Alot of people think they jump on every case they can get. but I believe they won't take the case unless they are reasonably sure they will win, Especially on a Contigency Fee. Am I right? or are they really just a bunch of Ambulance Chasers?
2006-10-09 04:52:04 · 7 answers · asked by mr_nice_guy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The fact is the cost of litigation is so high, insurance companies usually settle out of court, regardless of the facts of the case. That's how ambulance chasers make a living. They get quick settlements that are ultimately less money then hiring a lawyer and going to trial.
2006-10-09 05:04:32 · answer #1 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If they want to stay in business, they will only take the cases that they think involve actual malpractice
Bringing a malpractice case can cost up to $100K. The lawyer has to front that money. So not only does the lawyer have to take cases that they have a chance of winning, but also cases that meet a certain threshold of damages to make the case worthwhile.
Example - the lawyer won't take a case unless there is about $400K in damages so that the 1/3 contingency fee will cover the $100K in litigation costs
2006-10-09 05:57:38 · answer #2 · answered by BigD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any decent attorney will not take a case unless they think it has merit, whether its a family law case, or wrongful death/medical malpractice. But ambulance chasing is just fishing: some cases you catch you throw back, some you keep. They absolutely have to be able to assess how much the case may be ultimately worth before they take it, especially when all the expenses come out of their own pockets.
2006-10-09 05:34:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The terms are not mutually exclusive. Ambulance chasing doesn't imply taking a case you can't win - and a savvy lawyer knows that. If you are only getting paid if you win, you are only going to take cases that you have a reasonable expectation will give the right result.
This does not mean they believe every case is just or winnable on it's merits; they will be perfectly happy to take a payout to settle a nuisance claim just to save a big corporation the money of mounting a defense - and they know that many companies will do that, even though they are not legally or even morally liable.
2006-10-09 04:56:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since they get paid on a contigency fee basis, it is an unwise business practice to take a case one thinks they can't win. Also, lawyers are ethically prohibit from filing a frivolous lawsuit. However, what one attorney thinks is unwinnable, a different attorney with a differing amount of experience, may think differently, so its all relative.
2006-10-10 03:40:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
New attorneys or ones that aren't very good might take any case, but the larger law firms or the ones with reputations will not unless they can win it AND they will make a great amount of money off from it. I speak from personal experience.
Only the rich can afford justice in the United States. If you are poor, then you are on your own. That's not cynicism, it's truth.
2006-10-09 05:04:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Common sense tells me if there is no reasonable reason that the case cannot be won, or have a valid case nobody would take it.
2006-10-09 04:59:26 · answer #7 · answered by longroad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