Davita

I would guess the settlement was based on whatever the lawyers could get out of it and not what the victim got.

dave_j

I wonder how long the lawyer queue was outside the hospital room and how many nurses have gone on holiday since having netted an unexpected windfall.

Almost Canadian

US lawyers in such cases typically receive a percentage of the settlement, as costs are not awarded, as they would be in the UK or Canada.

I suspect that the lawyer was less concerned about the amount he received for this particular case, and was more concerned with the raising of his profile that inevitably resulted, and likely saw this as a loss leader.

dave_j

Lawyer... Loss leader... A non sequitur.

Not sure this one would have been pro bono...

Almost Canadian

As in, he didn't charge the client at all, or he didn't charge the client up front?

dave_j

If the case was taken as a loss leader then presumably any charge from zero to below what would have been the normal rate could be considered as such.

I doubt the case would have been taken at no cost, so perhaps pro bono might not have been appropriate.

Almost Canadian

If the lawyer thought he would get lots of clients as a result of his profile being raised, I can see that he may have elected not to have charged this particular client.

If he wanted to charge him then, typically, they ask the client to sign a contingency fee agreement that requires the client to hand over a percentage of their settlement. The amount taken increases depending upon steps taken and reflects the additional risks taken by the lawyer.

If the client wishes to pay the lawyer an hourly rate, the client assumes all the risk but keeps a larger share of the reward. However, as costs are not normally awarded in the US, this would appear to be a false economy.

dave_j

Absolutely, in such cases it is no longer in the interests of the lawyer to both argue to settle quickly or to argue to obtain for the highest settlement. In such cases you are relying on the integrity of the lawyer to do what he is being paid to do. A quite substantial risk.

Almost Canadian

A similar risk is assumed when asking a plumber to fit a new bathroom, or an engineer to design a new bridge, a financial advisor when deciding how to make investments, or a doctor when undergoing surgery.

dave_j

The risk I was referring to was one of malpractice not competence.

Where lawyers are paid by the hour, there will always be the temptation to, as Parkinson so rightly put it, to expand the service provided to fill the time available irrespective of the quality of service provided. Unlike the plumber, but like the doctor, they place themselves in a position of understanding that Joe Public just isn't in a position to question and this can be exploited. It is sometimes difficult to obtain redress from the legal profession itself.

Stinkypup

I sometimes think that you are seek the worse in everyone, amazingly most lawyers and doctors are honourable and work in the interest of their clients/patients- but "we would say that wouldn't we?"

spouse of scouse

It's sad to see any industry/profession maligned in its entirety. I've been guilty of it myself, off the cuff remarks without putting any thought into them. I think the main drivers are adverse personal experiences and the media/public furore when individuals bring their profession into disrepute.

Similar but different, I've been surprised by the strength of anti-landlord sentiment in the UK. That there are some rotten landlords is unquestionable, but there are also those of us who care a lot about their tenants and wouldn't offer anything less than a safe, immaculate and well maintained property.

The old 'bad apple' thing, I guess.

dave_j

Not so, if you follow the thread you'll see that the post that seems to have ruffled a few feathers is this of mine 'Absolutely, in such cases it is no longer in the interests of the lawyer to both argue to settle quickly or to argue to obtain for the highest settlement. In such cases you are relying on the integrity of the lawyer to do what he is being paid to do. A quite substantial risk. '.

I think this is quite clear. Now most of us try to keep away from involving lawyers where we can but when it's necessary we rarely have personal knowledge of the professionals involved and we have to rely on personal integrity to ensure they behave as they should. But human nature and the profit motive always introduces a risk.

I think that when we employ others to do what we are unable or unwilling to ourselves then it is only prudent to treat them and what they do with caution. We all make mistakes and like it or not there are those out there who are not what they appear to be, whether this applies to honesty or competence.

AC mentioned risks offered by the bridge engineer. Actually very few bridges fail and there's a very good reason for this. As a design engineer all of my calculations were checked line by line by another engineer of equal or better standard. Calculations were then signed off by a senior engineer whose job it was to maintain standards and ensure that both design engineers unsertood what they were doing. The system works. I have met some in other professions who have reacted very badly to requests for second opinions.