 |
Re: Job Insurance? An investment portfolio or a second marketable skill
Author: T Judah
Date: 03-03-2011 - 18:16
> So based on all this, should I assume that all lawyers and paralegals are
> money-grubbing ambulance chasers and all-around scumbags?
Sounds like that one might have been a bit scummy.
It's strange that this wasn't handled on a contingency basis. She would have paid little or nothing up front, maybe not even a much of a retainer. But then the lawyer would have gotten a fixed percentage of the winnings. On the other hand, if there were no winnings, he would have gotten little or nothing.
Of course, no lawyer will take a contingency case unless he believes, that not only is there a good case, but that there is enough money in it to be worth his time. Any honest practitioner would have been up-front about that; and strongly recommended that if your own lawyer doubts it's worth his bother, it's probably not worth your bother either.
And yes, when individuals sue any corporation, or anyone represented by an insurance company, the usual tactic is to wait them out, wearying them to the bone with hoop after hoop to jump through, and with delay after delay, until you just plain give up. Especially so if it's on a per hour fee basis.
Not ever a good plan for the average individual, unless you have very deep pockets, and are yourself a very mean, cold-hearted, ruthless bastard. And I doubt anyone's mother would even remotely fit that description.
The terrible flaw in the American Justice System, is that the adversarial contest is how we decide what is truth and what is justice. Never do we decide after a thorough searching out of ALL the evidence - but instead we decide with only the narrow and limited evidence, which is permitted and presented into the contest. Thus the strong always win, and the weak always loose, no matter what the facts are, or what is just and right.
Even worse, judges judge through their own colored lenses and political whimsy; so going to court on any civil matter is a big fat crap shoot anyway - even with an obviously good case. But then, I only indirectly see all this, as I don't have to practice in court - just have to do the routine grunt work.
> money-grubbing ambulance chasers and all-around scumbags?
Sounds like that one might have been a bit scummy.
It's strange that this wasn't handled on a contingency basis. She would have paid little or nothing up front, maybe not even a much of a retainer. But then the lawyer would have gotten a fixed percentage of the winnings. On the other hand, if there were no winnings, he would have gotten little or nothing.
Of course, no lawyer will take a contingency case unless he believes, that not only is there a good case, but that there is enough money in it to be worth his time. Any honest practitioner would have been up-front about that; and strongly recommended that if your own lawyer doubts it's worth his bother, it's probably not worth your bother either.
And yes, when individuals sue any corporation, or anyone represented by an insurance company, the usual tactic is to wait them out, wearying them to the bone with hoop after hoop to jump through, and with delay after delay, until you just plain give up. Especially so if it's on a per hour fee basis.
Not ever a good plan for the average individual, unless you have very deep pockets, and are yourself a very mean, cold-hearted, ruthless bastard. And I doubt anyone's mother would even remotely fit that description.
The terrible flaw in the American Justice System, is that the adversarial contest is how we decide what is truth and what is justice. Never do we decide after a thorough searching out of ALL the evidence - but instead we decide with only the narrow and limited evidence, which is permitted and presented into the contest. Thus the strong always win, and the weak always loose, no matter what the facts are, or what is just and right.
Even worse, judges judge through their own colored lenses and political whimsy; so going to court on any civil matter is a big fat crap shoot anyway - even with an obviously good case. But then, I only indirectly see all this, as I don't have to practice in court - just have to do the routine grunt work.
