• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Former Wake Forest football player, Senator Richard Burr

I gotta say, the odds of needing a personal injury lawyer in Greensboro are pretty low, but it is good to know I got a guy
 
5dc3c779480fef4314821daedd1e55c0.jpg
 
PhDeac said:
DR Law: “I’ll see your happy little begging faces in my conference room.”
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not how I would put it.

I do like pointing out that there are not many professions where the client is assured they will only have to pay for a successful outcome. Imagine doctors only receiving compensation for their services when a patient is healed.
 
Huh? There are plenty of professions where people only get paid if they do their job well. Most professions.

I see your point but yeah that’s not the way I’d put it.
 
PhDeac said:
Huh? There are plenty of professions where people only get paid if they do their job well. Most professions.

I see your point but yeah that’s not the way I’d put it.
Click to expand...

Please provide examples of professions where compensation is only received based on a "successful outcome."
 
06deacon said:
Sales commissions for one
Click to expand...

The point is well taken, but that's easily distinguishable. Most of my friends in sales receive a base salary, and even the one I can think of who is 100% commission has a built-in customer base with their company. So yes, more sales means more money, but that's not what's happening in most plaintiff's injury cases. I never claimed lawyers are the only people who make more if they have more success. That would be ridiculous.

I'm asking for an example where a client can come to you, as a professional, and not owe a dime unless there is a successful outcome based on your services. Oh, and that also means that any expenses pursuing that outcome on behalf of said client are eaten by the professional in the event of an unsuccessful outcome.
 
Too bad we couldn't pay Danny Manning, Jeff [Redacted], and Ron F'ing Wellman on results only.
 
I go to a restaurant and order a steak cooked rare. It comes out well done. I walk and pay nothing.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Yeah, that's not how I would put it.

I do like pointing out that there are not many professions where the client is assured they will only have to pay for a successful outcome. Imagine doctors only receiving compensation for their services when a patient is healed.
Click to expand...

Imagine having $100,000 worth of damages but only receiving $60,000 from the responsible party because our system requires you to hire a lawyer.
 
wakelaw13 said:
The point is well taken, but that's easily distinguishable. Most of my friends in sales receive a base salary, and even the one I can think of who is 100% commission has a built-in customer base with their company. So yes, more sales means more money, but that's not what's happening in most plaintiff's injury cases. I never claimed lawyers are the only people who make more if they have more success. That would be ridiculous.

I'm asking for an example where a client can come to you, as a professional, and not owe a dime unless there is a successful outcome based on your services. Oh, and that also means that any expenses pursuing that outcome on behalf of said client are eaten by the professional in the event of an unsuccessful outcome.
Click to expand...

You do realize that this line of thinking makes you sound even shadier, right? What's the percentage take for winning attorneys? And is it justifiable?

I understand your point, and I don't hate personal injury attorneys, but your argument only amplifies the viewpoint that the profession is taking advantage of other's misfortune.

Do you help? Sure. But at the end of the day you are profiting of someone else's injury and possibly (probably) at an uncomfortable percentage.

Which would explain DR's defense of Dick Burr, I guess. Either fleece or get fleeced.
 
I did plaintiff’s PI work for over 30 years and the contingency of the fee really only applies to disputed cases (liablilty and/or damages). In those cases, there can be risk for the attorney with the chance of a nice (sometimes)reward. In clear liability and damages cases, the 33% is usually a windfall. You can put 20 hours in a case and earn $100k. It all kind of balances out over time, but if a lawyer advertises and takes only the plum cases, 33% is way too much of a fee. And the TV advertisers do that. They are scum in my book.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Imagine having $100,000 worth of damages but only receiving $60,000 from the responsible party because our system requires you to hire a lawyer.
Click to expand...

yeah, a former roommate settled on a sexual harassment case for $275k and the lawyers got $200k
 
wfu22fan said:
I did plaintiff’s PI work for over 30 years and the contingency of the fee really only applies to disputed cases (liablilty and/or damages). In those cases, there can be risk for the attorney with the chance of a nice (sometimes)reward. In clear liability and damages cases, the 33% is usually a windfall. You can put 20 hours in a case and earn $100k. It all kind of balances out over time, but if a lawyer advertises and takes only the plum cases, 33% is way too much of a fee. And the TV advertisers do that. They are scum in my book.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's also what I was wondering. How many PI attorneys only take cases they know they can easily win? Because 33% seems quite unethical for that kind of case.
 
donaldross said:
Ya'll sure do hate what I do for a living. Until you need me. Then I see your happy little begging faces in my conference room.
Click to expand...

Do you still have that super hot blonde assistant who videoed our interview a few years ago? I couldn't stop checking her out. Hope you are well DR.
 
I'm not going to allow this to consume my day. Insurance companies and other industries have spent decades on anti-lawsuit, anti-lawyer propaganda, with great success. If you don't believe me, ask yourself how you feel about the McDonalds "hot coffee" case. Then, spend some time learning about what really happened.

As to the question regarding only recouping 60% of your damages, what's your solution friend? I'd love to hear it.

And the comment about profiting off of misfortune, let me make this very clear: if I could flip a switch and end the types of injuries I deal with, I would. I'd happily go do something else. I'm sure if you asked an oncologist, who is literally making his living off of cancer, he'd tell you the same thing.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Imagine having $100,000 worth of damages but only receiving $60,000 from the responsible party because our system requires you to hire a lawyer.
Click to expand...

It depends on the case. If you are offered $5k and the lawyer takes your case to trial and gets a $100k verdict (done that), the client walks away very happy with $60k. If you are offered $70k and you hire a lawyer who tries your case and gets a $100 verdict, you are less satisfied but the lawyer likely worked his butt off for you. If you are offered $70k and the lawyer settles for $100 before filing suit, you have lost $10k on your investment and the lawyer didn’t do much. So every case is different. Ethical lawyers don’t gouge clients but not all lawyers are ethical. Or trustworthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top