The limit has been raised…my lawyer took 50% in 2001 after we won a case . He informed me when we started the process, in 1999 or 2000 that the limit had been raised in the U.S., from 30% to 50%. And this was on top of fees for phone calls, mailings, copying, etc…an average of US$100 a month for 24 months…in the end, naturally he walked away with most of it. 
AND just as a warning, this came about because my father THOUGHT he did not need to divorce his ex-wife from whom he had been separated over 12 years. He died and she climbed back out of the wood work in search of some easy money.
I’m fairly sure in California, the contingency fee agreement between the attorney and the client can stipulate a 50% fee. So long as the agreement was made without pressure or duress, it’s fine.
In other states like NY, there’s a cap on the percentage a contingency fee could be.
Could you be any more of a hypocrite?
You do not know me, yet you made the following statement:
So tell me, how does someone who harbors such preconceived notions actually … 
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Could you be any more of a hypocrite?[/quote]
Blood always tells.
The limit has been raised…my lawyer took 50% in 2001 after we won a case . He informed me when we started the process, in 1999 or 2000 that the limit had been raised in the U.S., from 30% to 50%. And this was on top of fees for phone calls, mailings, copying, etc…an average of US$100 a month for 24 months…in the end, naturally he walked away with most of it.
AND just as a warning, this came about because my father THOUGHT he did not need to divorce his ex-wife from whom he had been separated over 12 years. He died and she climbed back out of the wood work in search of some easy money.[/quote]
Well, waddaya know? It’s been a few years since I left. Used to be the standard terms were something like this: the lawyer got 1/3 if it settled more than 30 days before trial and 40% if it went to trial or settled within the last 30 days. And as you learned, how the “costs” are paid is also critical – are they paid before or after the split. Before I entered lawschool I was hit by my truck on my bike and I sued the trucking company. The lawyer took his 40% then I took my 60% and had to deduct costs, leaving me with less money than him (as in your case), which is when I decided I wanted to become a lawyer.
I’m surprised 50% is allowed. I thought when I was in the states such a fee would have been seen as “unconscionable” and therefore unenforceable. And in recent years there’s been a backlash against lawyers and lawsuits (for example, I believe the Sup Ct issued a monumental judgment a few years ago limiting punitive damages to 9 times the amt of compensatory damages), so if anything, I would’ve expected the restrictions on lawyers to have increased. He he he. That’s good to know.
Why should the attorneys pay the cost of a case?
When you contract a builder to construct your house, you also pay for the building supplies. Mechanics bill you for labor and parts.
Why would anyone expect the attorney to pay the legitimate costs?
Could you be any more of a hypocrite?
You do not know me, yet you made the following statement:
So tell me, how does someone who harbors such preconceived notions actually … [/quote]
Ah, but therein lies the dilemma, first I am not a lawyer and I don’t advertise my services to the public. And second, but most importantly, I never judged whether lawyers actions where right or wrong or called names (or did I?). I merely pointed out the facts as I saw them although they may be wrong.
Yes, comrade stalin, blood always tells…and you should hear what my parents (well obviously only mom these days) has to say about lawyers…unlike them, I am more forgiving. (and I struggle against my ignorance hence you will notice some of my posts actually show a willingness to accept things that I formerly would not accept). Besides, I am sure that although Tigerman comes across as quite a prick when responding to my posts, he is probably a fairly nice guy. And Comrade, I believe you and I have actually agreed once or twice as well.
Peace be with you.
Sure lawyers should be fairly compensated; however, 50%? And you don’t think cause lawyers to push for higher rewards?
And what does the 50% cover if not mailing, phone calls, etc.? We never had a trial. He never had to leave his office. A lexus-nexus search was the most he had to do…well and dictate letters…which I had to pay for. (BTW, I still think he’s a nice guy on a personal level but what the hell did he do? Oops, he treated me to dinner since it was the biggest case his firm had handled that year… )
For the sake of accuracy, here’s some information about contingency fees in the US.
