To cut a very long story somewhat shorter, I am currently the plaintiff in a medical negligence case. When I first realized that I might possibly have a claim against some medicos, I contacted a number of law-firms who do the No Win No Fee stuff, but because of the back-log of cases they had, they wouldn’t even give me an initial consultation about my claim.
So, I got to, and filed the case all by myself…coming up against courtrooms and judges and beligerent solicitors for the other side. It was a freaky time (because I lacked ANY sort of legal background) but I managed to scrape through…just.
Finally, today, I officially retained a solicitor AND a barrister to see my case through. I had to sign various papers about the fees they would claim, and BY FUCKING JESUS, they can CHARGE!!
Between them they hit me for $430 per hour as consultation, plus when they rock up in court, they’ll be charging $2000 per appearance PLUS all the miscellaneous costs that go along with the case.
I know I’ll only have to pay this shit if the case wins, but even so…any wonder medical insurance is so damned high. It’s not that the ‘victims’ are getting such huge payouts…it’s the bloody lawyers taking MORE. (In my particular case, the hoped-for payout (if I win) is but one-third of the costs of my legal representation).
I couldn’t agree with the OP more. My ex-wife and I had a very agreeable divorce (we’re still friends) and when we split, we did the paperwork ourselves. It was very simple since we completely agreed on the property split and had no children. Even though we did all of the paperwork correctly, the judge gave us hell for not getting lawyers.
Please keep in mind that I agree that some people do need lawyers and it would be a mistake to go it alone in their cases. But ours was so straightforward and everything came out fine. I got the feeling that the court system is a racket to make you depend on a lawyer for everything that happens in a courthouse. Perhaps the judges are taking care of their lawyer buddies. You know, the ones they eat lunch and play golf with.
Maybe the next time I go to the restroom in a courthouse I should retain a lawyer to hand me the toilet paper.
Sheesh…
Ummm, really? Your claim will be one third of legal costs? Either you have a really small claim or…
I do some personal injury defendant work (as little as I can possibly get away with) and from what I’ve seen, a plaintiff’s lawyer would usually charge maybe 1/3 or less of the damages.
Can you believe they charge $250,000 for a Lamborghini Diablo!! That’s just patently ridiculous on its face!
OP, you, sir, are a twit. Just because you can’t afford something or think that it’s too expensive doesn’t mean that it is too expensive. Just like every other business, lawyers charge what the market will bear, so by definition their fees are not “too high.”
From my experience, most attorneys charge 1/3 of the settlement if you are working on a contingent fee basis. Any expenses related to the case (court filing fees, fee to serve the complaint on the defendant, court reporters if depositions need to be taken) are paid by you. These are things that the attorney has to hire someone to do, and is simply assessing you for the bill they paid on your behalf. A lot of attorneys are nice enough to hold all those costs until the end and take them out of your lump sum settlement.
Generally, if the attorney is not willing to take the case on the contingency fee basis, it’s because he/she does not feel you have a strong of a case as you think you do.
This is just a general consensus from my experience, and is not “the rule” by any means…
In civil litigation, lawyer’s fees are the tax that people must pay for being unreasonable.
Admittedly, one side or the other could be being unreasonable, rather than both. At least in Canada, the costs rules (costs follow the event) are designed to even this out, and put the cost where it belongs.
Two parties want to avoid legal fees? Couldn’t be simpler: just agree to settle out of court. Doesn’t cost a thing to negotiate.
As for kung fu lola’s comments: since they are talking about contingent arrangements, it matters not how rich or poor the plaintiff is - if you have a good claim, a lawyer will take it on without charging anything up front. Of course, he or she will take a big chunk if he or she wins. Why not? He or she is risking the cost of losing - i.e. not being paid for potentially a lot of work. It’s called a risk premium, and any sane person would do the same.
Of course, you need money up front to pursue a frivolous or otherwise losing claim. But I don’t think anyone will argue that people have some sort of inherent right to pursue worthless litigation.
What really bites it that I have heard that the US doesn’t have the same costs rules. If true, this is a bad idea.
