Despite the fact that I am a lawyer, there have been a few times when I have needed the services of another lawyer. There is some truth to the saying that "a lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client". Whether a person is a lawyer or not, we are often too closely involved emotionally with our own problems to objectively evaluate and resolve them.
On one occasion, after representing three clients injured in a car accident, I had difficulty settling the case because the medical bills were simply to high for the injuries, and severity of the accident. The doctor agreed to reduce his fee. I settled the case based on the doctor's oral agreement. He later denied the agreement, and demanded the whole amount of the bills. The situation became worse when I learned from the clients that there were a number of visits to the doctor that he had billed, where they had not attended.
I refused to pay. He sued me. The clients had nothing to gain or lose, and were therefore of little help. The lawyer I hired, a man for whom I had great respect in the past, charged me three times the amount for which I could have settled the case before it started. (Billed on an hourly basis, over two years.) I ultimately had to settle the case, anyway, and pay the lawyer. I was more than unhappy, not just because of the result of the case, but more so because I felt the fees were far in excess of the value I received.
There are basically three different ways lawyers charge for there services. Each is suited to a different type if case.
INJURY/ACCIDENT CASES:
Most people that have been involved in a motor vehicle accident, and suffered injury have learned about the "continency fee". You've probably heard the phrase "NO RECOVERY, NO FEE". This refers to the arrangement where a lawyer agrees to take a part, often one third, of the settlement from an injury case. The other two thirds is then used to pay the doctor bills. The injured client gets the rest.
I've talked to many people very unhappy after their injury case, because the doctors and lawyers got most of the money. I can't blame them. In an injury case, I try very hard to settle a case in a way that neither the doctors, nor the lawyers get more than one third each. This isn't always possible. It is fair in most cases however.
Attorney fees are negotiable. You should always read the agreement before you sign. When you are evaluating the terms, check the percentage, carefully. When a case is settled without a trial, or extensive litigation, one third is usually fair. You will probably see that one-third in the agreement. Look closely, however, and you may see higher percentage rates after just a short period of time. Be cautious also, about lower advertised rates. In recent years I have heard about lawyers advertising 25%, but then having provisions increasing the percentage to a third or 40%, after only a short time, if the case isn't settled immediately. They usually aren't.
DIVORCE AND CIVIL CASES:
These cases are usually billed on an hourly basis. Hourly rates very greatly from place to place, by type of case, the skill, reputation, and experience of the lawyer. Even though fees may be charged on an hourly basis, there is usually a "retainer" up front. This is usually a sum of money, in advance, that represents a certain number of hours, at the specified rate, often an estimate of the total fee, in a "best case scenario", or perhaps the first phase of a complex, or lengthy case. Only large companies or long established clients can expect to hire a lawyer on an arrangement where you simply get a bill after the work is done.
The retainer serves another purpose as well. When a lawyer agrees to accept a case, he is also agreeing at the same time, not to accept work from anyone else with a conflict of "interest". When a lawyer accepts work from one person, he is bound not to disclose the confidential information of one client to anyone else. In a small town, it can soon be impossible to practice. After handling between six and seven thousand cases, over more than twenty years, it becomes even more difficult to avoid conflicts, even in a larger town, or metropolitan area.. A retainer is therefore often treated as a "minimum fee", because the lawyer has agreed not to take business he otherwise might have taken. Before accepting a client, a lawyer should check for "conflicts" with past or existing clients.
CRIMINAL LAW:
These cases are usually handled on a "flat fee" basis. Criminal lawyers traditionally get their fees "up front". This does not lend it self well to charging on an hourly basis, or a contingency. In felony criminal cases, there are two phases. The first is the preliminary hearing. The second is the case following filing of an information. These are often charged separately. Relatively few cases are tried by a jury. A separate price is often set for each phase. The jury trial and motions also are often charged separately. Writs, appeals, are almost always charged separately.
My view is that the best result in a difficult case can only be obtained, if the lawyer is ready, willing, and able to take the case to trial, bring any necessary motion, and challenge the judges ruling with a writ when I believe the judge has made a wrong decision. If a client is facing serious charges, and either didn't commit the crime, or the people's case is seriously lacking evidence, it is absolutely essential that the lawyer have adequate resources to defend the case. It is therefore essential that a plan be arranged, at the beginning of the representation, for all contingencies.
I often am contacted by prospective clients "shopping prices" for a lawyer. They are easy to identify. They call from lawyer to lawyer, trying to get the "best price". This is a good way to shop for a car, or anything else sold by many dealers, all identical, and all easily compared. It's the worst way possible to shop for a lawyer. You need to meet the lawyer face to face. Meet his staff. Look at the office.
