KOB
Forum Supporter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 5,763
What does chewing on a turd and dealing with a lawyer have in common?
They both leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Because the lawyer is worse.
"Warning"Change in 2022. tax laws
- Thread starter Coin-Saver
- Start date
Because the lawyer is worse.
Yes, they do.
Hiring an attorney is like hiring any other business. They have experience and overhead. Electric bills, licenses, taxes, etc... They also have support like paralegals and other professionals they pay. They are also required to pay for and complete a number of "Continuing Legal Education" hours per year to keep their license to practice. When they skim that 1/3 off the top they're not running to the bank and depositing it into their personal bank account.
You will not get nearly the same amount in a personal injury settlement if you tried to settle yourself vs having a good attorney. They know and understand the laws and know how to get the most. When the attorney charges you a percentage of the settlement, it's in their best interest to get the settlement as high as they can, which benefits you because it maximizes what you get.
A good example of this is when my wife was a child (1980's). Her and her mother were in an Amusement Park accident when a ride failed. They both suffered multiple broken bones and other injuries, and spent time in the hospital. They did not hire an attorney and settled with the Amusement Park on their own. The amusement park paid the medical bills, wrote them a check for $2k, and gave them a family pass for the next season.
When I was a child (again 1980's), my mother slipped on ice in a parking lot and broke her tail bone. She did hire an attorney and after all fees/medical bills were paid she ended up with a check for $25k.
So, 2 people get hurt and end up with $2k with no attorney, then 1 person gets hurt and ends up with $25k with an attorney. To this day, my wifes family regrets not hiring an attorney. Sure, the circumstances of each accident are different but my wifes family would have gotten a lot more compensation if they hired an attorney.
It's our choice to hire an attorney if needed. I hope I never need to but I won't hesitate if the time comes. But I agree, they are not always fun to work with!
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
HHhhhmmm, yet who picks up the phone and calls these "scum sucking pigs", when they need to engage in some complicated legal affair (like suing stores for tripping over a box, etc...) ?
Answer : WE DO ! We ourselves call these lawyers, OF OUR OWN FREE VOLITION AND CHOICE ! And then later, turn around and gripe ? Ok, you're more than welcome to represent yourself. You're more than welcome to find a lawyer with fees to your liking (they don't all have identical rates).
And as far as "only caring about money" : It seems to me that, unless you're in a business other than your hobby/pleasure, that, YES: Working for a living is about (gasp) : Money. For example: I have a street sweeper business. Why do I do it ? Is it about the pleasure I derive ? Or is it about the money I make ? I got news for you : It's not pleasurable managing this fleet and drivers and customers. I (gasp) do it for the money. It's that evil phenomenon called: "Working for a living"
And we still take it in the backside.
I have absolutely no faith in the legal system, and even less in a Lawyer.
Greedy B@sturds that couldn't care less about what is right, only how much money can be made. Lowest morals of anything on 2 legs.
How about taking money they didn't earn just because they can legally do so? If ripping people off is their idea of "making a living" then yeah, they suk.
And no I wouldn't call one. That is where I got my experience with these pinheads in the first place.
Example. I have a pending case now. It was only supposed to take 6 months at the most, but because the lawyer found out I have a pending hernia MESH case, they have kept my other case open for going on 2 years now hoping I'll get a settlement and they can get their grubby little hands on it. I asked just last week why my case has not been closed after 2years when it was only to take 6 months. I was told straight out, by the secretary, that they have kept it open hoping I'd get my settlement on the hernia. I'm the one who suffered for 12 years with a faulty MESH, and they are happily going to scarf up every bit of it they can.
My only chance at salvaging my retirement from the COVID chaos is my hernia settlement which is being grabbed by 2 greedy lawyers.
Last edited:
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,794
Saker, here's another way to resolve the issue of whether : It's hard-work on the part of Lawyers :
If someone thinks it's easy work, and obscene easy profits , then the solution is simple : Since it's so easy, why isn't a bunch more people rushing to do it ?
