I’m an average guy with a simple life–no children, no spouse, no alimony, no criminal record outside of car stuff. That said, I know bad things happen, and I’ll admit that my conduct wouldn’t always pass muster if I were an LDS missionary. What are the advantages to retaining the services of an attorney, as opposed to finding one should I need one?
A good friend of mine is an attorney. He is also my attorney. I’ve used his services for a few necessities over the years. For me, it is kind of like having a AAA membership. Hope you never need it, but if you do. . .
Other than being familiar with your attorney, I can’t really think of one. I ran into some trouble and found myself in lock up about ten years ago (innocent, all charges dropped) and had to get an attorney on the spur of the moment. Thinking back, I can’t say that it would have been any different of an experience had I had him on retainer vs getting him as needed. If I had him on retainer I am not sure what that would have done, as like you I never needed an attorney before that day. I would suppose that having an attorney on retainer would cost money, probably money that most middle class Americans can’t afford.
Speaking of which, how would a retained attorney even work in a situation when his/her services aren’t needed? Would you pay the lawyer a yearly fee to be on call when you needed the service? If so, what would be the point? I would hope that the average lawyer would work as differently for you no matter if you just hired him or if you had some past affiliation.
I don’t know if it’s Kosher, but sitting around talking over beers, I asked my attorney if I should have him “on retainer”. I bought the next round, and in exchange for that he accepted my offer and I can now say I have an attorney on retainer.
One thing to bear in mind is that attorneys specialize. The attorney who’ll be best at helping you with writing your will may not be the one you’d want handling prenuptial agreements or divorce proceedings or the one you’d want defending you in a criminal trial. You’re probably better off to do some thinking about what sort of legal services you’re likely to need eventually (real estate law, tax law, estate law, family law, accident/injury claims, etc.), and then research the local law firms to find out who’s best in each of those areas. In your case, putting an attorney on retainer is probably overkill.
YMMV – this is a specific deal I have with someone who I know socially in addition to professionally.
Retainers aren’t just for the rich anymore. I have one and I’m closer to poor than most folks would find comfortable. Basically for a yearly fee (which I lose every year like dues in a club) I get his emergency number and (within the allowable canons of the law) anything I tell him is under priviledge as we have a standing relationship with him as “my” attorney. Whatever situation I find myself in, I can make it someone else’s concern in a matter of minutes. Should I get myself into a mess he can’t handle (he isn’t a criminal lawyer – although on some level all lawyers are in a manner of speaking 
), he can stall until he finds the best available.
Like someone else said with AAA (although maybe its more like a handy firearm) I may never need it but its good to have in my wallet.
“Retaining” an attorney means you are paying him a retainer, or a deposit against future work. Paying a retainer when you have no anticipated need is simply throwing money away.
In 75% of the foreseeable non-criminal situations in which you’ll need an attorney, your insurance company will retain one for you. In most of the others (say, family or criminal law issues) there’s really no reason for the average person to have one.
Additionally, although it’s not unusual or bad for a lawyer to insist on a retainer to be engaged, all it means is they’re making you pay up front.
In other words, if you meet with your lawyer and he asks you to sign an engagement letter laying out your legal relationship and it says you’ll be billed monthly once they do some work, you’re not paying a retainer, but that’s a positive thing.
It’d be like if you called a plumber and he said he needs a $5000 retainer to get started, then he bills against it as he fixes your toilet. Once the $5000 is gone, if he does more work he sends you a bill and you pay more money. Nobody would try to get in on this deal, as opposed to the normal deal for plumbers, where you get a bill after they do the work.
If you are in business and don’t have an established relationship with an attorney it can be a good idea. You may not have much time to find an attorney when you have a contract to sign. However, if you’re going to be in business, establishing a relationship with an attorney is a good idea anyway.
The only problem is that your interests and those of your insurer aren’t necessarily, shall we say “coterminous.” For example with auto insurance, I don’t know what the current standard is, but it used be 100/300k which IIRC was $100k per person and $300k per incident. I’m sure someone will let me know if I screwed that up. The point is, if you happen to be worth significantly more than that but didn’t pay much attention when you got your policy, or let’s say you’ve just been renewing your policy for years and never reviewed your coverage, your insurer’s interest in you ends at the policy’s liability limits. The interest of the plaintiff’s attorney however may not.
Sure, but if you are involved in an auto accident, the insurer’s attorney will take the immediate steps necessary protect your interests, even if only as an incident of protecting the insurer’s interests. If it turns out that your liability will exceed the policy limit you will have weeks if not months if not years before the situation reaches the point where you need your own attorney
Find one at that point.
Having never been a litigator, I can’t speak with authority, but as I recall, that isn’t always the case. The early parts of an investigation for example maybe critical later at trial, if not in establish liability outright, then contributory negligence. So having someone come in years after the fact may be of limited value.
edit: since that may not be clear as to the divergence of interests, let’s say that you have limited coverage that will obviously be exceeded. Your insurer will therefore expend only limited resources on your behalf in the investigation.
In practice I think the scenario where:
1/ there is an accident that results in an immediately recognisable very high potential liability;
2/ the insurer appoints a lawyer to take steps to protect their (substantial) layer, but
3/ that lawyer doesn’t take certain extra special steps that would be justified by the value of the uninsured layer; and
4/ those are steps that have to be taken so fast you don’t have time to find your own lawyer, but which could have been taken by a lawyer you have on retainer
is hugely unlikely. Invest the money you would have spent on a retainer on a bet on a horse race instead. It would have far more chance of paying off.
Well, that was the only example I could think of off the top of my head. I suspect an experienced PI (personal injury) attorney could probably regale you with examples.
However as a practical matter, it’s likely that you would be correct as a matter of betting the odds. Not only would the plaintiff’s attorney have to look at the difference between a certain recovery from the insurer and the ‘squishier’ value of the defendant’s assets, but consideration would also have to be given to what would probably be the not inconsiderable effort involved in attaching and recovering those assets. And the sad fact is, at least in my limited experience, many PI’s are quite lazy.
Personally I wouldn’t rely on that fact since it’s not always a game of straight odds but of weighted outcomes. A low probability outcome that has a very high cost, may be worth protecting against. Perhaps having an attorney on retainer isn’t the best choice of protection, but it’s certainly ALWAYS best to be as circumspect as possible.
OK, I’ll go stand in front of a mirror and regale myself, shall I?
I can’t speak for other jurisdictions, but in Florida (and most US jurisdictions) the duty to defend extends beyond the policy limits (which in many cases are much lower than $300k; the legally sufficient lower limit here is $10k for bodily injury). In other words, your insurer can’t just throw out the policy limit and wash its hands. It still has to provide you with representation, and it can’t settle a claim without your approval.
If your interests do diverge with the insurer’s, it has to provide you with your own attorney, too.
True, but what sort of defense will you get? Let’s say, just to put a sharp point on things that the claim is for $1M and coverage is only for $100k. Sure, the insurer will represent you and you will get the best representation justified by a $100k claim. While that may be the same representation justified by a $1M claim, I wouldn’t want to bet on it personally.
Acknowledged, Princhester Esq.
The cost of litigation is generally dependent on the facts of the case, rather than the amount at issue. A medical expert or accident reconstruction costs the same regardless of how much the case is worth. If you mean a lawyer isn’t going to work as hard on a $100k case, it doesn’t really work that way. Insurance defense attorneys are paid by the hour, not based on how much they save the insurer or whatever.