My lawyer charges $150.00 per hour, but he’s pretty nice to me. He said, “I did your will–I know what you can’t afford,” so he doesn’t nickel and dime me on stuff. But this custody case is just raging on to the point where a hit man definitely be cheaper (just kidding, I don’t really want my ex dead–it’s just a little fantasy of mine that gets me through the rough times )
On the contrary, TaxGuy’s post makes perfect sense. The legal system exists for both rich, comfortable, and poor. But, like nearly everything else in the real world, the rich have certain advantages.
Things cost. Lawyers do not work for free, or, indeed, even work for whatever amount you feel as though they should earn. Like almost everyone else, they work for as much money as they can convince someone to pay for their services. It irks me that Latrell Sprewell makes more money than I do. In my view, I am substanitally more valuable than he. But since the teams of the NBA continue to focus on such irrelevancies as free-throw percentage and ability to chalk up triple doubles in games, and ignore such things as my winning disposition and kindly manner, I am forced to accept my pittance of remuneration and hope for better days.
What you earn depends upon your perceived value to the paying customer. In the criminal world, the government provides a lawyer even if you can’t afford one. In the medical malpractice world, you must pay your own way.
Are you contending that lawyers should be forced to work for less money than they could earn in a free market?
My wife is a lawyer. You would not believe the enormous mountains of paperwork that go back and forth between the various parties and the court. Last weekend her office paid me to take about half a shipping pallet worth of files to their storage unit. A couple months before that they had me take a similar amount there. Mind you, this is a small firm with just 3 lawyers and 2 other employees. All this paperwork doesn’t write itself.
Really? You don’t have contingency lawyers in Australia? They are a dime a dozen in the U.S.; IIRC they usually take about 1/3 of the settlement as their fee. What I think you’re forgetting is that when a lawyer agrees to take a case on contingency, he is taking ALL the risk. There is a hell of a lot of work that goes into preparing a lawsuit, and they can drag on for a long time. If you lose, the lawyer gets nothing for all his time and effort. He has to charge more because of the risk incurred. Lawyers are highly educated and work hard. Why shouldn’t they be compensated for their work?
I’m sorry for the problems you’ve had, and I hate to say it, but - He who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer.
It IS a small claim Princhester, not one of those big Slater and Gordon mesothelioma-type claims I’m afraid. Nothing publicity-worthy or demanding of mult-million dollar payouts, alas.
.
Yes, I want the service. Yes, I am prepared to pay for it. No, that doesn’t mean I can’t whinge about how high the fees are.
Actually, my initial point was more about how the exorbitantly high costs of liability insurance (and lawyers themselves complain about their premiums as well you know) can be attributed to the costs involved in litigation…the payouts to plaintiffs are almost mere pocket money in comparison.
And sure, the market can ‘bear’ it, but for many people (who CAN’T manage it) recourse to legal assistance (and therefore justice) is not available, especially in civil matters. That is not the fault of individual lawyers of course, but the way the system has developed to advantage those who can pay ‘up front’ (and thereby negotiate the fee) vs those (like myself) who necessarily avail themselves of the ‘contingency’ agreements and incur a 25% surcharge on the already high standard fee. But I’m prepared to suck it up, because without a contingency agreement, I would NEVER be able to access legal representation at all.
I still don’t understand. I’ve dealt with more medium/small sized personal injury claims than I care to admit and the plaintiff’s legal costs (insofar as I find out what they were, I always act for defendants) are maybe 20 or 25% of the claim, usually, even if the claim is only, say, $20k.
2/3 of the amount you recover going to your lawyers seems rather high, to say the least.
This is simply factual not even in the ballpark.
Firstly, as I say above, if your legal costs situation is as you say, you are getting a very bad deal. That may be because your claim is very very small and not really worthwhile, but nonetheless, your situation is not typical. Most of the time, legal costs would form only a minor percentage of the amount paid out on a med. neg. claim.
Secondly, even if legal costs are high and contribute substantially to insurance costs (not really true) that is not a reflection of lawyers profit making, which is a drop in the bucket.
If I charged nothing on top of my actual costs (staff, floor space etc) and paid myself a paupers wage only, legal costs would drop by a few percent only. Mostly, legal costs are high because the legal system is byzantine and fighting a case takes a lot of time and resources.
I have legal insurance as part of my (UK) house insurance. It doesn’t cost me much and I’ve never had to use it, but it has helped me when challenged to take something to court - I said, “Fine, I have legal insurance.” and they immediately caved.
)