise you to settle, or mediate, or something.
Legal representation should not be about profiteering and winning the lottery. It should focus on providing a professional service for a fixed fee. Only then can we start to weed out the sleazy operators and restore some real accountability to the profession.
What you're proposing is truly a bad idea. The contingency fee allows poor and middle income people a means to hire lawyers for some cases. Otherwise, they would be unable to do so without placing a mortgage on their home.
The hourly fee for legal services maybe the most abused way of charging in this country. Its wonderful to get paid whether you accomplish anything or not. However, in the real world clients expect results just like most bosses expect results from their employees. The contingency fee is a way of guaranteeing that lawyers use their time wisely and file no more lawsuits or motions than they absolutely have too. The incentive is more the lawyer to do more legal work than he/she has too.
Of course, legal representation is about "profiteering". Practicing medicine is about 200 and 300 hundred thousand dollar a year incomes for physicians. Engineers expect to be paid and so does every person with an occupation from dishwashers to college professors. There is nothing wrong with being paid. Its how we all afford to live and feed our families. If you think a lawyer is overpaid there is a simple solution: Don't hire him.
The hourly fee for legal services maybe the most abused way of charging in this country. Its wonderful to get paid whether you accomplish anything or not. However, in the real world clients expect results just like most bosses expect results from their employees.
Of course, legal representation is about "profiteering". Practicing medicine is about 200 and 300 hundred thousand dollar a year incomes for physicians. Engineers expect to be paid and so does every person with an occupation from dishwashers to college professors. There is nothing wrong with being paid. Its how we all afford to live and feed our families. If you think a lawyer is overpaid there is a simple solution: Don't hire him.
No there is nothing wrong with being paid however all I have to say at this time that in my current
situation, the county has taken guardianship of my mother and since the agencies involved and
all the attorneys (interesting that they are all from the same law firm) are bleeding her finances
dry. They are parasites who are lining their own pockets in a corrupt system that I never thought
was possible in the US. The fiduciaries have not filed a senior property tax exemption, the utilities
are being paid late, if her name is even mentioned a fee is charged and I had to pay big bucks
just to be able to visit her and call her on the phone. I wouldn't say overpaid regarding these
attorneys, but I would say they are hogs at the trough.
What you're proposing is truly a bad idea. The contingency fee allows poor and middle income people a means to hire lawyers for some cases. Otherwise, they would be unable to do so without placing a mortgage on their home.
The hourly fee for legal services maybe the most abused way of charging in this country. Its wonderful to get paid whether you accomplish anything or not. However, in the real world clients expect results just like most bosses expect results from their employees. The contingency fee is a way of guaranteeing that lawyers use their time wisely and file no more lawsuits or motions than they absolutely have too. The incentive is more the lawyer to do more legal work than he/she has too.
Of course, legal representation is about "profiteering". Practicing medicine is about 200 and 300 hundred thousand dollar a year incomes for physicians. Engineers expect to be paid and so does every person with an occupation from dishwashers to college professors. There is nothing wrong with being paid. Its how we all afford to live and feed our families. If you think a lawyer is overpaid there is a simple solution: Don't hire him.
Physicians save lives, help people maintain good health, administer treatments to contain and treat disease and injury. To compare the work they do with what personal injury and malpractice lawyers do is laughable and contemptible.
I'm ok with my doctor making a good salary (however she does not make what she deserves for the number of hours she puts in). I'm ok with your doctor making top dollar, and you ought to be, too. In fact you'd better hope your doc is well paid. What kind of health care would you be getting from someone who's making $10 an hour?
Lawyers who work on contingency are paid on an entirely different scale. Nothing if they can't win, a huge jackpot if they win. Is this how professional highly trained people should be compensated? It seems to me that this system encourages an abusively profit-oriented mentality that demeans the profession. I can't express this any more plainly so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
As for the argument that contingency is necessary because otherwise the poor would never get legal representation, that's like saying guns are necessary because otherwise thieves would never be able to rob stores. There's no ethical upside to contingency. It's just a way to maximize profits, and the poor is a lame red herring. Lawyers aren't in it to help the poor. God, if anything they're in it to fleece the poor out of every last cent.
I'm no lawyer (dear old dad always felt I should become one, which I've always felt was mildly insulting) but have three in the family. One in particular has done very well for himself by founding a legal mediation firm in the Midwest back in the 1980s when mediation was a new thing. Sit two parties down in a room, negotiate a solution, sign a contract after 8 hours and they're all done. He makes $1000 and keeps them out of court. Obviously this is civil law, not criminal law. The other lawyers around town hated him. Their interest is to have long, protracted court cases. His interest is to keep people out of court. What a concept! I wish more law firms adopted this approach.
Physicians save lives, help people maintain good health, administer treatments to contain and treat disease and injury. To compare the work they do with what personal injury and malpractice lawyers do is laughable and contemptible.
