Ken Fortenberry wrote:




The Ohio case in question was settled out of court, why would an out
of court settlement in North Carolina necessarily be any different ?

i have little knowledge of ohio practices. when i tried to access your
chicago trib site, it required a registration of some sort, so i bailed.
i assumed it reported a bizarre chicago circumstance. i have no ****ing
clue what might happen in that place - but i wouldn't be surprised.

anyway, i never read whatever it was that piqued your uniquely thin, but
interesting, skin. given my admitted stupidity and cluelessness, i
thought i'd stick with what i know...and, since your question was posed
in a non-specific form, i gave the answer i knew.

out-of-court settlements - if you mean a settlement negotiated without
any formal legal process being instituted - typically involve a 25%
contingency fee. many settlements are negotiated on the "eve" of trial.
they aren't really "out of court", and occur only after substantial
work, trial readiness, and the threat of a jury's assessment of the case.

in my little backwater, there is one lawyer advertising a 10%
contingency fee. i wouldn't employ him, but he's there, available to
anyone who wants to engage him. many of us (in nc) accept cases on a
contingency basis in which we agree to charge a 33% contingency only on
the sum recovered above that which some insurance company has offered
the client before we were employed. go get your best deal from the
insurance industry, take it if you believe it fair; if it's not
perceived as fair, hire the lawyer, who only earns an income on what
he/she got for you that you wouldn't/couldn't have gotten for yourself.




Yeah, poor thing, the lawyer rolled the dice and lost, I don't have
a problem with that. ;-) What frosts my shorts is when this is
portrayed as some sort of "public service" instead of being portrayed
for what it is, a failed money-grab by institutionalized scum.


this response betrays a superficial, visceral process at work. i don't
think my reply portrayed anything as a "public service". it sure didn't
meet your description. i thought we were talking money. you seemed
****ed because you don't like lawyers in general (and individually),
don't like the contingency fee system of employing lawyers in
particular, and find it unreasonable that someone voluntarily decides to
employ a lawyer on terms that entitle the lawyer to collect a sizeable
sum as a fee if a substantial recovery is actually obtained. there are
legitimate arguments/complaints about the contingency fee system. so
far, your invective in our little conversation is without substance.

responsible lawyers in this and every other state use written employment
agreements which describe the fees and the services. they are contracts
like any other, except easier to read and understand. each party can
decline the terms, accept the terms, or negotiate the terms. ...no one
is coerced. you can enter into an hourly rate services contract instead
of a contingency fee contract if you wish. plus, every injured person
is free to negotiate an acceptable settlement with the insurance company
or the adversary without employing a lawyer.

"money-grab", "institutionalized scum"... not particularly insightful or
instructive or persuasive... but cute.

jeff