NY Moves to Limit Attorneys’ Contingency Fees
[quote=“By Daniel Wise, New York Law Journal”]According to Lester Brickman, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a legal ethics expert who strongly backs the proposal, about 20 states, including New York, have rules limiting attorney’s fees in contingency cases to one-third of the recovery. New York and California also have laws creating sliding scales for recovery in medical malpractice matters, so that in cases where there is a large recovery, fees are limited to somewhat less than 33 1/3 percent, he said.
In the remaining states, Mr. Brickman added, contingency fees are unregulated, but accepted norms, which vary in different communities, range from one-third to one-half.
[/quote]
Further reading on contingency fees in the US can be viewed in this article in the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization Vol 19, No. 2.
Here’s a link to how the Western Australians view contingency fees.
Besides the obvious back-tracking…
[quote=“Vannyel”]
Sure lawyers should be fairly compensated; however, 50%? And you don’t think cause lawyers to push for higher rewards?
And what does the 50% cover if not mailing, phone calls, etc.? We never had a trial. He never had to leave his office. A lexus-nexus search was the most he had to do…well and dictate letters…which I had to pay for. (BTW, I still think he’s a nice guy on a personal level but what the hell did he do? Oops, he treated me to dinner since it was the biggest case his firm had handled that year… 
)[/quote]
So, did you and this lawyer sign a contingency fee document that would spell out what it is that you would be paying him for upon conclusion of your case? If so, and it’s spelled out, then … :eh:
[quote=“Yellow Cartman”]For the sake of accuracy, here’s some information about contingency fees in the US.
NY Moves to Limit Attorneys’ Contingency Fees
[quote=By Daniel Wise, New York Law Journal]According to Lester Brickman, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a legal ethics expert who strongly backs the proposal, about 20 states, including New York, have rules limiting attorney’s fees in contingency cases to one-third of the recovery. New York and California also have laws creating sliding scales for recovery in medical malpractice matters, so that in cases where there is a large recovery, fees are limited to somewhat less than 33 1/3 percent, he said.
In the remaining states, Mr. Brickman added, contingency fees are unregulated, but accepted norms, which vary in different communities, range from one-third to one-half.
[/quote]
Well since my lawyer was a professional and above reproach, I can only say he took the maximum allowed by state (Oklahoma) and federal law – 50%. Yes, it was clearly spelled out and I have no complaints concerning his legal fees; however, I do believe this practice inflates settlements, etc, and only fuels the litigation process in the U.S.
I like the way, most drivers settle minor accidents between themselves and don’t engage lawyers or the legal system in Taiwan. A scratch is a scatch and doesn’t require major surgery or a lawyer or a policeman.
In theory you appear to be correct, Tigerman, that attorneys shouldn’t pay the costs, but it didn’t occur to me when I (still a naive non-lawyer at the time) signed a retainer agreement with my lawyer that after I gave the lawyer 1/3 or 40% of the loot, then subtracted the costs from my cut, that he would actually receive more money than me. And I was the one who suffered a broken arm, stitches in my head, a night in the hospital and many weeks of recovery. He did diddly and he got more than me. If you’ve been in that situation you’d understand how wrong it feels.
I now realize, what most clients do not realize, that attorney fees like everything else in the world are negotiable. So, while your argument makes sense in theory, a client could tell the attorney, “I’ll sign the agreement if you change it so that costs are deducted from the money recovered before it is split between us.” Or the client can say, “no, it’s an easy case, how about splitting it 25/75?” The lawyer can take it or leave it. Of course extremely few clients would ever think of saying such a thing, but there’s no reason they can’t. There’s no reason a client must accept an outrageous deal, just becasue the lawyer proposes it (FWIW, I think a 50/50 cut is such an outrageous deal and I’m sorry Vannyel accepted it; I wouldn’t).
What dilemma?
I don’t advertise my services either…
You just a few posts ago called me a liar.
You don’t know me and you have never seen my work and you have never received a bill from me for services. Thus, what facts about me and my work and character have you “seen”?
[quote=“Vannyel”]Sure lawyers should be fairly compensated; however, 50%? And you don’t think cause lawyers to push for higher rewards?
