Choosing an attorney can be a daunting task. Knowing what kind of lawyer you need and how much is a reasonable fee is often very difficult to determine without prior knowledge. Here’s a brief guide to selecting the best lawyer for your legal matter.
It is always a good idea to obtain a recommendation of friend or associate who has had dealings with an attorney. A friend's past experience can reveal whether your experience with an attorney will be a good one. If you can’t find a friend to make a referral, you should contact a local or county bar association. For a nominal fee of $10-35, the bar association will refer you to one or several attorneys appropriate for your legal matter.
Most attorneys will spend 10-20 minutes on the phone with you to determine your legal problem and advise you whether they can handle your case. Most attorneys will not offer legal advice over the phone or during an initial consultation, mainly because the attorney does not have all of the information needed to adequately analyze and recommend a course of action in a phone conversation or initial consultation.
Most attorneys will also refuse to guarantee the outcome of your legal matter; this is a good thing. Legal cases usually involve variables (judges, witnesses, juries, quality of evidence, etc.) that can never be fully be accounted for until after a legal case has been tried and concluded. You don’t want an attorney who promises you an outcome because he’s gambling with your hard earned money and has a 50/50 chance of losing.
You can call several attorneys, general practitioners or specialists, in your problem area and select one based on your conversation and comfort level. The attorney should state his hourly fee. If the attorney requires a retainer of over $1,000, the attorney must provide a written retainer agreement or letter of engagement for your review and signature.
You should ask for the approximate time it will take to resolve your case, however you should understand that any time given in an approximation because of the variables listed above.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Attorneys in Ford Settlement Get $25 Million
Attorneys in the Ford Motor Company litigation related to the Explorer rollover scandal of the 1990s obtained approximately $25 million in attorneys fees and costs. This complex litigation matter clogged the Sacramento County Superior Court's overburdened calendar for more than seven years.
Of the 1 million consumers covered by the class action lawsuit filed in their name, none of the consumers got money, only discount coupons toward new Ford purchases.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David De Alba authorized the settlement of a class action that lawyers argued could be worth as much as $500 million to people who owned Ford Explorers during the 1990s. De Alba awarded the lawyers $25 million in fees and expenses after presiding over a 50-day trial without a jury in 2007. The case settled before the judge reached a verdict.
In exchange for dropping the lawsuit that alleged rollover problems unfairly diminished the resale value of Explorers, Ford customers could receive a $500 discount coupon toward the purchase of a new SUV or a $300 coupon to buy another Ford vehicle. Consumers had until April 29, 2008 to apply for the coupons. A report filed with the court in June showed just 75 coupons have been redeemed for a combined $37,500.
"This coupon is valueless to me," said Stephen Webber, a Glendale lawyer who owns a 1998 Explorer and qualified for the discounts. "It did nothing to improve the safety of my vehicle, and I have no intentions of buying a new one."
The lawyers who represented Webber and the million other SUV owners argue that they did the best they could with a complicated case vigorously fought by Ford's phalanx of high-priced attorneys. They said that in the fall of 2007 when the case settled, there was a chance Ford would file for bankruptcy, wiping out the case and leaving consumers with nothing.
In a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press by the class action firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein on behalf of the five firms who sued Ford, the lawyers noted that they also forced Ford to stop touting the Explorer's safety features and make a $950,000 donation to nonprofit auto-safety groups, which they said benefits their clients. They said they spent $6 million of their own money and thousands of hours fighting Ford.
"Class counsel were surprised and, of course, disappointed by the low redemption rate which undoubtedly was affected by the near-collapse of the economy just as the period to redeem vouchers began," the lawyers said. "The real story here is Ford's failure to take responsibility for producing a vehicle, the 1991-2001 model year Explorer, that has killed hundreds of consumers over the past 18 years."
Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said the settlement prevented the company from discussing the case.
"We are pleased to have finally settled this case with the plaintiffs and to finally put this behind us," Kinley said. "We are also pleased to hear that some people took advantage of the vouchers to purchase a new Ford Explorer."
The judge in the Ford case, at the urging of several lawyers objecting to the original settlement, required the class action attorneys to file a report this year detailing the redemption rates. That report, which highlighted the dismal consumer participation, is expected to be considered by other judges pondering coupon settlements across the country.
The Ford case stands out even against the backdrop of endless debate over class action litigation where lawyers get multi-million-dollar paydays for settlements that have minimal value for most of their clients.
The Ralph Nader-founded Center for Auto Safety in Washington D.C. expressed outrage and tried to stop the settlement last year. Several others also urged the judge to withhold approval before dropping their opposition in exchange for the donation to auto safety nonprofits and the requirement that coupon redemptions be reported.
"The reality is that class members are almost totally irrelevant and the lawyers are in charge," said McGeorge Law School professor John Sims who worked for Nader's Public Citizen Litigation Group. "But this was a stupid case that included a requirement to buy a new car within a year."
Of the 1 million consumers covered by the class action lawsuit filed in their name, none of the consumers got money, only discount coupons toward new Ford purchases.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David De Alba authorized the settlement of a class action that lawyers argued could be worth as much as $500 million to people who owned Ford Explorers during the 1990s. De Alba awarded the lawyers $25 million in fees and expenses after presiding over a 50-day trial without a jury in 2007. The case settled before the judge reached a verdict.
