Is there proper etiquette on attorney fees?

[Steffenfield]

My lawyer is requesting a retainer plus $240 an hour, that's not including all expenses needed such as filing, use of phone, mail, travel and other such costs.

There also is no cap on this, only interest if I don't pay in time, and they want me to sign their electronic agreement.

I just would like to know what was given to the executor of my parent's estate who has shared none of it with me for two years now.

Can I haggle with my attorney on these upfront expenses?

So far, nothing has been fruitful with them and the executor still won't disclose. It looks like a lawsuit will be required.

It seems too much for me with these costs.

Their AVVO score is 6.4 and neither of us is in the county of the dispute.

I only have $1,500 in Savings left and can pay about $500 more each month, starting in October.

It's been about 6 weeks with them, and I really would not like to start over again, but I can't afford their stated conditions.

I should probably call them back next week with my decision.

The support I'm requesting for is Breach of Fiduciary Duty by the executor.

Any advice on what to do?

I'm afraid that I'll go bankrupt, with no resolution, because I wasn't able to pay through to the end since I'll eventually be short on money with their terms.

-From Michigan

 

[Taxing Matters]

You certainly may try to negotiate something else with the lawyer. Whether the lawyer will be agreeable to that I can't say since I don't know the lawyer. When hiring a lawyer on an hourly basis, it is common for the lawyer to want a retainer to act as a reserve to ensure fees will be paid, and it is common that the client pays for the out of pocket costs like the filing fees, postage, travel expenses, costs of service, etc. Whether the lawyer's hourly fee is reasonable depends on what rates lawyers charge in your area and the expertise of the particular lawyer you hired. I can tell you that my own hourly rate is more than what your lawyer is charging you. But I have no idea where in Michigan you are or what the going rates there would be.

Litigation can get expensive. You may well end up spending many thousands of dollars pursuing this if the executor really wants to fight it out. If the pay out at the end is significant then it can be worth it, but of course you have to be able to come up with the cash to fund the lawsuit until then. There are no magic answers I have for how to pay for that.

 

[HRZ]

You need also to make an educated guess as to the economic value that might be coming your way IF you were to prevail that exexutor has bungled things ...a major squabble over family remembrances or mere sloppy administration is unlikely to be cost effective !

The lawyer is entitled to be paid for his or her time

 

[justalayman]

I don’t really see an issue with what the attorney has put in their contract. Generally an hourly fee is for “labor” (for lack of a better term). Actual costs to work on your case would be in addition to that hourly “labor” charge.

The one issue I have seen in such situations is when the attorney is traveling for your case, they will charge for their time. Many attorneys may have phone calls involving other cases while travelling. The time spent on the other cases should be deducted from time charged to you. If travel time is more than quick trip, the possibility for being the victim of double charging increases.

What I’m curious about is how have you had these folks working for you for 6 weeks without a signed retainer. Maybe that’s why things are stalled at the moment.


While it seems like a question that shouldn’t have to be asked:

Have you already obtained the file from the probate court?

I am a bit curious as to what you mean by you want to know what was given to the executor (actuslly called a personal representative in Michigan) from the estate. This should be clear upon review of the probate records.

 

[FlyingRon]

A retainer is a deposit for subsequent billing.
Attorneys tend to bill one of three ways:
1. They'll quote a flat fee (typically for aspects that have fixed amounts of work, like taking a case up through the prelims, etc.).
2. They'll bill T&M (an hourly rate plus expenses).
3. They'll take a fee contingent on the civil award (typically 33-40%).

There's no "etiquette." These guys are in business. Talk to several attorneys, get references. You're free to ask for a modification of terms (like amount of retainer).

 

[TrustUser]

well, now you know why i stay away from lawyers !! 240/hr - what a ridiculous amount of money that they make

 

[Just Blue]

well, now you know why i stay away from lawyers !! 240/hr - what a ridiculous amount of money that they make

Not really when you consider the overhead.