Trust me, if there were "easy paths to riches" (no schooling required, automatic obscene profits, etc...) then EVERYONE would be rushing to take that job.
I personally know a person who passed the bar, and tried to enter private practice. Gave up after a few years d/t didn't get enough business, in whatever particular arena of law they had schooled in. Thus no: Not all lawyers are guaranteed success.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,794
If you call paying for a good or a service, to be "taking it in the backside", THEN SURE : We all "take it in the backside". And we (everyone), do it of our own free choice and free will. You have the free-will choice to call no lawyers. But you freely choose to avail yourself of their services. Therefore : What's your point Detector ??
Welcome to the human race. Welcome to the world. It is only worse in other countries (where there is much worse inequity, corruption, lack of blind justice, etc....). In most of the rest of the world, for example, if you slip in the store, or slip on ice in the parking lot, you are going to be told "Look where you're going stupid".
Doesn't our system appoint defense lawyers (or allow you to get your own if you can afford it ?). So if that purchased or appointed lawyer felt that you, his client, is most-likely a guilty scum-bag, should they opt not to represent your case ? If so, then gauranteed : We would all (yes, even you) be screaming that we can't get a fair trial. The system would be accused of "making up its mind before a trial even started".
Thus there is no choice for ... yes ....... even scumbag criminals who are not-in-the-right, to get a defense. Otherwise, you would see even LESS justice in the USA.
How do you figure they "didn't earn it" ? What do you think they were doing for the last month leading up to the trial ?
Ok, perfect. You're being consistent with your stance. Bravo. It's a free country and you're welcome to represent yourself, if you have a better grasp of the bureaucratic steps.
Wait ?? I thought you said you won't ever call lawyers ?
And had you handled the malpractice lawsuit all by yourself, it would have been done in 6 months, with a higher amount in your personal pocket. Right ? Thus : Why didn't you opt for the route of doing it yourself ?
Mechanics don't need to gamble to learn their trade. Your example is irrelevant. Now, if you mentioned the mechanic's debt from going to vocational/trade school, that would be an apt parallel.
And yes, a person's debt load is relevant, as it affects how much money they have to earn to pay the bills, which could include student loan payments.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,794
Interesting. I just assumed that shopping around would get you a cheaper lawyer.
Then here's what that means : JUST LIKE ANY OTHER INDUSTRY : It's going to charge "what the market will bear". Ie.: Supply & demand.
For example: For our heavy equipment, let's say we are getting $175 p/h. If I am overblown with demand (ie.: no shortage of customers, and I'm having to turn down work), then I might raise the rate to $200 p/h. Oh sure, perhaps some of the customers will bristle, and find another vendor down the street who will do it for $175.
But if that guy "down the street" is smart, and sees that I am not lacking for business even though I'm charging $200 p/h, then ..... YOU CAN BET he's going to be tempted to raise his rates to perhaps $195.
Supply & demand market forces work like that. Theoretically, if enough aspiring college law students saw the obscene going-rate of 1/3 (that you speak of), then any of them could graduate, and float their shingle at 1/4 commission.
And the reason that no one's doing that, is because once they graduate, they apparently have enough clients perfectly willing to pay 1/3 (just like my heavy equipment example). Thus THEY TOO will "charge what the market will bear" . If they lack clients, then sure: They can opt to go down to 1/4.
In my business, we look with disdain on those that have dropped their rates to $150 p/h, in an attempt to entice clients away from us. And in most all cases, a few years later, we see those clients come back to us, with their hat-in-their hand, remorseful that they chose the cheapie fly-by-night outfits. That ended up breaking down, doing poor jobs, etc....
Thus the "going rate" tends to find its own point via natural forces. And if there's easy money to be made, then : People will gleefully study to be a lawyer and charge less. Supply & demand. Works the same for lawyers as it does for heavy equipment and any other trade or service.
ebay doesn't charge the seller for sale taxes, only the buyer. As for selling fees, eBay makes it pretty clear the seller has to pay them and how much it is.
