OT Two things

The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

http://tinyurl.com/3y22y

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote in message ...
The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?




My view is that the family gets ALL the money, then they pay the
lawyers for their services. If you view the lawyers as taking 'some of
the settlement', you might as well begrudge anyone who gets paid at
any time from that money: the barber, mechanic, the mortgage holder...

--riverman

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

funny


The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

easy answer in nc... the father.

but here's one for you. case is in north carolina. father makes the
decision to employ lawyer on the typical contingency fee contract - 33%
of recovery, plus reimbursement of costs. say it's a difficult case.
say it goes to trial. lawyer has advanced costs in excess of $50,000 for
appropriate experts, depositions, investigation, etc..., and spent more
than 1000 hours of professional and office staff time in preparing for
trial and in the trial of the case... and, say, the verdict in North
Carolina is that the defendant was negligent, but that the boy (over 12)
was 10% at fault in causing the event and his death, so the jury says
the boy is contributorily negligent. so, there is no recovery at all in
north carolina. so...since you were talking shares of money, who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

jeff

http://tinyurl.com/3y22y

(riverman) wrote in message . com...
Ken Fortenberry wrote in message ...
The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?




My view is that the family gets ALL the money, then they pay the
lawyers for their services. If you view the lawyers as taking 'some of
the settlement', you might as well begrudge anyone who gets paid at
any time from that money: the barber, mechanic, the mortgage holder...

--riverman



The barber, the mechanic, the mortgage holder etc. all have a price
and you know what it is going in the door.
The lawyer is the one that says " how much have you got? "

Jeff wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

easy answer in nc... the father.

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

but here's one for you. case is in north carolina. father makes the
decision to employ lawyer on the typical contingency fee contract - 33%
of recovery, plus reimbursement of costs.
lawyer lost the case snipped
so...since you were talking shares of money, who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

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.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Jeff M notes:
who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.
Tom

BJ Conner wrote:


The barber, the mechanic, the mortgage holder etc. all have a price
and you know what it is going in the door.
The lawyer is the one that says " how much have you got? "

....without equivocation bj, you're simply full of ****. your gross
generalizations continue to astound me... but, i guess every toad is
entitled to croak the song that defines its nature...

jeff

Tom Littleton wrote:

Jeff M notes:

who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?


yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.
Tom

you know tom, there is no doubt some lawyers are ****s and deserve
criticism for their conduct. it's the lemming-like generalizations that
**** me off. if anyone wants to say a specific lawyer is a thief or
charges too much or is an idiot, fine. state the name, let's get the
facts, and maybe i'll agree. i might even know the person named. same
with doctors, dentists, barbers, engineers, biologists, newspaper
reporters, politicians, bankers, programmers, electricians, college
profs, trout guides, lab scientists, mayors, generals, mechanics,
architects, hooters waitresses... if there is a particular professional
practice that offends someone's sense of right, ok, name it. you might
be surprised at how many lawyers might agree... but to make crass
general statements about all lawyers, or to make assumptions about a
particular lawyer based on those generalizations, particularly in this
venue, is simply a sign of a weak mind. ...

jeff

Jeff Miller wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:

yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when
you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. ...

That's one of the stupider sentences ever posted here. When I need
someone to suck the **** out of my septic tank there ain't but one
useful professional I can turn to. What's your point ?

you know tom, there is no doubt some lawyers are ****s and deserve
criticism for their conduct. ...

Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession. If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them or accuse divorce lawyers of having weak minds.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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