Welllllll.....it sounds like the lawyer didn't heed their instructions.

This is not only an Ironic situation, it is a catch-22.

If you sue someone because they got you money to get more
money they would have to lose to be satisfied. If they win it
is possible for the plaintiffs to sue the lawyer that won the
case against the lawyer that got them the money in the first
place. This could go on ad infinitum. This could be the
catalyst that brings about the complete breakdown of the
legal profession...sweet!

ZAZ

Honestly, once most ordinary people have over a million dollars, an extra $1.4 million isn't going to change their lifestyle much at all, so why go through the pain and suffering when it's unnessary?

And then there's the whole issue of poor representation during the trial, they could have gottten nothing at all.

You would think they would just want to get on with their lives. (shrugs)

If I had a dollar for every time a plaintiff or plaintiff's lawyer said "it's not about the money" I'd have as much money as they demanded while saying they didn't really want.

I'm a plaintiff's lawyer and I've never been dumb enough to claim it's not about the money; however, if I had a dollar for every time one of my CLIENTS said that while demanding a sum of money, I would own the internets.

Why didn't they just fire their lawyers? It's not like they were being held captive.

2005-06-15 06:51:59 PM Tupuli

Why didn't they just fire their lawyers? It's not like they were being held captive.

Ding, ding, we have a winnar!!

Wow. I imagine, in 30 years, the average citizen's vocation will be professionally suing large corporations and lawyers. You won't even have a job anymore, you'll just spend your life suing people for emotional-this and damages-that to pay for your lifestyle. Lower Class blue collar workers won't have the money/intelligence or resources to sue, The Middle Class will do the sueing of others, and the Upper Class, will be the ones who employ the lower class to pay for lawsuits from the Middle Class.

What a wonderful world! Praise Jaysis!

I have found, you can find
Happiness in slavery.

would this qualify as "biting the hand that feeds"?

I don't suppose you have a picture of the daughter?
/ just like to know if I'd hit it...

the family alleges that Michael Rubin of the Altshuler firm and Latham's John Flynn were so insistent on going to trial in the case that they rebuffed their clients' instructions to settle, inflicting emotional distress by prolonging the litigation and forcing their clients to undergo depositions and court appearances.

Sounds like the lawyers were assholes and took advantage of the family's naivete to net themselves a little extra cash in fees at the family's expense.

Litigation is traumatic enough without BS like this.

If there really was $7.5 million offer on the table and clients said "take it," then attorneys were in the wrong.

I wonder if she did the needfull..

Is it possible that if they settle before court the lawyer gets one third of the amount, but if they go to court the lawyer get half? So by going to court and winning more they get less.

/Less is more.
//War is peace.
//Chocolate rations will be increased by -25%.

According to the more detailed version at

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1116246913573

the original lawyers held out for more money because their contract increased their fee to 40% once trial began; so even though they settled for 8.9 million after trial started, the plaintiffs would've been better off taking the 7.5 million dollar offer since they would've only had to pay 1/3 to their lawyers. sorry for all the numbers- this is the last one-- the difference cost the plaintiffs about 1.5 million.

then, once they settled, the plaintiffs didn't want to pay the 40%.

my 2 cents as someone who does this for a living: my contracts call for 1/3 before suit is filed and 40% after that. i always cut the fee to 1/3 unless i do a trial or mediation, because there's much more risk, and also the clients like to see you cut your fee for them- it's a good way to build goodwill.

we don't know the facts yet-- but if someone offered them 7.5 million and they turned it down, THEY ARE IDIOTS IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE THEIR CLIENTS PUT IT IN WRITING. that's too much money to leave on the table undocumented. i ALWAYS, ALWAYS make my client sign something rejecting the defendant's last best offer if my client doesn't want to take it, because i know this kind of stuff can happen (or worse, you could go to trial and lose).

also, the trial didn't really go very far. i would've probably cut my fee for these people, down to 1/3. the only way i would insist on more than 1/3, is if i had strongly recommended the 7.5 million and the clients refused. even then i'd try to get them to split between 1/3 and 40% somewhere, just to get the case closed out. pissed-off clients will report you to the bar, and even if you're not guilty of malpractice it may cost you $20k to defend yourself from a bar complaint and countless hours. defending this malpractice suit will cost even more, probably $150k by the time it's done. why not be the guy that got the $9 million settlement and move on with your life? even at 1/3 you're still making a half-million dollars more than you would've made at the pretrial offer. then put a copy of the canceled check on your billboard.

...the family alleges that Michael Rubin of the Altshuler firm and Latham's John Flynn were so insistent on going to trial in the case that they rebuffed their clients' instructions to settle, inflicting emotional distress by prolonging the litigation and forcing their clients to undergo depositions and court appearances.

Wait, is that possible? I thought attorneys had to listen to their clients' wishes no matter what, and that their only alternative was to quit representing them. How does this work?

The daughter in question?