As for the medical bill portion of the settlement, I agree, it should be listed separately...or at least explain in a way your friend can understand and follow the money. But it's still going to be part of the settlement amount. Depending on the terms, settlements are just lump sum amounts that people agree on. Sometimes, the parties will negotiate for certain amounts to be for attorney's fees and costs, lost wages, noneconomic damages, etc. But that's because of limits that might affect how large settlements can be or get paid out.
For example, there might be a law or policy limit on Damage Type A, but no such limit on Damage Type B. So the parties mention in their settlement for most of the damages to be allocated to Damage Type B. There might also be tax implications, too. But in many cases, such allocation doesn't matter. Money in the bank is money in the bank.
As for your friend "never seeing" the medical bill reimbursement, I don't know enough to say for sure what went on there. It's possible your friend's attorney helped pay those medical bills. But that could be a violation of ethical rules...depends on the state and applicable case law.
It's also possible that the attorney took the money and forwarded it to the medical provider. It's like when selling a house when you have positive equity in your home. Your realtor doesn't always give you a check for the amount of the selling price for the house. Instead, they take their commission, the portion to pay off the bank, then your check is what's left over. But this should be fully disclosed and made obvious to the client.
I'm not defending the attorney, but I'm saying that based on what you've said so far, we can't conclude your friend's attorney was unethical.
Wrong...and incomplete.
Lawyers will take cases for any number of reasons.
First, it's a favor to a friend. The attorney knows it's a loser, but agrees to take it on to "stock up on silver bullets" or favors for use later on. This might be a favor from the client...or if the case is a referral, to save up a favor for their fellow professional.
Second, they take the loser case b/c of a "referral arrangement." For example, I know some plaintiffs attorneys who took loser cases because they came from a "feeder business." For every 1 good case that got referred to the attorney, there were 4 bad cases. But the attorney took all 5 so they ensured they got the next good case the next time it came up. In the end, the attorney came out head.
Third, the attorney agrees to take the loser case out of principle. Usually, this is done pro bono, but some plaintiff's attorney have causes they want to promote and therefore will take a case they otherwise wouldn't based on an economic perspective.
Fourth, the attorney wants something besides money. They think that even if they lose the case, it'll get plenty of media attention, which in the long run, will lead to more profitable cases in the future.
Fifth, the attorney is willing to gamble. They take the 1 in 10,000 case in the hopes that if thtey win, they can make a TON of money.
But you're right, many PI attorneys will focus on winner cases...or cases that may not necessarily win at trial, but has a decent chance of getting a settlement. But in this case, the attorney is operating a "volume based" businesses. But that still won't always stop an attorney from occassionally trying to hit the home run and accept the increased number of strike outs.
Don't forget, there's also something called a "nuisance settlement payment" where insurance companies for defendants will pay some amount of money to make even meritless cases go away. Depending on the case, it could be several thousand to several tens of thousands of dollars. So an attorney may take A LOT of loser cases in the hopes that most of them lead to nuisance settlements.
Wow, way to generalize.
Sure, there are a lot of greedy and ruthless lawyers out there. But there are also alot of them who aren't motivated by money, but by principles.
A lot of lawyers work public interest and civil rights. Trust me, those lawyers aren't really motivated by money.
But based off what you said, none of it makes sense. Why would attorney A have the legal right to money from case B? Based on the facts you've given, they wouldn't. Of course, I know you don't need to hash out all the details for my sake to explain what's going on here. But what I'm trying to say is that your example is so incomplete it doesn't make the point you want it to.
You can always file a complaint with the state ethics board. There's a chance your attorneys are trying to screw you over...I don't mean to imply it never happens.