And what does the 50% cover if not mailing, phone calls, etc.? We never had a trial. He never had to leave his office. A lexus-nexus search was the most he had to do…well and dictate letters…which I had to pay for. (BTW, I still think he’s a nice guy on a personal level but what the hell did he do? Oops, he treated me to dinner since it was the biggest case his firm had handled that year… )[/quote]
I think 50% is too high.
In any event, if the work your attorney did for you was so insignificant, why didn’t you handle the case by yourself and keep all the money?
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]In theory you appear to be correct, Tigerman, that attorneys shouldn’t pay the costs, but it didn’t occur to me when I (still a naive non-lawyer at the time) signed a retainer agreement with my lawyer that after I gave the lawyer 1/3 or 40% of the loot, then subtracted the costs from my cut, that he would actually receive more money than me. And I was the one who suffered a broken arm, stitches in my head, a night in the hospital and many weeks of recovery. He did diddly and he got more than me. If you’ve been in that situation you’d understand how wrong it feels.
I now realize, what most clients do not realize, that attorney fees like everything else in the world are negotiable. So, while your argument makes sense in theory, a client could tell the attorney, “I’ll sign the agreement if you change it so that costs are deducted from the money recovered before it is split between us.” Or the client can say, “no, it’s an easy case, how about splitting it 25/75?” The lawyer can take it or leave it. Of course extremely few clients would ever think of saying such a thing, but there’s no reason they can’t. There’s no reason a client must accept an outrageous deal, just becasue the lawyer proposes it (FWIW, I think a 50/50 cut is such an outrageous deal and I’m sorry Vannyel accepted it; I wouldn’t).[/quote]
Sure. But, when you negotiate so that the Attorney pays the costs, what you are really negotiating is that he accept a lower fee.
Why sorry? This was negotiated between two consenting adults who had the faculties to make this decision. No one pointed a gun to Vannyel’s head and made him sign a lousy deal. His raising this issue is only after-the-fact biatching.
I say, this is an example of why education is important. Slightly more educated and experienced attorney took an uneducated small country person to the cleaners.
Life’s a bitch and you keep on living.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]In theory you appear to be correct, Tigerman, that attorneys shouldn’t pay the costs, but it didn’t occur to me when I (still a naive non-lawyer at the time) signed a retainer agreement with my lawyer that after I gave the lawyer 1/3 or 40% of the loot, then subtracted the costs from my cut, that he would actually receive more money than me. And I was the one who suffered a broken arm, stitches in my head, a night in the hospital and many weeks of recovery. He did diddly and he got more than me. If you’ve been in that situation you’d understand how wrong it feels.
I now realize, what most clients do not realize, that attorney fees like everything else in the world are negotiable. So, while your argument makes sense in theory, a client could tell the attorney, “I’ll sign the agreement if you change it so that costs are deducted from the money recovered before it is split between us.” Or the client can say, “no, it’s an easy case, how about splitting it 25/75?” The lawyer can take it or leave it. Of course extremely few clients would ever think of saying such a thing, but there’s no reason they can’t. There’s no reason a client must accept an outrageous deal, just becasue the lawyer proposes it (FWIW, I think a 50/50 cut is such an outrageous deal and I’m sorry Vannyel accepted it; I wouldn’t).[/quote]
I only accepted it because:
I had been turned down by several lawyers before.
I was out of state.
This lawyer was a newbie and looking to make a name so he wanted the case.
My stepmother is a dumb bitch and would have won if she had continued her appeal; although in all honesty she would have gotten only a couple of thousand after fighting it for two years.
It was a matter of principle to me, I would have gladly paid more just so she wouldn’t win…complicated but my father expressed his desire that his ex-wife (or separated wife) not benefit from his death so I tried to limit that has much as possible.
On other forums, I have discussed my family background – a brief recap, my father was basically an illiterate man, he went to change his beneficaries and the secretary screwed up (telling him all was in order when it was not). He died a week later. After burying him, I had to contend with an aunt and his (ex-) wife fighting for money that he wished to go to his six children. I filed several papers with the court until I was able to secure a lawyer (my delay tactics…and it worked). I turned it over to the lawyer and have not regrets. I would have given him 100% as long as he could have stopped either of these gold diggers from getting anything. Sad, but true. I am not complaining, merely stating facts. Unfortunately my siblings didn’t feel the same way but that is irrelevant, I had control of the issue…now are you really for the really sad part…we were fighting over US$30,000! Yes, less than a year’s salary if you had a decent job in the U.S…in the end, the lawyer got US$15,000 and each child got less than US$2,000…don’t forget the mailings, calls, etc. that had to be paid for…oh, and the bitch stepmother got a few thousand just to stop an appeal. Yes, it was a federal case.
