Retaining an Attorney - What Are the Advantages?

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by deltasigma
Then it would appear that one of us is incorrect. However I think the notion that a firm in the employ of an insurer would handle a case several orders of magnitude greater in terms of claim amount IDENTICALLY to the lesser claim is sufficiently ridiculous on it’s face so as not to require an appeal to authority for validation.

Most insurance companies very aggressively fight small PI cases, in part to discourage such claims by making plaintiff attorneys work like Hell in cases where their fee will be relatively small. Also, insurance defense attorneys are paid hourly and will do as much as they can to defend any case if the time is billable. I’ve seen $20k cases defended better than some $2M cases. In general, there are good and poor defenses at every level. However, sue the insurance company directly, and you’ll soon see the best attorneys money can buy.

[deltasigma]

@Procrustus

Most insurance companies very aggressively fight small PI cases, in part to discourage such claims by making plaintiff attorneys work like Hell in cases where their fee will be relatively small. Also, insurance defense attorneys are paid hourly and will do as much as they can to defend any case if the time is billable. I’ve seen $20k cases defended better than some $2M cases. In general, there are good and poor defenses at every level. However, sue the insurance stomp any directly, and you’ll soon see the best attorneys money can buy.

YOU I can agree with since a) yes, fighting nuisance suits long ago became a priority for insurers and b) as I said, there will never be a mathematical relationship between claim amount and quality/zealousness of representation.

I mean my point was really rather innocuous I think so I’m not really sure what issue was. You don’t take a $5k slip and fall as seriously as a jet crash in the everglades. You just don’t. Everything in between is on a continuum more or less by definition - except to the extent that there are countervailing factors. I don’t really see the problem there.

[StusBlues]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

A retainer agreement is typically instituted when there is an actual, ongoing matter in existence. You pay the retainer and the attorney works on your case, as set forth in the engagement letter/retainer agreement.

A generalized retainer, that is, where I pay you some money and then you exist as my attorney (even if there is no particular matter pending) is an artifice of television (to initimate that the character is formidably rich, powerful, and litigious). It doesn’t really happen in the real world.

Some people, real estate developers, movie producers, etc., will have need to consult with an attorney on a variety of matters from time. The retained attorney will make it a point to learn his/her client’s business and the like. Outside of these specialized circumstances, the average person, who works in a typical employee context, who has no outside business concerns, will not need to retain an attorney absent a particular matter. And once the matter is the concluded, the unused portion of the retainer will be refunded and the retainer agreement will end.

It is free of charge to have some idea of well-regarded attorneys in your locale who might want to engage should certain eventualities come to pass.

Very clear. Thanks!

[Princhester]

@deltasigma

I mean my point was really rather innocuous I think so I’m not really sure what issue was. You don’t take a $5k slip and fall as seriously as a jet crash in the everglades. You just don’t. Everything in between is on a continuum more or less by definition - except to the extent that there are countervailing factors. I don’t really see the problem there.

This doesn’t really give an accurate impression of how it works. There may be a continuum but it isn’t linear, at least in my defendant insurance world. Spending on nuisance level suits is kept fairly low. However, once it gets over the “nuisance level” suit and into the “substantial” range, then the insurer’s lawyers are doing pretty much as good a job as they would ever do. Their level of effort is not rising linearly with the amount at stake. The $100/300 range you mentioned above is into that territory. Then, once you get into megabucks territory there is sometimes scope for lawyers to start employing very expensive “heroic” measures, if their client so instructs.

So whatever point you may have, it is of no real world consequence. The insurer’s lawyer will fight the insured’s corner as hard and as well (and probably with more specialist skill) than any general lawyer the insured might have on retainer. If a claim is for megabucks and exceeds the policy limit then perhaps in theory the insured might wish expensive heroic measures to be taken that the insurer won’t pay for. It’s a monumentally unlikely scenario, and anyway unless the insured is very wealthy they won’t be able to afford those heroic measures so the point is moot.