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
I don't mind paying for goods & services, what I do mind is when they find out I stand to get some money, they change their "services" to have a chance to get their grubby little hands on some, instead of the amount originally settled on. A process that was only to take 6 months, now stretched out to over 2 years just waiting on my settlement That is my point.
My divorce I got custody of the 3 kids because my X worked in a bar at night and had a drug problem. I was given custody and didn't ask for a penny in support. Lattery my X moved back to her Dad's farm to dry out. She met a guy. Things looked stable. She asked me if she could have custody to get to know the kids again. I thought farm life would be good and made the bad decision to turn custody over to her because we were struggling. During the court hearing to turn custody over it was agreed by everyone, including the Judge, that I was not to pay child support. I was written in the agreement. Three months later I get a call from the state lawyer that tells me I'm looking at your court records and I see you don't pay child support, and I'd like to know why. I told him if you're looking at the report you know why. He says well we have decided you will. They started garnishing my check for $700 a month, in the 90s $700 was a lot of money, This lawyer ignored the judges order and made his own.
Latter when my oldest son turned 19, and my other son wanted to move in with me and my daughter would stay with her Mom, we thought that should cancel out any child support so we went to court to have the case reviewed. The lawyer told the Judge he could leave and he would take care of things. The X, her new husband, and I were all in agreement there should be no child support, but the state gets a percentage of collected child support, so he told us after reviewing my case they have decided to raise my child support $236 a month. Even my X's jaw dropped. I put my check Stubb on his desk and said if you raise it another $236 I wouldn't have enough for me to live on much less one of my kids. He looked me dead in the face and said "Mr Adams, I'll raise it another $1,000 if I want to." We left it like it was. I paid child support because some greedy lawyer wanted to get their share.
He didn't do zilch on my hernia case and didn't earn one single penny, but he sure is first in line with his hand out if my hernia case settles.
They're paid so I don't have to represent myself, but so far every case I've had I'd been better served representing myself.
That was before I learned my lesson of how worthless they are. I know better now.
No, I was told, by other layers, that my case should have only taken 6 months, and that even a year was ridiculous, much less 2 years.
I made my share of bad decisions. The worst is hiring a lawyer expecting them to look out after my best interests and represent me. The only interests they care about is themselve, and only represent themselves.
If you're not using hyperbole and your attorney(s) truly left your best interests by the wayside, then file an ethics complaint. If what you're saying is actually true, your attorneys could get into trouble. Maybe it'll only be some private letter of reprimand. But if they're screwing you over, they're probably screwing other clients over. And maybe they're already on probation or w/e with their respective state bar association and all it takes is one more complaint to get their license suspended.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,794
detector, after reading your list-of-woes, it sounds like your life didn't take the best bends and turns. Ouch. And if truly were at the bad ends of all-those-sticks, through no-fault of your own, then ...... Ouch.
If you could have navigated the legal system better without representation, then that makes you the exception . The average person is not a specialist in those fields. And thus needs to call for legal help.
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
Unfortunately mh9162013, it is in fact true. It probably isn't this way everywhere, I just happen to live in a small town where they get away with it. My issue is I can see getting a bad deal now and then, but every time I have dealt with the legal system, and or a lawyer I have gotten screwed. EVERY TIME!!!
I had a guy lose control of his car and hit me a few years back. He was clearly at fault as the tracks in the road showing. The cops show up and the female officer calls the other guy by name and asked about if he went to some party the other night. Well I knew that wasn't a good thing. She didn't take any pictures and told the other guy he could leave. Kansas is a No Fault state. Then she tells me she was going to issue me a citation for "Inattentive Driving" WTH? I said what are you talking about. She told me it was just "standard procedure". Well, my Stepdad was a police officer here for 35 years and retired as the Chief Of Police so I knew something wasn't right, and I also knew better than to argue with an officer. I figured I'd deal with it when I went in to plea.