There is nothing contemptible about it at all. Obtaining compensation for accident victims in the USA is not an automatic process. I run into literally scads of people who don't know where to start. I have one client who struggled for 4 years to get an insurance company to pay what he was truly owed before he was forced to obtain a lawyer and go to court because the statute of limitations was just about to run out. Those who think "its simple" have never had to fight with an insurance company or a corporation (with its legions of attorneys paid by the hour). These folks will cling to any straw or half-baked notion and use it as an excuse to avoid paying what's due to an injured person. If insurance companies wanted to put accident attorneys out of business they could do it a fortnight, simply by approaching accident victims immediately after a mishap and offering to pay all medical bills and out-pocket expenses. Perhaps, a few lawyers could still "hang on", but it would be a very small group. Accident lawyers exist and perform a valuable function in this society, largely because insurance companies and American business have refused to do the "honorable thing" when that opportunity was open to them. In other countries, a universal health care system pretty much guarantees medical bills get paid. Not so, in the USA. People have to look to their own resources to do so and this has created a situation where innumerable people are forced to see a lawyer.
Quote:
I'm ok with my doctor making a good salary (however she does not make what she deserves for the number of hours she puts in). I'm ok with your doctor making top dollar, and you ought to be, too. In fact you'd better hope your doc is well paid. What kind of health care would you be getting from someone who's making $10 an hour?
What kind of legal services would you get from someone earning $10 an hour? You may disagree with what the legal profession does. However, you can't disagree that society requires lawyers to undergo a competitive process to get into law school and than spend three years obtaining that degree. At that point, a lawyer must pass the bar examination in his state. Than there are years of practice involved learning the practical use of the law to obtain results for clients. Unlike medical education, legal education is in no way subsidized by the state. Obtaining a means to pay for medical services may ultimately be as important as those services themselves.
Quote:
Lawyers who work on contingency are paid on an entirely different scale. Nothing if they can't win, a huge jackpot if they win. Is this how professional highly trained people should be compensated? It seems to me that this system encourages an abusively profit-oriented mentality that demeans the profession. I can't express this any more plainly so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I've done it for years and feel that I what I do is far more ethical than lawyers who charge clients $250 an hour for their services whether they "win, lose, or draw". Some corporate clients are becoming tired of the way that the hourly fee is abused and are demanding different fee arrangements with attorneys. Some of the fee structures are based on results, rather than time spent working on a case. Its the hourly fee structure that encourages "an abusive profit-oriented mentality" not a contingent fee arrangement which encourages efficient use of legal resources and talents. If any of my middle class clients wanted to pay me by the hour to work for them, I'd be happy to consider such a plan. Not one has ever suggested such an idea to me in thirty years of legal practice. Yes, we profoundly disagree on this subject. Considering the fact that not one out of fifty states has barred the contingent fee, my opinion seems to the be one accepted by the vast majority. Until you have a realistic plan in place for the poor and middle class to pay for an attorney, talk about abolishing the contingent fee is simply silly. BTW, expanding Legal Aid for the poor is a highly unrealistic plan. Congress continues to cut approaching for the Legal Services Corporation which provides some money for modest legal services to the very poorest people in society. They are going one way and you are going another.
Quote:
As for the argument that contingency is necessary because otherwise the poor would never get legal representation, that's like saying guns are necessary because otherwise thieves would never be able to rob stores. There's no ethical upside to contingency. It's just a way to maximize profits, and the poor is a lame red herring. Lawyers aren't in it to help the poor. God, if anything they're in it to fleece the poor out of every last cent.
I resent your generalizations and downright ignorance here. You apparently have no clue just how many poor and middle class people I have successfully represented over a thirty year legal career. I have some who have written testimonials for me. I have a web site where one wrote me an unsolicited recommendation. These people are entitled to decide for themselves (just as you are) whether to hire me or pursue a case on their own. They are entitled to decide with me what fee agreement between us is appropriate without intervention from someone who obviously doesn't understand the process at all. This is called freedom of contract. It has no less meaning in the context of legal services than any other financial arrangement between a customer and a professional person. Its fascinating to me that while you accuse lawyers of "fleecing the poor" that others accuse of us of "redistributing wealth" to them. Have it one way or the other, ok, but you can't have it both ways.
Quote:
I'm no lawyer (dear old dad always felt I should become one, which I've always felt was mildly insulting) but have three in the family. One in particular has done very well for himself by founding a legal mediation firm in the Midwest back in the 1980s when mediation was a new thing. Sit two parties down in a room, negotiate a solution, sign a contract after 8 hours and they're all done. He makes $1000 and keeps them out of court. Obviously this is civil law, not criminal law. The other lawyers around town hated him. Their interest is to have long, protracted court cases. His interest is to keep people out of court. What a concept! I wish more law firms adopted this approach.
