Re: unconscionable fees?

More | Report Post

You guys are so willing to catalogue what you percieve to be others' shortcomings, and
so eager to represent yourselves as geniuses when you are approaching someone else's
legal problem.

But when it comes to your own obligations, everyone suddenly has an I.Q. of 100 and a
reserved approach to discourse.

I'm not trying to slander the legal profession but this thread certainly doesn't
reflect very positively on it, and that's not because of me.

On 10/10/06, secretary wrote:
> I don't disagree that a client may feel their case is worth more than it actually is.
> My definition said $15 - $50 k or more "at issue" not "in the mind of the client."
> And by "at issue" I mean reasonably at issue, that is, the facts likely show
> liability in that amount. Nor have I suggested that all clients with nuisance cases
> regard their cases to be insignificant. So, although I agree with what you say, I
> do not think these points touch any of my points at all.
>
> To re-iterate, I have not suggested that lawyers work for free or that lawyers are
> shysters or anything like that.
>
> Just to clear the air on this point that keeps coming up, allow me to say that I am
> well acquainted with the concept that a lawyer could have a client or three that is
> unhappy due to some unrealistic expectation on the part of the client, or due to
> some unexpected development in discovery, due to the fact that the client is just an
> unsatisfied litigious sort of person, or any number of other reasons.
>
> What I am asking is whether there is any way some lawyer could end up with 95&37;
> nuisance cases without something going wrong on the lawyer's part.
>
> It's easy to imagine cases where something did go wrong on such a lawyer's part.
> Maybe the lawyer failed to adequately notify the clients of the risks involved and
> that is why he has so many nuisance cases in his caseload. Maybe the lawyer failed
> to adequately investigate the client's claims and got unnecessarily surprised in
> discovery. Maybe the laywer screwed up the cases by failing to be vigilant in
> drafting the complaint, or conducting outgoing discovery. These are just a few
> possibilities of how it could be the lawyer's fault that he has 95&37; nuisance cases.
>
> Now, what I am asking, is is it possible that the lawyer could end up with 95&37;
> nuisance cases in his caseload without some sort of negligence on his part? This is
> sort of a sociology question, as I see it. I mean, are there really that many
> clients out there who have a nuisance case, a willingness to prosecute that nuisance
> case, and the money to do so? Or is there some other way, like for instance a
> change in the legal climate, to explain this?
>
> And, as part of investigating this question, I also posed a question of what a
> typical percentage of nuisance cases are in a typical attorney's caseload.
>
> On 10/09/06, rrr wrote:
>> Thats a weird definition of "nuisance case" saying something is a nuissance case
>> after the fact based on the amount of settlement. A case where $15000 to $50,000
>> is at issue is pretty meaningful to the average person. However, just because
>> $50,000 is at issue doesn't mean a case is worth $50,000, or even $15,000, or
>> anything for that matter. A client may think they were wrongfully deprived of
>> $50,000 and the facts may show no liability.
>>
>> I don't think you have a meaningful point, you just seem to want to slander the
>> legal profession.
>>
>> On 10/02/06, secretary wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>