CSEMARTIN Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 When it costs more to defend yourself in court than it does to pay someone off, there is something seriously wrong with our legal system. I was sued over a contract violation, and the penalty was $12,500. The only problem is I don't believe I'm in violation of the contract agreements. Over the course of a year fighting this thing, my legal fees reached 2K. All these lawyer guys did was send letters back and forth to each other, make phone calls, etc. @180/hr. Christ!! That's more than I make, and I went to school for 17 years. I took call on holidays, missed family gatherings, saved lives, etc. These guys are making their bullshit phone calls and billing by the minute. And to add insult to injury, my lawyer tells me I'd have to pay for their paralegals to do the legal research at $70/hour. Isn't a paralegal a 2 year community college associates degree. $70/hour? Get real!! Shouldn't my lawyer have learned this stuff in law school?? I guess he was too busy writing letters to learn the law himself. In the end, it is going to be cheaper to pay the penalty rather than fight it in court. All I wanted was a chance to tell my side of the story to the judge and roll with the punches after that. Maybe the attorney will choke on something at a public restaurant, and he'll just turn blue and die because everyone is too afraid to help these days for fear they'll get sued. Bunch of pussies if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZ Bagger Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Bummer. Lawsuits stink, even if you're the one that's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSMITH Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Sometimes principle gets over on logic, sometimes not. Make the best decision, not necessarily the right decision in matters like this, advice I often don't take. It hurts me to say that as I was raised different, the most pervasive thing in my life that my dad taught me as a child was the definition of integrity, according to my dad true integrity is "doing the right thing when no one else will know the difference, that is INTEGRITY". He absolutely IS right, it is a Universal Truth that no man can fault, but sometimes a smarter guy than I will bow out and make the right decision instead of doing what is right. Best of luck bud, hope you can find a solution that satisfies your brain and your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I deal with meritless lawsuits every day, lots of them. My personal observation FWIW is that lawyers don't sue people. People sue people. An attorney can not do a single thing their client does not tell them to. That stench you smell is coming from the plaintiffs themselves. I feel your pain on the cost to defend yourself but is the unfortuante price of admission. I have a case that starts trial tomorrow that we have paid over $160,000 in costs and I'll probably pay another $60,000 for the two week trial. Even when we win the case (its one of those meritless ones too) it is going to feel like a fairly hollow victory. Still, I know that our cousel is a highly skilled professional who is providing me a very specialized service. Yeah, its expensive, but so is Louie my plumber. Wish I could say it will feel better later but it probably won't. Hasn't gotten better for me in over 30 years in working with these cases. Sorry man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSEMARTIN Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 I read what I wrote again. I need to calm down. Still pisses me off though..... On a side note, I did have an attorney once that really bailed me out of a jam. I was young and dumb. I did some stupid things, got caught. The lawyer was able to get me out of deep trouble. It was the best money I ever spent. So I guess I hate all lawyers except that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDM Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Neil Boortz (I believe) advocates a loser pays system where if you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay the legal fees for both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 (edited) Neil Boortz (I believe) advocates a loser pays system where if you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay the legal fees for both sides. Hallelujah !!!!!!!!!!!! and the lights shine and angels sing ! that simple one line law could reform our entire lawsuit happy who can we blame now society. But it'll never pass most of our politicians are lawyers, lawyers pass laws only lawyers can understand so they provide more work for themselves. A law like that would put a bunch of em out of work. I think I would put a cap on what I would pay the Lawyer just tell him what the suit is worth to you and to do the best job he can for the 2k, or just do like you said tell the judge your side of the story. just reherse it and right it down ahead of time. The worse that will happen is you loose which if you just pay you'll loose anyway. Edited June 18, 2008 by Joe4d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 (edited) Neil Boortz (I believe) advocates a loser pays system where if you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay the legal fees for both sides. Yep, it's called Tort reform and this country needs it badly. I am sure that frivolous lawsuits (and not all are frivolous) costs US Businesses billions of dollars a year just so someone can win the lawsuit-lottery. Edited June 18, 2008 by BritinUSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 And to add insult to injury, my lawyer tells me I'd have to pay for their paralegals to do the legal research at $70/hour. Isn't a paralegal a 2 year community college associates degree. $70/hour? Get real!! Shouldn't my lawyer have learned this stuff in law school?? I guess he was too busy writing letters to learn the law himself. The law changes all the time. A lawyer who does not do legal