Georgia - Had an accident where things are generally straightforward but still need a lawyer to help with the process. I was proposed a contract that seems essentially unbalanced and unfair. Please advise if there is a better way to structure this type contract. Two parts of the contract are listed below (abridged). One is for fees and owe is for costs.
Let's for the sake of this question, the Fees section is acceptable. I am struggling with the costs section. The lawyer told me "we may have to pay several hundred to transcriber, $500-$700 to a videographer, etc.". This seems like a blank check where nobody has a duty to use funds in judicious manner. Here is an example of scenario I am afraid of:
Law firm figures there is $300,000 recovery virtually guaranteed. They get $100,000 but there is $200,000 they can spend on costs. They hire their cousin Vinny as a videographer (as opposed to putting iphone on tripod) at a high (but arguably reasonable) cost. Even if no additional witnesses are needed, they may take more depositions that would drive the cost up, etc. At the end, most of the remaining $200,000 can be expensed but it would be difficult to argue/prove what was really necessary, etc. They may have a friend who is an expert in accident reconstruction and they may hire them even though an accident reconstructions wasn't really needed and changed the outcome of the settlement. There is nobody in charge of spending money who has duty to minimize unnecessary costs and protect the remaining recovery amount.
I understand many victims may sign this contract because there is an imbalance of power (attorneys can paint grim picture and have more info) but no business would enter in this type of "open ended" contract, ever. Is there a better way to do this? The lawyer asked me to propose an alternative.
Fees: "As compensation for their services, I agree to pay the Firm (33%) of the gross recovery on behalf of the undersigned. Recovery is defined as an offer of settlement, verdict, or judgment. lf it is necessary to file suit, compensation for the Firm shall be 40% of the gross recovery. lf post- trial motions are filed, or if the case proceeds to appeal, compensation for the Firm shall increase to (45%) of the gross recovery.
Costs: "I understand that the firm may advance case expense costs, which will be reimbursed from any recovery' case expense costs may include, but are not limited to, obtaining medical records and bills, investigative fees, service of process fees, witness fees, deposition costs, transcript costs, medical narratives, and expert may witness fees' Please note that certain case expense costs for copying, printing, postage, and file supplies be charged at the conclusion of the case at a reasonable estimated amount. Upon request, the firm will provide an itemized list of expenses to the undersigned. The parties agree that the firm will be fully reimbursed for all case expense costs at the time of recovery, in addition to the attorney fee. NO RECOVERY, NO FEE".
Let's for the sake of this question, the Fees section is acceptable. I am struggling with the costs section. The lawyer told me "we may have to pay several hundred to transcriber, $500-$700 to a videographer, etc.". This seems like a blank check where nobody has a duty to use funds in judicious manner. Here is an example of scenario I am afraid of:
Law firm figures there is $300,000 recovery virtually guaranteed. They get $100,000 but there is $200,000 they can spend on costs. They hire their cousin Vinny as a videographer (as opposed to putting iphone on tripod) at a high (but arguably reasonable) cost. Even if no additional witnesses are needed, they may take more depositions that would drive the cost up, etc. At the end, most of the remaining $200,000 can be expensed but it would be difficult to argue/prove what was really necessary, etc. They may have a friend who is an expert in accident reconstruction and they may hire them even though an accident reconstructions wasn't really needed and changed the outcome of the settlement. There is nobody in charge of spending money who has duty to minimize unnecessary costs and protect the remaining recovery amount.
I understand many victims may sign this contract because there is an imbalance of power (attorneys can paint grim picture and have more info) but no business would enter in this type of "open ended" contract, ever. Is there a better way to do this? The lawyer asked me to propose an alternative.
Fees: "As compensation for their services, I agree to pay the Firm (33%) of the gross recovery on behalf of the undersigned. Recovery is defined as an offer of settlement, verdict, or judgment. lf it is necessary to file suit, compensation for the Firm shall be 40% of the gross recovery. lf post- trial motions are filed, or if the case proceeds to appeal, compensation for the Firm shall increase to (45%) of the gross recovery.
Costs: "I understand that the firm may advance case expense costs, which will be reimbursed from any recovery' case expense costs may include, but are not limited to, obtaining medical records and bills, investigative fees, service of process fees, witness fees, deposition costs, transcript costs, medical narratives, and expert may witness fees' Please note that certain case expense costs for copying, printing, postage, and file supplies be charged at the conclusion of the case at a reasonable estimated amount. Upon request, the firm will provide an itemized list of expenses to the undersigned. The parties agree that the firm will be fully reimbursed for all case expense costs at the time of recovery, in addition to the attorney fee. NO RECOVERY, NO FEE".
