Re: unconscionable fees?

More | Report Post

I'll say a case that settles for $1,500.00 -- $5,000.00 where at least 10 times
that amount is at issue.

On 9/28/06, rrr wrote:
> secretary wrote:
>> What percentage of cases do you think on average turn out to be nuisance
> cases
>> in a typical caseload?
>
> Define "nuisance case" in a meaningful manner.
>
>>> On 9/28/06, secretary wrote:
>>>> Well, it seems like in order to get a large group of people together,
> where
>>>> each member in the group is both willing and able to risk $2-4 k on a case
>>>> analysis, you would have to get a group of people who were mostly smart
>>>> right? I mean, people who make poor decisions with their money usually
>>>> don't have a lot of money to spend. Also, foolish people do not tend to
> be
>>>> willing to spend what money they do have on "analysis." They do not
>>> usually
>>>> appreciate the value of analysis the way smarter people do.
>
> The fact that people don't want to pay for something that has value makes
> them at best "cheap" and at worst thieves. Is your theory that an ethical
> attorney should provide free services to foolish misers or risk being accused
> of being unethical? Where in the world does that makes sense? How long would
> anyone survive if they had to live off the generousity of cheapskates and
> other deadbeats?
>
>
>> So, it seems to me that if you have a lot of people paying you to do many
>> hours' worth of "analysis" on their cases, that you are probably going to
>> have some good cases in there. I don't mean all the cases.
>
> Most of the time, there are. The upfront retainer is a great barrier to
> clients bringing you bad cases. You are the one creating a fictional
> hypothetical about an imaginary attorney who never has "good cases". Its
> your stated fact pattern, but its not real. It a myth.
>
>> Also, not to be picky but it's kind of an understatement to say that
>> "routinely intentionally misleading" would be unethical, isn't it? I mean,
>> intentionally misleading even once in unethical, and fraudulent. I would
>> expect a lawyer must actively prevent himself being unintentionally
>> misleading as well.
>
> One act of intentional misleading would be unethical & fraudulent. However,
> your specific question was is it unethical for an attorney to have a
> particular business model where he/she regularily takes cases with retainers
> higher than the later settlement. Hence my use of the word "routinely". In a
> practical sense its impossible to show whether someone was intentionally
> misleading based on one "bad" case analysis, since there is no way to know
> whats in someones head. But reasonable people could infer intent from a
> pattern of behavior if in fact that pattern actually existed.
>
>
>> On 9/26/06, rrr wrote:
>>> Its the Lawyers Ethical duty to give a realistic analysis of the case and
>>> its value. If an attorney were to routinely be intentionally misleading
>>> clients as to the value of the case then yes it would be unethical.
>>>
>>> The practical problem is knowing if the attorney is intentionally
>>> misleading or not.
>>>
>>> The true value of a case cannot really be obtained without a total
>>> analysis of the factors involved. Most clients seldom give you a complete
>>> & accurate synopsis, so its quite possible that the lawyers investigation
>>> and analysis of value exceeds the value of the case.
>>>
>>> Think of it like this: a tax preparer gets paid to prepare a tax return,
>>> whether the tax return results in money owed to the IRS, or a tax refund.
>>> Either way, the time, knowledge and effort required to complete the tax
>>> return properly is the same. The client doesn't get to say... "whoa, Mr.
>>> Tax Preparer, I'm not getting a refund, your fee is unconscionable". The
>>> same is true of most pre-litigation & litigation. In a contingency
>>> matter, the attorney takes risk that after the investigation is done the
>>> value of the case will exceed a certain level. In a non-contingency case,
>>> the client takes the risk.
>>>
>>> An attorney who charges money to do the case analysis is providing a
>>> value. Even if ultimately he tells the client... "your case is crap".
>>> Thats a value provided. For some reason, the general public seems to
>>> think that Attorneys should give that value away for free, though there
>>> is no rational or ethical reason to do so. The fact that the Attorney
>>> then mitigates the clients loss by obtaining a "nuisance settlement" from
>>> the other side is something the client should be happy about, not a
>>> something the Attorney's ethics should be questioned for.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/26/06, secretary wrote:
>>>> Even when it's part of your business model to regularly recover less
>>>> than you charge? I'm not just talking about the odd client who wants to
>>>> make a statement. I mean virtually one's entire caseload.
>>>>
>>>> I would quit if I didn't like who I was working for, or if I felt I was
>>>> helping someone unethical.
>>>>