Exactly. And why not? Actually, I didn’t propose that the lawyer pay the costs; I proposed that the lawyer/client team pay the costs jointly before dividing the loot. When you think of it that way, maybe it’s not so unreasonable. The injured client has an opportunity to make some money, he approaches the lawyer to see if he’s interested in pursuing it. Both are putting something into the deal (the client’s opportunity; the lawyer’s efforts), so it’s not unreasonable for both to share the costs of pursuing it, before allocating profits.
Alternatively, the prospective client can simply prospose a 30/70 split or any other alternative, but in more than a dozen years of practice I don’t believe I’ve seen more than 1 or 2 clients make a counter-offer to a contingency split. Maybe they should (lawyers are plentiful and if it’s a good case the client can easily find alternative counsel), but it just doesn’t occur to them (partly because clients are usually naive about contractual matters, and they may feel the lawyer is an authority with whom one listens and doesn’t bargain, and they may be disoriented, worrying about their stressful problem, so they pay insufficient attention to the terms of the retainer). But, as I said, attorney fees like everything else in life should be negotiable.
edited: sorry, walked in on someone else’s cyberscreaming match.
What dilemma?[/quote]
The dilemma of me being a hypocrite.
I don’t advertise my services either… [/quote]
So you sit at home and do nothing all day. Congratulations.
You just a few posts ago called me a liar.
[/quote]
Did I? I believe I said, if you say otherwise then you are a liar. You proceded to say otherwise and therefore you fulfilled that. You could have just as easily agreed with me and then you wouldn’t call yourself a liar. Either way, I retract the statement, you are a liar, just a lawyer.
You don’t know me and you have never seen my work and you have never received a bill from me for services. Thus, what facts about me and my work and character have you “seen”?[/quote]
True and I have given you the benefit of the doubt after having only read your posts but you on the other hand seem determined to portray me as something I am not.
[quote][quote=“Vannyel”]Sure lawyers should be fairly compensated; however, 50%? And you don’t think cause lawyers to push for higher rewards?
And what does the 50% cover if not mailing, phone calls, etc.? We never had a trial. He never had to leave his office. A lexus-nexus search was the most he had to do…well and dictate letters…which I had to pay for. (BTW, I still think he’s a nice guy on a personal level but what the hell did he do? Oops, he treated me to dinner since it was the biggest case his firm had handled that year… )[/quote]
I think 50% is too high.
In any event, if the work your attorney did for you was so insignificant, why didn’t you handle the case by yourself and keep all the money?[/quote][/quote]
Because, as I am sure you well know, a simple mistake in a filing can work against you. My first couple of appeals to the court won the judge’s sympathy but I doubt if he would have been willing to sit through many more. Either way, whether 50% is high or not, it can be demanded in the state of Oklahoma and if you have no other options (well aside from losing) then you have to pay it.
Do you know what either of the words “dilemma” or “hypocrite” mean?
Piss off, asshole.
You stated:
Idiot…
And what is it that I am attempting to portray you as?
Grand master Brian,
Congratulations on the book. :bravo:
Regarding your below comment. . .
. . . here’s a timely news story for your next class (in Texas the prosecution will even blatantly lie in an attempt to get people executed):
[quote]Andrea Yates, the mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub, had her murder conviction overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled that a key witness misled the jury by inventing testimony about the TV series Law & Order.
Ms. Yates, whose first trial became a national media circus, will get a new trial. Now 41, she is confined to a prison psychiatric ward.
Her insanity defence may stand a better chance of succeeding because Dr. Park Dietz, the Texas prosecutor’s only expert witness, has been discredited.
Dr. Dietz lied under oath when he claimed