OT Two things

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

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

Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him. When you hire most other professionals,
finding someone who is competent is going to give you the results you
desire. However, if the lawyer you employ is merely competent and the
other side has an outstanding lawyer, you are at a distinct disadvantage.

This is one weakness of our judicial system, justice is too dependent on
the quality of the lawyer. Because of this, our system favors those with
money and puts poor people at a serious disadvantage. It is also VERY
difficult for the average person to evaluate the competency of a lawyer
because it is unusual for the average person to get into a situation
where a lawyer is needed and they have no experience in this area.

I think the main reason that lawyers are the butt of so many jokes is
because our justice system is money driven and adversarial in nature.

Willi

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him. When you hire most other professionals,
finding someone who is competent is going to give you the results you
desire. However, if the lawyer you employ is merely competent and the
other side has an outstanding lawyer, you are at a distinct disadvantage.

This is one weakness of our judicial system, justice is too dependent on
the quality of the lawyer. Because of this, our system favors those with
money and puts poor people at a serious disadvantage. It is also VERY
difficult for the average person to evaluate the competency of a lawyer
because it is unusual for the average person to get into a situation
where a lawyer is needed and they have no experience in this area.

Perceptive argument. The only serious flaw is the implication that the
system is need of reform because it favors the rich. Nice idea, but it
wouldn't work, you know. The problem really isn't that the legal system
favors the rich.......it's that being RICH favors the rich.......because
they're rich. There are variations on a theme, of course, but in essence
there is only one solution to the problem and it is temporary at best,
highly fallible and (as history has demonstrated) always very messy.


I think the main reason that lawyers are the butt of so many jokes is
because our justice system is money driven and adversarial in nature.

Probably more complicated than that......humor always is.

Wolfgang

i don't think the context of my statement to jon was such a comparison.
as i recall, he was talking/complaining about the inability of a lay
person to handle court or legal matters.

jeff



Willi wrote:




I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well.

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him.

Another good example is a tax accountant. When I hire one, he is competing
against me (for what I would have gotten as a refund without him) and
against the Gobmint. I figure that if I might get a $500 refund without him,
and a $1500 refund with him, its worth it, even if I have to pay him $600 to
do it for me. Same with the lawyer: If I'd get nothing without him and get
$100,000 with him, but pay him half, its still worth it.

--riverman

Willi wrote in message ...
Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him. When you hire most other professionals,
finding someone who is competent is going to give you the results you
desire. However, if the lawyer you employ is merely competent and the
other side has an outstanding lawyer, you are at a distinct disadvantage.

This is one weakness of our judicial system, justice is too dependent on
the quality of the lawyer. Because of this, our system favors those with
money and puts poor people at a serious disadvantage. It is also VERY
difficult for the average person to evaluate the competency of a lawyer
because it is unusual for the average person to get into a situation
where a lawyer is needed and they have no experience in this area.

I think the main reason that lawyers are the butt of so many jokes is
because our justice system is money driven and adversarial in nature.

Willi


My $1,200 an hour lawyer will beat your $200 an hour lawyer every
time.
Justice may look like shes holding a sword in her right hand but it's
really stuck in the ground and every once in a while that hand goes
behing her back, palm up. It's important to distinguish between the
justice system and the legal system. One is struggling the other is
running rampant fueled by greed.
Civilizations can get by without doctors, engineers, accountants etc.
but they won't last long or arrise to greatness without justice.
Want to **** off a lawyer? Next time your called to jury duty insist
on your right to question witnesses.

BJ Conner My $1,200 an hour lawyer will beat your $200 an hour lawyer every
time.

utter bull****. far more times than not, in criminal cases, trial
judges will side with a prosecutor who is making far less than his
experienced, talented opponent, even when the judge knows that the court of
appeal will overrule his decision, for the simple reason that they tend to
be prejudiced against the accused. that is just one of many injustices that
occur in our system of justice because of the refusal of trial judges to do
their duty.


Want to **** off a lawyer? Next time your called to jury duty insist
on your right to question witnesses.

in addition to ****ing off lawyers, such conduct, if pressed to the
extreme, will get you a contempt of court citation; and, in your case,
sufficient evidence of the content of your posts to this newsgroup being
presented to the court, you will likely be immediately committed to the
local nuthouse.

wayno