I went to the city building and told the lady I plead not guilty. The city prosecutor happened to be standing there and asked me why. I showed him my picture and evidence proving he had lost control and hit me. The prosecutor said well this is what's going to happen. I will have to call in an officer and pay them overtime, the judge will see that you got a citation and the judge always sides with the officer and you will be charged for it all, or, I'll make you a deal. If you plead guilty I will drop the charges. I told him I don't feel right pleading guilty to something I didn't do, he just repeated again, if you plead guilty I will drop the charges and nothing will go on your record. I plead guilty, he pulled out the paper and marked it closed, and did not go on my record. Nothing but crooked SOBs.
And that is just one of many such dealings with the legal system and lawyers. Yeah, they're not one of my favorite types.
Sounds like that's an example of the DA screwing you over. You know why? Because you didn't have a lawyer. But assuming for a moment having the best defense attorney wouldn't have helped you in that case, there's also the fact that there's a "good ol' boys network/club" hard at work. And that's an indictment on human psychology and culture, not lawyers.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,794
Correct. Welcome to the human race. Some people are nice, fair, charitable, etc..... Others are not. That includes, you, me, lawyers, doctors, teachers, plumbers, etc....
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
I know I shouldn't paint all lawyers with the same brush, but I'm just saying in my case I have yet to see one with morals. I know they say Justice is meant to be blind, but when you live in a "Good-ol-Boys" city, it's hard not to be biased.
I've always asked myself what kind of person takes a job where their main objective is to try and find a loophole, or a mistake made to get a guilty person off? I mean knowing that your client has killed someone, but you're able to find a loophole that gets video evidence thrown out, and the guilty go free and you call yourself clever, what kind of person does that?
A criminal goes free because of a technicality found by the lawyer, even though everyone knows they are guilty, and they commit another crime and blame the legal system and not the lawyer who got them freed. Easy to blame a system that can never be fault-free when there are people so willing to look in every crevice for a reason to set the guilty free. Their job should be to make sure their client gets a fair trial, not look for loopholes to get the guilty freed.
I've always asked myself what kind of person takes a job where their main objective is to try and find a loophole, or a mistake made to get a guilty person off? I mean knowing that your client has killed someone, but you're able to find a loophole that gets video evidence thrown out, and the guilty go free and you call yourself clever, what kind of person does that?
A criminal goes free because of a technicality found by the lawyer, even though everyone knows they are guilty, and they commit another crime and blame the legal system and not the lawyer who got them freed. Easy to blame a system that can never be fault-free when there are people so willing to look in every crevice for a reason to set the guilty free. Their job should be to make sure their client gets a fair trial, not look for loopholes to get the guilty freed.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,794
Detector, what you have to realize is that this system you decry, is the very system that makes the USA the most likely place to get a fair shake at justice !
Because of the ying-&-yang of the very system you decry (that strains at gnats, etc...). Because trust me : The prosecution lawyers are trying JUST AS HARD to close those loopholes. They are trying JUST AS HARD to anticipate lame defenses, to prepare to counter them.
So that by the time it's over : NEITHER side can say they didn't have a fair shake at putting the guilty behind bars, or defending the innocent.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,794
And if you think about it, these statements are LOADED with default implicit starting premises.
For example you saying "....everyone knows they're guilty....". Ok, so what you're saying then is : We don't need prosecutions OR defense. Because, gee, "we" (who is the "we" praytell ?) already know they're guilty.
Well gee, if it's that simple, how silly of us all ! This ambiguous "we" of yours can just simply whisk them off to jail. No trial, no nothing. Because, gee, after all, we already know. Eh ?
You should study the plot of the screenplay "12 Angry Men". Those jurors already *knew* the 18 yr. old punk was guilty. And were anxious for the court proceedings to be over. So that they could end their jury duty obligation and get back home. After all, it was *obvious* the punk was guilty. So the 12 jurors paid no attention to the lawyers bickering. And waited anxiously for it to be over, so they could vote "guilty".
Are you familiar with how the screenplay ended ?