research is a lawyer who is looking to commit malpractice. I'd rather pay someone $70/hr than $180/hr to do research. And I'm sure the paralegal's hourly rate was disclosed in the fee agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Tort reform is not going to happen - the US just opened the 200th law school, and the lawyers all need work. If you think tort reform is good, would you also be willing to accept that your own personal injury suit could collect actual damages only, but nothing for pain and suffering? Many people draw the line at reform when it impacts their lottery ticket. Here in MA the seatbelt law contains a provision that the defendant may not allege that the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt (and breaking the law by doing so) cannot be presented at trial as contributory negligence or failure to mitigate damages. This was added since there was concern that the fact that some plaintiffs aggravagated their injuries by violating the law could be used as an argument that would reduce contingency fee revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Most states have some sort of "frivolous litigation" law, either part of the rules of civil procedure or by statute. The problem is, that with most of these types of laws, you as a defendant have to prevail in the frivolous law suit before you can turn around and sue the plaintiff (and their attorney sometimes). If the complaint is really meritless, most of the time you can get it dismissed on summary judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Neil Boortz (I believe) advocates a loser pays system where if you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay the legal fees for both sides. Most US states adopted the English Common Law (except Louisiana). Under the "English Rule," both parties pay their own costs. This "English Rule" has exceptions - and parties to a written agreement can vary this rule. Since this is a contractual issue, the contract could have contained a provision that the losing party will pay the winning party's costs and attorney's fees. A party who has vast financial assets may not want the provision, because they can financially bully the smaller party. As a result, the smaller party should insist on that provision in negotiations IMO. Even without that provision, some states have mechanisms for recovering attorney's fees. For example, FLA has an "offer of judgment" statute that provides a mechanism to recover attorney's fees. This concept will vary state by state. BTW - Tort Reform has no relvance to this situation - it's a contract case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Be careful what you wish for on the prevailing side collecting attorney fees. We deal with that in contract cases constantly. As mentioned earlier atty fees are an element of damages if plintiff prevails. The sticky part of this is the word "prevails". It doesn't mean that plaintiff has to get everything they ask for, only that the court find there are any damages caused by the breach of contract. You as defendant then are exposed to the $1,000 in damages you actually caused the plaintiff and all of his reasonable atty fees. Offers of Judment, or statuatory offers as they are called are not much of a deterent. They currently don't let you recover attorney fees, just costs like court reports and expert fees. Tort reform has failed miserably in this country largely because there is no abundence of popular opinion to support it. Most judgments and defense costs are paid by insurance carriers so the majority of people only see an increase in their insurance premium which is annoying, but not sufficient to generate a groundswell of support to push these sorts of changes. My personal bet is that until it reaches a point where literally people begin to no longer afford insurance for their cars or buisnesses nothing will really happen. Time to get off my soapbox and go see how jury selection is going...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Be careful what you wish for on the prevailing side collecting attorney fees. The sticky part of this is the word "prevails". It doesn't mean that plaintiff has to get everything they ask for, only that the court find there are any damages caused by the breach of contract. You as defendant then are exposed to the $1,000 in damages you actually caused the plaintiff and all of his reasonable atty fees. Offers of Judgment, or statutory offers as they are called are not much of a deterrent. They currently don't let you recover attorney fees, just costs like court reports and expert fees. Prevailing party attorneys' fee provisions are definitely a doubled edged sword, but I personally like them. They put more skin in the game for frivolous plaintiffs and help discourage (but not eliminate) ridiculous positions. Some states, such as FLA, have offers of judgment statutes that DO allow the recovery of attorney's fees - and those statutes have worked very well IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Neil Boortz (I believe) advocates a loser pays system where if you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay the legal fees for both sides. Yep, it's called Tort reform and this country needs it badly. I am sure that frivolous lawsuits (and not all are frivolous) costs US Businesses billions of dollars a year just so someone can win the lawsuit-lottery. I agree with you. And I am a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Please read the complete Hate Forum Guidelines before posting in the Hate Forum.• Rebuttals are not permitted! The Hate forum is for rants only - no lengthy discussions or debates. Hate Threads that turn into discussions or debates will automatically be locked without notice. Please type "CLOSED" as the last line of your initial post, if you do not want anyone to post in your thread (and a Moderator will lock your thread). Thanks! be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts