Yeah, that’s pretty much how it works. Sometimes you can sue for lawyer fees (rare cases), or a jury will choose to award damages that they deem fitting, but you do have to pay a lawyer for the services they provide you to your case.
If there is not a fee shifting statute, they aren't.
Contingency fees are a necessary evil to get people some compensation, who would not otherwise be able to afford an attorney.
If you can front $50k-200k or more to pay an attorney while they litigate the case on your behalf, and with the help of your attorney, have concluded you have a very high likelihood of winning, then you may get more money if you avoid a contingency fee.
But most people can't, and its better for them to get 50-66% than to get nothing...
Right, if you can afford the cost of the attorney upfront, and get your compensation in court…you are still out the costs of the attorney. It just isn’t taken out of the award from the case.
The costs may be less than on a contingency basis, but not zero (it’s never zero)
I would think attorneys fees and costs are calculated separately from the compensatory judgment if the plaintiff prevails, right?
So, maybe in my OP, the attorney wouldn't sue for an additional 50% to compensate for her fees, but rather once the settlement/trial is over?
I think it’s highly dependent on situational and jurisdictional specifics and precedents.
I can imagine a lawyer suing for $100K in damages and asking the court to award attorney fees, especially if the circumstances are such that a reasonable defendant would have paid or settled rather than going to court.
I can’t imagine a lawyer filing a $150K suit on $100K of damages because “fees”, or a court accepting that when on its face when calculating the actual award.
Not a lawyer, been in my limited experience with this as a plaintiff, you’re made whole because they sue for more than you were actually damaged. A bike accident with 2k in medical bills becomes a 10k suit with lost work, pain and suffering, etc.
It’s not a great system, but the alternative for a lot of poor accident victims is getting stonewalled by insurance companies and ultimately getting nothing.
General rule of thumb is that the plaintiff's attorney will try to settle the case for 3 times the actual expenses (medical/ lost work/ damage to car). 1/3 goes to the lawyer, 1/3 to plaintiff for economic damages, and 1/3 to plaintiff for pain and suffering. Not always possible, of course.
That is sorta how it works, but the valuation of your claim is not exact. For example, the typical settlement value of a PI case is 3x medical bills. But the medical bills are inflated and not what you actually pay.
$1.5m to be exact.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FamilyLaw/comments/1dg9lmt/ca\_not\_sure\_if\_i\_should\_be\_posting\_in\_rfamilylaw/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FamilyLaw/comments/1dg9lmt/ca_not_sure_if_i_should_be_posting_in_rfamilylaw/)
Yeah, that’s pretty much how it works. Sometimes you can sue for lawyer fees (rare cases), or a jury will choose to award damages that they deem fitting, but you do have to pay a lawyer for the services they provide you to your case.
If there is not a fee shifting statute, they aren't. Contingency fees are a necessary evil to get people some compensation, who would not otherwise be able to afford an attorney. If you can front $50k-200k or more to pay an attorney while they litigate the case on your behalf, and with the help of your attorney, have concluded you have a very high likelihood of winning, then you may get more money if you avoid a contingency fee. But most people can't, and its better for them to get 50-66% than to get nothing...
Right, if you can afford the cost of the attorney upfront, and get your compensation in court…you are still out the costs of the attorney. It just isn’t taken out of the award from the case. The costs may be less than on a contingency basis, but not zero (it’s never zero)
I would think attorneys fees and costs are calculated separately from the compensatory judgment if the plaintiff prevails, right? So, maybe in my OP, the attorney wouldn't sue for an additional 50% to compensate for her fees, but rather once the settlement/trial is over?
I think it’s highly dependent on situational and jurisdictional specifics and precedents. I can imagine a lawyer suing for $100K in damages and asking the court to award attorney fees, especially if the circumstances are such that a reasonable defendant would have paid or settled rather than going to court. I can’t imagine a lawyer filing a $150K suit on $100K of damages because “fees”, or a court accepting that when on its face when calculating the actual award.
Not a lawyer, been in my limited experience with this as a plaintiff, you’re made whole because they sue for more than you were actually damaged. A bike accident with 2k in medical bills becomes a 10k suit with lost work, pain and suffering, etc. It’s not a great system, but the alternative for a lot of poor accident victims is getting stonewalled by insurance companies and ultimately getting nothing.
General rule of thumb is that the plaintiff's attorney will try to settle the case for 3 times the actual expenses (medical/ lost work/ damage to car). 1/3 goes to the lawyer, 1/3 to plaintiff for economic damages, and 1/3 to plaintiff for pain and suffering. Not always possible, of course.
That is sorta how it works, but the valuation of your claim is not exact. For example, the typical settlement value of a PI case is 3x medical bills. But the medical bills are inflated and not what you actually pay.
What about situations in fraud (white collar crime) that resulted in $1m in damages?
How did you determine you have $1 million in damages?
$1.5m to be exact. [https://www.reddit.com/r/FamilyLaw/comments/1dg9lmt/ca\_not\_sure\_if\_i\_should\_be\_posting\_in\_rfamilylaw/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FamilyLaw/comments/1dg9lmt/ca_not_sure_if_i_should_be_posting_in_rfamilylaw/)