You need to ask difficult questions. What can he promise. What can't he promise.
If a person is charged with a minor crime, he thinks he's guilty, and just wants "the best deal", it's still smart to compare lawyers, not just the price. Lawyers are not all alike.
When facing a serious charge, it's absolutely essential to find the best, not necessarily the most expensive lawyer you can afford. Personally, I try to make an estimate of the time I will probably have to spend to prepare the case in the manner I believe is necessary to have the best chance of a good result. A good result is of course either a dismissal, or a "not guilty" verdict. The reality, however, in the majority of cases is that a "plea bargain" will be the ultimate result. It is wrong, however, to believe you can simply hold out and "the price will go down". In some courts this is true. In some courts precisely the opposite, is the established policy. Some courts try very hard to make the first offer the best offer. If the first offer is rejected, it becomes dangerous to "hold out for a "better deal". In these courts especially, and in all courts, the only reasonable approach is for the lawyer to be well prepared. This means there must be available, financial resources to do everything that must be done to properly prepare the case.
All materials obtained from the prosecution must be carefully read and studied. Often, these days, in most serious cases the prosecutor will either fail or refuse to turn over important information or documents. These must first be requested informally. If not received, formal demand must then be made by a motion to the court for an order. Sometimes the court may not make an order, or perhaps just not make an effective order. In these cases, resort to the court of appeals is required. When lawyers compete with each other for the "best price" the effort required to get this information can easily be a casualty of price competition.
There must be a defense investigation. The police and prosecutor have based their case on the statements of the witnesses they have spoken to. Often there are others, who may have seen, or remember things differently. These people must be located and interviewed. Sometimes the police take the wrong side in a dispute. Sometimes they believe the wrong person. Sometimes, even more sinister circumstances exist. Investigation is probably the first necessary part of the job to suffer when lawyers try to compete with each other for lowest fees.
In 1999, I accepted a case for a man accused of a robbery. He was offered 9 years State Prison. He had a "strike". The public defender represented his co-defendant. He was originally represented by a lawyer with a contract to handle a number of cases, for a set price. The lawyer was paid the same amount of money by the county if the defendants pled guilty, as he was if he spent months in extensive preparation. The man was told he should accept the 9 years prison, and plead guilty. His parents came to me for a second opinion.
I spoke to one person, a witness not mentioned in the report, also arrested for the same crime, at the same time, but later released. This person was afraid of getting arrested again, and therefore was not cooperative. After talking to him, however, I formed the opinion my client was not guilty. I spoke to the family of another witness, and learned he had left the country, and did not plan to return. When I attempted to locate the "victim", I discovered he had given the police a false, non-existent address. I answered ready for trial, well prepared. When the time came, the case was dismissed. The other man, represented by the public defender, received the benefit, and had his case dismissed as well. Both men spent more than six months in jail for a crime they didn't commit, waiting for trial.
Another, sometimes necessary part of a defense, is an expert witness. I tried a rape case in February of 2000. I hired a medical doctor to review the photographs the prosecution expert witness (a nurse) claimed showed abrasions, and therefore "force". The "victim" said the sex was forced, and not "consensual" as my client claimed. The doctor was able to see in the photographs the so-called "abrasions" were merely tissues, naturally engorged with blood, after intercourse. He was also able to show that the "lacerations" she "saw", was a combination of scar tissue from the much earlier, naturally broken hymen, and abrasion from her blue jeans, from walking a long distance, with no under ware, and not washing after sex. The jury found my client "not guilty".
The family had to beg and borrow the money for the doctor and me. They tried to convince me that we should skip the doctor, or find a cheaper one, because they simply couldn't afford him. I was able to persuade them to spend the money. I truly believe their son was innocent. I also believe he would be in prison today, branded for life as a violent sex offender, if they had not spent the money. I have more to say about this case, including the transcript of the closing arguments. The article is entitled "DEFENDING THE CHARGE OF RAPE".
That case illustrates as well as any the need to be well prepared, and have the necessary resources to make those preparations. Only by charging a fee sufficient to spend the necessary time, only by having available the financial resources to get the evidence, do the investigation, hire necessary experts, and coordinate all of these elements into a coherent, well planed defense, can any criminal charge, and especially a serious criminal charge be effectively defended. If all a defense lawyer is going to simply "hold your hand" while you plead guilty, almost any fee is too high.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.