From your first post it was clear you were not a lawyer. You certainly have the right to an opinion. Its just that it is a poorly educated one. I have news for you. The courts and the bar association in most states are actively pushing "mediation", "arbitration", and all sorts of alternative dispute resolution processes. Courts maintain lists of volunteer attorneys who will often serve as mediators at no charge. I have even had a panel of three distinguished attorneys serve for no compensation during an arbitration that last half a day. You aren't suggesting anything new or anything that is revolutionary. Many lawyers would love to employ alternative dispute resolution methods because we have clients who have a desperate need to get a case resolved because of unpaid medical bills and lost wages. The problem is we face batteries of well paid lawyers hired by insurance companies who use this fact to try to "grind down" our clients and make them take far less for their cases than they should.
I welcome opinions from people outside profession that are informed and balanced. My bar association always makes a point of having people from other walks of life serve on our policy making board because we realize that lawyers don't have a monopoly on wisdom. Some non-lawyers have been the most supportive people in terms of seeing the value of the contingent fee in giving lower income people access to the court system. What none of us welcome though are those who simply gripe and complain about the legal system while offering nothing that would resemble a workable alternative to an imperfect, but functioning system.
What none of us welcome though are those who simply gripe and complain about the legal system while offering nothing that would resemble a workable alternative to an imperfect, but functioning system.
In other words, lawyers are thin skinned and can't stand criticism, even constructive criticism which has been provided in heaps in just this one topic.
Glad to hear you're so proud of your profession. Unfortunately, your profession is regarded rather poorly by the general population. On some charts they're right at the bottom.
I would even venture to say these rankings are unfair and are based on the actions of a few who have sullied the profession. I know a lot of lawyers who are perfectly nice, ethical, decent people that I would trust to handle my affairs. You, I don't know--your postings reflect a contemptuous, supercilious attitude toward people not in the "priesthood". The ones I like are the ones who can joke about their profession, who accept that there are problems, who recognize that there's a lot of room for improvement.
Physicians save lives, help people maintain good health, administer treatments to contain and treat disease and injury. To compare the work they do with what personal injury and malpractice lawyers do is laughable and contemptible.
If an infant is injured through a doctor's or hospital's negligence and as the result faces a lifetime of high-cost support and medical treatment, do you think doctors and hospital staff are going to take up a collection for that infant? No. It will be a lawyer who makes sure that a means for obtaining that support and treatment is provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Lawyers who work on contingency are paid on an entirely different scale. Nothing if they can't win, a huge jackpot if they win. Is this how professional highly trained people should be compensated?
It's the same way real estate agents are compensated. Big jackpot when they sell a house they listed, but they have to be just as nice and helpful and thorough with all those clients that they never make a penny off of. Are you mad at real estate agents as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
It seems to me that this system encourages an abusively profit-oriented mentality that demeans the profession.
It seems to me that you are simply too much impressed by partisan smear campaigns and large numbers in the newspaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
As for the argument that contingency is necessary because otherwise the poor would never get legal representation, that's like saying guns are necessary because otherwise thieves would never be able to rob stores.
No, that isn't the same thing at all. And I'm quite sure you knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
One in particular has done very well for himself by founding a legal mediation firm in the Midwest back in the 1980s when mediation was a new thing. Sit two parties down in a room, negotiate a solution, sign a contract after 8 hours and they're all done. He makes $1000 and keeps them out of court. Obviously this is civil law, not criminal law. The other lawyers around town hated him.
If the other lawyers around town hated him, it was far more likely to have been because of his demeanor on the golf course than the fact that he was doing mediation work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Their interest is to have long, protracted court cases. His interest is to keep people out of court. What a concept! I wish more law firms adopted this approach.
Man-in-the-street standards for "long and protracted" are apt to be worse than irrational. You can't write a PhD thesis over a long holiday weekend either. Mediation was meanwhile almost 1500 years old by the 1980's. It is a topic studied in all law schools, many of which run real world mediation clinics. The legal profession is about conflict resolution. There are many means to that end.
The lawyer that supported 3 illegals that hit us while we were stopped at a red light, and tried to sue us for damages and hospital bills, unethical.
The celebrity lawyer supporting the guy on the bike that got run over by the Range Rover in NYC not too long ago, unethical.
The lawyer supporting the two criminals in the Connecticut case where the father survived, mother was raped and killed, and the two daughters assaulted and killed, is scum as well.
There is no amount of money you could give me to stand behind some of these people.
If an infant is injured through a doctor's or hospital's negligence and as the result faces a lifetime of high-cost support and medical treatment, do you think doctors and hospital staff are going to take up a collection for that infant? No. It will be a lawyer who makes sure that a means for obtaining that support and treatment is provided.
Yay! Lawyers to the rescue!
I think you'd be much more likely to get apologies and support from caregivers if they weren't afraid of being sued. Fortunately, another state has made it OK to apologize without fear of retribution. Notably, the Bar Association opposed this law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
