Attorney Billing & Records Question

[las365]

This is how it sounds to me: Your mother wasn't satisfied with the representation of the first attorney, so she fired him. She hired another firm and agreed to pay by the hour for the work performed (when you hire a lawyer at a law firm, you hire the firm, not the individual attorney only - although it is possible to make an agreement that only prticular staff will work on your case, the firm normally reserves the right to allocate its resources itself).

The firm assigned an attorney whose time would cost your mother less money ($200 instead of $300 an hour) to do the day to day work. The $300 attorney charged for his time working on the case with the $200 attorney (yes, conferencing is work, it usually involves sharing information obtained, formulating strategy and giving instruction for action).

The $300/hour attorney attended the mediation and it is perfectly ethical to charge for the time he spent at the mediaiton. The mediation was unsuccessful because the defendant wasn't willing to offer money.

The OCRC completed its investigation (which your mother's attorney did not have the right to direct) and found that she does not have a case. Again, your mother's attorney doesn't have any control over that.

If the OCRC is anything like the local EEOC in my area, its investigations and conclusions leave a lot to be desired and are not necessarily indicative of whether or not illegal employment activities occurred. However, an attorney representing the claimant can only present the case and provide the names of witnesses, etc., - he can't force the agency to conduct what the claimant would feel is a thorough investigation or reach any particular conclusion.

If the firm had taken your mother's case on a contingent fee basis, it would be owed nothing at this point. The fact that it was an hourly contract may (or may not) indicate that the firm didn't feel it was worth the risk to do a contingent fee agreement. But the mere fact that the outcome was not in your mother's favor doesn't mean that the work was not performed and the firm is not owed for it.

I understand your mother's questions about the billing, and she is certainly well within her rights to question it. However, the specific things you mentioned (being charged for the time the attorney was actually physically present at the mediation and the lower-cost lawyer doing work and then reporting to the higher-cost lawyer) don't strike me as unethical in the least.

[KJHOOK13]

Yeah, I agree with your perspective on this. One exception, you stated that mom's attorneys are not allowed to direct the on-site investigation that took place at her place of employment, does that also apply to the company's attorney?

[KJHOOK13]

Thanks for your detailed guidelines. I will pass on to mom. Appreciate your help.

[las365]

Originally Posted by KJHOOK13

Yeah, I agree with your perspective on this. One exception, you stated that mom's attorneys are not allowed to direct the on-site investigation that took place at her place of employment, does that also apply to the company's attorney?

Well, the employer has a lot of control over who is made available for interviews and essentially presents its side just as the employee does. Getting sidetracked over bias or undue influence at the agency investigation level would be unlikely to help your mom much, though. If she has a provable case, that's what should be focused on.

Have you (or she) posted the facts of her situation in the employment forum? You could get some feedback there about the case itself. I don't know what its like in her part of the country, but where I am, if you can't find a lawyer to take your employment case on a contingent fee, it's because of concern about the potential for a monetary recovery that would make the investment and risk worthwhile.

[KJHOOK13]

Makes sense. I guess that's why her lawyers felt that they would simply go through the motions and get the "right to sue" letter. The OCRC commissioner in Columbus talked to mom, and told her that her lawyers had the opportunity to be on site as well during that visit. They chose not to. I think you are "right on" with feeling that the damages at this point were not sufficient enough for the attorneys to go contingency. I told mom to look at the bright side: she now has an additional $8500 worth of damages once she pays the rest of her legal bill!