Is it possible that if they settle before court the lawyer gets one third of the amount, but if they go to court the lawyer get half? So by going to court and winning more they get less.

do the math 1/3 of 7.5 is 2.5, 1/2 of 8.5 is4.25
the lawyers just wanted to double their money

how do you italicise?

Was the family unable to find a Wendy's and just order some chili?

towlie says:

that's exactly what the plaintiffs are now claiming-- the lawyers would get only 1/3 if it settled before trial, but 40% after trial began (see my post for details).

Like someone already said:

SHOULD'VE FIRED THEIR LAWYERS

Who wants to bet that a pack of lawyers are more than willing to help sue their competition? Secondly, who wants to bet that the familly will sue the second pack of lawyers for the same thing. Thirdly, who wants to be that a pack of lawyers.....

/let the cycle commence.

mama's_tasty_foods How does firing your lawyer work? If someone fired you after negotiations had started, would you bill them directly or wait until they got some type of settlement, then want a percentage?

vwfst55: taking a cue from McKnight v. Dean, 270 F.3d 513 (CA7 2001)- "In this extraordinary case an individual who obtained a $ 765,000 settlement in a suit for legal malpractice is suing--for legal malpractice--the lawyers who obtained the settlement for him." By that time the plaintiff was on his THIRD lawsuit!

----------------------
mama's_tasty_foods:


the original lawyers held out for more money because their contract increased their fee to 40% once trial began; so even though they settled for 8.9 million after trial started, the plaintiffs would've been better off taking the 7.5 million dollar offer since they would've only had to pay 1/3 to their lawyers. sorry for all the numbers- this is the last one-- the difference cost the plaintiffs about 1.5 million.
----------------------

Sounds like lawyers to me.

I gotta wonder though -- wouldn't you be wary about representing these guys when they're going after their previous lawyers?

... and then the lawyer sues the family for pain and suffering, having to deal with all the shi'ite?

Good God mama's_tasty_foods. I was only joking but it looks as if reality is crazier than the wierdness I can conjure in my head. Thanks for the info.

NiteClerk: it depends on your state's law, but most are pretty similar. It generally operates so as not to inconvenience the client.

In my state, if a client fires you, you are entitled to collect at the end of the case for costs you advanced in the case. If you were fired "without good cause," i.e. you didn't screw something up (almost all dismissals fall in this category), you are also entitled to a share of the attorney's fee. So if the client has to pay 1/3 at the end of the case, you and the other lawyer split the 1/3. Obviously the client only has to pay ONE attorney fee and the lawyers duke it out over the scraps. Normally lawyers just informally agree on splitting the fee based on how long they had the case; sometimes they have to go argue it out in front of a judge, who will apportion the fee based on how much of the work each lawyer put into the case.

mama's_tasty_foods

dude do you have bionic fingers?
you typed a whole novel in the time it took me to type 2 lines

Wait, is that possible? I thought attorneys had to listen to their clients' wishes no matter what, and that their only alternative was to quit representing them. How does this work?


STAN: Have her try on the bra, see if it fits.

JACKIE: No, no, no, no!

KRAMER: Do it, Jackie. Stan's the man.

JACKIE: Stan? Who the hell is Stan?

KRAMER: He's my caddy.

JACKIE: You're caddy?!? This is a big mistake!

You are caddy?!?!

Who's your caddy?

Kudos sumbitter
Hilarious story

So what can they get out of this lawsuit?

Hopefully they can get the lawyers to stop pulling crap like this.

Just another lawyer chiming in here with an plausible "answer" to all of those saying "family should have just fired the lawyer earlier." In all likelihood, the family didn't know about the $7.5 million offer when it was made. Its not like the other sides lawyers communicate directly with them, as all communication is limited to going through the lawyers. Thus, it is quite likely they either didn't know about the offer at the time, or did not understand that THEY had the right to force their attorney's to take it, instead of the attorney's trying to force them to reject the offer and go to trial.

It sounds like the family may have had standing instructions to settle the case, the lawyers thought they could get more (thus earning a higher fee) if they went to trial, they were proven right, but that isn't the end of it. They basically "gambled" with the client's money. The bird in the hand was the client was guaranteed to walk with $5 million (after fees) during the pretrial settlement period. The call as to what the client will or will not settle for is solely at the discretion of the client, the attorney has no right to overule them. The proper remedy would be at a minimum to make the attorney's forfeit their fee as a punitive measure, since the family was not ultimately suffer any economic damages. But the lawyers need to learn a lesson and suffer some punishment and that is exactly why punitive damages were created in the first place.

lawboy87

you're wrong on that one

care to expand?

What a detailed point of view manimalia!

care to expand?
You are right!

you're wrong on that one
You are wrong!

This is what I like to see. Immigrants getting in here and really integrating themselves into the American way of life.

/didn't RTFA, didn't want to risk ruining what seemed like a good joke in my mind