Does that sound high for serious personal injury case? It's just for the total recovery award.
2006-12-11 15:03:50 · 10 answers · asked by naturegirl 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As a former PI attorney, the only time I ever asked for 40% (as opposed to the standard (33%) was when I thought the case was a long shot. I was always very careful to explain that to my client so that they understood that I was taking a risk on their behalf.
You may ask the attorney if that is their standard contingency fee or if there are other factors which have gone into the 40%. If it looks like it will be a long, hard, and risky case with a high possibility that the attorney may work for years and end up with nothing, 40% is reasonable.
Remember, a contingency fee is a benefit and a risk to both the attorney and the client.
For the attorney, they may work 10 years and put 100,000 hours into a case and end up with nothing. Or they may make one phone call and end up with 40% of a million dollars. You never can tell.
For the client, your benefit is that you don't have to pony up a big retainer (up to $10,000 is not uncommon) and pay anywhere from $100 to $500 per hour depending on the type of case and the experience of the lawyer. The downside is that your lawyer may be able to get it resolved in 10 minutes and you now have to pay him or her 40% of what you get.
2006-12-12 10:50:19 · answer #1 · answered by Oppenheimer 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
30% or so is the standard; but what no one else has mentioned is the attorneys that charge 30% also take the costs off the top.
So if the firm has to pay for expert witnesses, depositions, court reporters, etc; they get paid first and then whatever else is left they take 30%.
So if a firm takes 40% of the total; that may not be so different than a firm that charges costs and then takes 30%.
2006-12-12 02:05:17 · answer #2 · answered by chio 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
High but not unique. Not accusing you of anything, but just as a way of seeing the dynamics:
The lawyer who gets no judgment for his client has spent some time working at a rate of $0 per hour, and has had to pay court, office and other expenses to do so.
If the lawyer sees your case as a long shot, just as in casino gambling, the odds are adjusted to compensate for the change in risk-to-benefit ratio for his practice.
If the lawyer routinely takes cases that have a poorer-than-average return on the lawyer's "investment" he'll need the higher percent to compensate. It's just the math of things.
2006-12-11 19:28:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It actually depends on the complexity of the case. Normally it is 30-40%. When I hired an attorney, he took 30% but my case was a bit simple.
2017-01-06 06:24:46 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most attys charge 33 1/3 if they don't have to go to trial and 40% if they do. So, if you're going to trial, it may very well be the norm. Consider arbitration/mediation. It's a hell of a lot cheaper.
2006-12-11 18:18:48 · answer #5 · answered by John Tiggity 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
30% is standard, i thought. 40 seems high. And don't hire the guy on t.v. Most of them run a factory type business. They make their money in volume, not quality.
2006-12-11 15:06:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
relies upon on the state, the finest technique to discover out is with out issues call a greater guy or woman harm attorney and say, howdy, my case demands an stated witness, will I pay for that or do you??? regardless of he says will set it on the instant.. :)
2016-10-05 05:04:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it does sound high. Most are 30-33%
2006-12-11 15:06:41 · answer #8 · answered by Tiff 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most states cap it at 33%
2006-12-11 15:06:54 · answer #9 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would like to ask the same question as the user above.
2016-08-23 12:41:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