 

[justalayman]

well, now you know why i stay away from lawyers !! 240/hr - what a ridiculous amount of money that they make

That pays for the secretary and the paralegals and the offfice and the utilities and myriad other overhead costs.

Did you think that all goes into their pockets?

 

[Taxing Matters]

That pays for the secretary and the paralegals and the offfice and the utilities and myriad other overhead costs.

Did you think that all goes into their pockets?

Exactly right. There are a lot of expenses in running a law practice, and the hourly rate covers those costs in addition to what the lawyer takes home to live on. By the way, when doctors charge by the hour without any insurance middleman (meaning you pay the full cost of the service) you generally end up paying more per hour than what lawyers charge you. Doctors' practices tend to have higher overhead, and doctors tend to take home more than lawyers do. So the big difference you are seeing here is that for many types of cases lawyers are not generally paid using insurance like doctors are, so consumers perceive doctors to charge less. They are not taking into account the cost of the insurance they pay, which they (or their employers) pay whether they use a doctor's service or not. That insurance helps hide the true cost of the service.

 

[TrustUser]

dont assume that i think any better of doctors - LOL

 

[Just Blue]

dont assume that i think any better of doctors - LOL

Well ..Whatever you think of them there is a good reason for the high cost.

 

[TrustUser]

there is one big difference between lawyers and doctors though - doctors did not create the human body, and all of its ailments

but their model to fix our ailments always revolves around expensive pharmaceuticals

in other words, the main goal of our medical society revolves around profit, not around the goal of making people feel better

in fact, if they make us feel too good, they wont have jobs any more

lawyers create a ridiculously complex set of laws, and then charge everyone else to interpret them

it is no secret why there are so many lawyer jokes, and why they are hated so

being that this is a site full of lawyers i am not the least bit surprised at the blowback

i am sure there will be a lot more coming my way !!

you are talking to someone too wise about reality and how things really are

 

[Taxing Matters]

you are talking to someone too wise about reality and how things really are

And someone biased against lawyers based on incorrect assumptions. The laws are as complex as they are for a lot of reasons, and the desire by any lawyers for more complex laws is pretty far down the list of the reasons for that. Take tax law for example. The federal income tax code is indeed complex. The American Bar Association (ABA) tax section has urged for years that the law be made less complex, not more. Why? Because a simpler tax code would benefit our clients. Even with a simplified tax code there will still be a need for tax lawyers, after all, since conflicts with the IRS will still come up. So what is the reason for the complexity? All the various interest groups — businesses, all kinds of interest organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, AMA, industry organizations, membership organizations for individuals like the AARP, unions, state and local governments, and others who lobby for various tax laws that benefit them. They are what push the tax laws to be what they are, far more than what lawyers might lobby for, which is a big reason why ABA efforts for simplification have not had the success I'd like to see.

You can look at most any other area of law, too, and see the same thing: the law is driven much more by other interest groups than what benefits lawyers in the practice of law. Indeed, the AMA is far more effective at lobbying for what benefits doctors than lawyers are lobbying for what benefits them.

The difference is that doctors are perceived as helpers, even miracle workers, saving lives and making people feel better. It's hard to hate that. But a good part of what do is lawyers represent people in conflicts; and the person on the opposing side of that of course does not like that and tends to hate the lawyer for his opponent as a result. For every winner in litigation, there is a loser. So of course there are a lot people out there who have lost and take their anger at that on the lawyers.

In short, conflict breeds contempt, which makes lawyers the object of hate by some. Doctors don't deal in conflict; they are seen as helpers, so they don't get the same hate coming their way.

 

[TrustUser]

believe it or not, i actually agree with much of what you said, regarding your comparison

i stay away from both professions, and that is the last word from me, on the subject !!

 

[Whoops2u]

That pays for the secretary and the paralegals and the offfice and the utilities and myriad other overhead costs.

Did you think that all goes into their pockets?

The attorneys I've used, when it wasn't fixed fee for eviction, ALSO charge for paralegal and administrative support separately. You get to pay the big bucks when you're using the big thinker's time. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work.