In exchange for dropping the lawsuit that alleged rollover problems unfairly diminished the resale value of Explorers, Ford customers could receive a $500 discount coupon toward the purchase of a new SUV or a $300 coupon to buy another Ford vehicle. Consumers had until April 29, 2008 to apply for the coupons. A report filed with the court in June showed just 75 coupons have been redeemed for a combined $37,500.
"This coupon is valueless to me," said Stephen Webber, a Glendale lawyer who owns a 1998 Explorer and qualified for the discounts. "It did nothing to improve the safety of my vehicle, and I have no intentions of buying a new one."
The lawyers who represented Webber and the million other SUV owners argue that they did the best they could with a complicated case vigorously fought by Ford's phalanx of high-priced attorneys. They said that in the fall of 2007 when the case settled, there was a chance Ford would file for bankruptcy, wiping out the case and leaving consumers with nothing.
In a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press by the class action firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein on behalf of the five firms who sued Ford, the lawyers noted that they also forced Ford to stop touting the Explorer's safety features and make a $950,000 donation to nonprofit auto-safety groups, which they said benefits their clients. They said they spent $6 million of their own money and thousands of hours fighting Ford.
"Class counsel were surprised and, of course, disappointed by the low redemption rate which undoubtedly was affected by the near-collapse of the economy just as the period to redeem vouchers began," the lawyers said. "The real story here is Ford's failure to take responsibility for producing a vehicle, the 1991-2001 model year Explorer, that has killed hundreds of consumers over the past 18 years."
Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said the settlement prevented the company from discussing the case.
"We are pleased to have finally settled this case with the plaintiffs and to finally put this behind us," Kinley said. "We are also pleased to hear that some people took advantage of the vouchers to purchase a new Ford Explorer."
The judge in the Ford case, at the urging of several lawyers objecting to the original settlement, required the class action attorneys to file a report this year detailing the redemption rates. That report, which highlighted the dismal consumer participation, is expected to be considered by other judges pondering coupon settlements across the country.
The Ford case stands out even against the backdrop of endless debate over class action litigation where lawyers get multi-million-dollar paydays for settlements that have minimal value for most of their clients.
The Ralph Nader-founded Center for Auto Safety in Washington D.C. expressed outrage and tried to stop the settlement last year. Several others also urged the judge to withhold approval before dropping their opposition in exchange for the donation to auto safety nonprofits and the requirement that coupon redemptions be reported.
"The reality is that class members are almost totally irrelevant and the lawyers are in charge," said McGeorge Law School professor John Sims who worked for Nader's Public Citizen Litigation Group. "But this was a stupid case that included a requirement to buy a new car within a year."
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
$80 Million in Legal Fees for GM
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Jenner & Block, and Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn have filed their applications for employment as counsel to General Motors in the troubled automaker's Chapter 11 case. The filings show that GM has paid more than $80 million in fees to the three firms over the past six months.
As lead bankruptcy counsel to GM, Weil has the lion's share of the billings at more than $54 million accrued during that period. That's roughly equivalent to the $55 million that Weil billed bankrupt Lehman Brothers between September 2008 and January 2009.
Weil bankruptcy partners Stephen Karotkin, Harvey Miller, and Joseph Smolinsky appear on the filing. The firm states that partners advising GM are billing between $650 and $950 per hour with associates billing at hourly rates between $355 and $640. Weil was paid a $5.9 million retainer, part of which it intends to apply to "any outstanding amounts" that were "not processed through [Weil's] billing system" prior to the firm being retained as bankruptcy counsel.
In an addendum listing current and former firm clients, Weil revealed that only annual fees paid to the firm by Lehman Brothers, General Electric, Microsoft, Citigroup, AIG, and private equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners exceeded 1 percent of the firm's annual gross revenue. According to Am Law 100 financial data, Weil had more than $1.2 billion in gross revenues for 2008. Full story
As lead bankruptcy counsel to GM, Weil has the lion's share of the billings at more than $54 million accrued during that period. That's roughly equivalent to the $55 million that Weil billed bankrupt Lehman Brothers between September 2008 and January 2009.
Weil bankruptcy partners Stephen Karotkin, Harvey Miller, and Joseph Smolinsky appear on the filing. The firm states that partners advising GM are billing between $650 and $950 per hour with associates billing at hourly rates between $355 and $640. Weil was paid a $5.9 million retainer, part of which it intends to apply to "any outstanding amounts" that were "not processed through [Weil's] billing system" prior to the firm being retained as bankruptcy counsel.
In an addendum listing current and former firm clients, Weil revealed that only annual fees paid to the firm by Lehman Brothers, General Electric, Microsoft, Citigroup, AIG, and private equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners exceeded 1 percent of the firm's annual gross revenue. According to Am Law 100 financial data, Weil had more than $1.2 billion in gross revenues for 2008. Full story
Monday, June 8, 2009
Twitter Sued for Hosting Fake Page
Cardinal’s manager Tony La Russa sued Twitter last month in a California state court in San Francisco. La Russa’s suit alleges that Twitter allowed a user to maintain a page under his name without his permission. He complains that many posts were vulgar and included off-color statements about Darryl Kile and Josh Hancock, two Cardinals who died during La Russa's tenure.
La Russa argues in his complaint that the impersonation was “derogatory and demeaning,” and damaged to his brand. He seeks unspecified damages and that the page be shut down. For more coverage, click here.
La Russa argues in his complaint that the impersonation was “derogatory and demeaning,” and damaged to his brand. He seeks unspecified damages and that the page be shut down. For more coverage, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
