why or why not?
2006-09-02 17:34:07 · 5 answers · asked by lethallolita 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As far as the 'best', that depends on the type of case.
With criminal cases, a retainer suffices.
With civil and lawsuits in general, contigency is the best because it gives the attorney more motivation to win.
Example, Some attorneys try to force you to pay retainers for lawsuits, ie, slander lawsuits because they know they are harder to win.
2006-09-04 00:12:02 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what type of case it is. If it is a civil case then you need to make sure it is a case that can be won so that you can get the contingency fee. That means working with a plaintiff. If you don't win you don't get paid. . As a defense attorney you would have to get a retainer and then be paid based on billable hours. This means the attorney runs the risk of being paid on a payment plan from the client. I would say go with the contingency fee so you know your changes of getting paid because you are able to pick your cases.
2006-09-03 00:45:22 · answer #2 · answered by Nancy M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are one way. It depends on the situation and the case.
A lawyer may choose to take a case on contingency if the plaintiff cannot afford to pay up front, and if the lawyer is willing to basically gamble on getting nothing, versus getting a percentage of a large damages award. It's a cost-risk-benefit analysis.
For small-value cases, attorneys generally will not work on contingency, because the possible gain (dollar amount) doesn't offset the risk of loss. It's like gambling a dollar to win a dollar. If you win, you get what you put into it. If you lose you get nothing. But betting a dollar to win five or ten is a different story.
So, it all depends on the situation.
{EDIT to speakeasy} You are incorrect. Contingency fees are usually take from compensatory or consequential damages, not punitives. In fact, in many states, the plaintiff does not get the punitive damages (they go to the state), so the attorney would not get any percentage of that.
{EDIT to BBQribs} A retainer is a deposit against later expenses. It is independent of whether a contingency fee is involved.
2006-09-03 00:36:00 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That only applies to cases in which there would be a punitive cash award. That is from where the contingency fees are taken.
Most attorney services do not provide for that.
2006-09-03 00:38:11 · answer #4 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Retainers are better.
2006-09-03 00:37:33 · answer #5 · answered by BBQribs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