Lawyer unable to finish the case....

[Zigner]

No one here has read your contract with the attorney and we do not know whether he has earned all of the money he has been paid.

If your attorney has earned all of the money paid, you are not entitled to a refund. If your attorney has not earned all of the money paid but there is a clause in your contract saying that all money paid is considered earned on receipt (and this clause is prominent), you are not entitled to a refund. If your attorney has not earned all of the money paid and there is no clause saying otherwise, you would be entitled to a refund of any unearned money.

Excellent summation

 

[quincy]

Excellent summation

Thank you, sir.

 

[Silverplum]

hmmmmm.... are these replies all from lawyers? ...lol, I was hoping that someone would agree with my perspective.

Some replies were from attorneys, some were not.

'Getting people to agree with you' is not a smart goal for one seeking legal help. Your friends and family can sympathize with you, but the truth is what you need.

 

[quincy]

... 'Getting people to agree with you' is not a smart goal for one seeking legal help ...

Generally a client would need to pay an attorney more for that.

 

[mshockey17]

No one here has read your contract with the attorney and we do not know whether he has earned all of the money he has been paid.

If your attorney has earned all of the money paid, you are not entitled to a refund. If your attorney has not earned all of the money paid but there is a clause in your contract saying that all money paid is considered earned on receipt (and this clause is prominent), you are not entitled to a refund. If your attorney has not earned all of the money paid and there is no clause saying otherwise, you would be entitled to a refund of any unearned money.

I guess I might suggest whether he has earned it or not is subjective. Most of the comments that I have seen here seem to say straight out if he spent the time then he should be paid. While this fundamentally makes sense I would argue that despite the fact that he did spend the time the fact is that some of the time was spent to put him in a position to argue in front of a judge. Without the ability to do that a significant portion of the time that he spent was of no benefit to the case and therefore I think he does not have a right to those payments.

I have been trying to think of a good analogy since I think those are helpful although I did not agree with the gardener analogy as there is no real conclusion since plants always continue to grow. Maybe this.... if you have someone build a house for you and they get a good way through it and decide they do not want to finish. Then you hire someone else to come and finish it. I highly doubt that the cost and schedule of the house would be the same as if the original builder started and finished the project. The new builder would need to spend time to understand the structure and the details of the progress as well as what is left to be done. The original builder already understood all of that... there are inefficiencies.

thanks

 

[mshockey17]

Some replies were from attorneys, some were not.

'Getting people to agree with you' is not a smart goal for one seeking legal help. Your friends and family can sympathize with you, but the truth is what you need.

I think you are making a little bit of a leap assuming that I am looking for sympathy... I do not agree. I am arguing my point to see if any of it makes sense to any of the folks here. In believe that the this is a matter of opinion and I do not consider any one persons perspective as the truth or fact. Obviously I do not see it exactly as you do which is fine. I appreciate you sharing your perspective with me. I also appreciate the folks that discuss their perspective with me as it gives data points to use in drawing my conclusions. thanks

 

[Zigner]

...if you have someone build a house for you and they get a good way through it and decide they do not want to finish. Then you hire someone else to come and finish it. I highly doubt that the cost and schedule of the house would be the same as if the original builder started and finished the project. The new builder would need to spend time to understand the structure and the details of the progress as well as what is left to be done. The original builder already understood all of that... there are inefficiencies.

thanks

Right - the original builder gets paid for the time (work) that he's put in to it.

 

[mshockey17]

Right - the original builder gets paid for the time (work) that he's put in to it.

Ok, I get what you are saying. I would ask you to really put yourself in the position. You are the person buying your house and the builder is doing his best to stick to the budget and schedule and things are moving along. Then he decides to not finish. Now you need to find and pay for a new builder who can not just pick up where the other guy left off but has to come up to speed. Lets say it adds %15 to the cost of your house that you now have to pay for and it is an expensive house to begin with. Would you have an issue with that? Would that upset you? Would you have hired the original builder if you knew he was going to do that?

As someone else suggested, I know it sounds like I want people to agree with me but if you don't you don't. Either way I appreciate your opinion. I also realize that this analogy is somewhat different from my situation but I thought it might help give others an additional perspective. Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

A better analogy might be an accountant who is hired to do your taxes for the year and is billing on an hourly basis. He spends many hours learning all of the ins and outs of your situation, but then has some matter comes up that makes him unable to complete the return. He turns over all of his work to your new accountant and your new accountant has to spend her time learning the same stuff that your old accountant had already learned. Your old accountant isn't required or expected to pay for that learning time.

 

[quincy]

I guess I might suggest whether he has earned it or not is subjective. Most of the comments that I have seen here seem to say straight out if he spent the time then he should be paid. While this fundamentally makes sense I would argue that despite the fact that he did spend the time the fact is that some of the time was spent to put him in a position to argue in front of a judge. Without the ability to do that a significant portion of the time that he spent was of no benefit to the case and therefore I think he does not have a right to those payments.

I have been trying to think of a good analogy since I think those are helpful although I did not agree with the gardener analogy as there is no real conclusion since plants always continue to grow. Maybe this.... if you have someone build a house for you and they get a good way through it and decide they do not want to finish. Then you hire someone else to come and finish it. I highly doubt that the cost and schedule of the house would be the same as if the original builder started and finished the project. The new builder would need to spend time to understand the structure and the details of the progress as well as what is left to be done. The original builder already understood all of that... there are inefficiencies. ...

When you are presented with the attorney invoice showing the time spent, on what tasks the time was spent, and the money owed for that time, go over this carefully to see if there are any errors that you can legitimately dispute.

The attorney deserves to be paid for the time spent on the work he did for you and, if there is a clause in your contract saying he has earned it all, you owe it all. If there is a refund due you according to the terms of your contract, you will have the money refunded. If more money is owed than you already paid, expect to pay more.

You might want to keep in mind that the time the attorney spent on your case was time he could not spend on other pursuits, like working on a case for another client willing to pay for his services.

With that said, you are free to argue with the ailing attorney all you want. I am not sure there is much more that needs to be discussed on this forum, however.

 

[mshockey17]

A better analogy might be an accountant who is hired to do your taxes for the year and is billing on an hourly basis. He spends many hours learning all of the ins and outs of your situation, but then has some matter comes up that makes him unable to complete the return. He turns over all of his work to your new accountant and your new accountant has to spend her time learning the same stuff that your old accountant had already learned. Your old accountant isn't required or expected to pay for that learning time.

I agree that is better analogy and clearly you understand my point. Even though you disagree I very much appreciate your opinion. I might argue that the accounting analogy is a little different since it is more frequent (at least for me) and therefore might have a smaller financial impact than buying a home or a legal issue but still consistent. thanks.

 

[LdiJ]

A better analogy might be an accountant who is hired to do your taxes for the year and is billing on an hourly basis. He spends many hours learning all of the ins and outs of your situation, but then has some matter comes up that makes him unable to complete the return. He turns over all of his work to your new accountant and your new accountant has to spend her time learning the same stuff that your old accountant had already learned. Your old accountant isn't required or expected to pay for that learning time.

I like the analogy, but many tax professionals do not charge anything for taxes unless they are completed and filed. Accounting in general is still a good analogy.

 

[mshockey17]

When you are presented with the attorney invoice showing the time spent, on what tasks the time was spent, and the money owed for that time, go over this carefully to see if there are any errors that you can legitimately dispute.

The attorney deserves to be paid for the time spent on the work he did for you and, if there is a clause in your contract saying he has earned it all, you owe it all. If there is a refund due you according to the terms of your contract, you will have the money refunded. If more money is owed than you already paid, expect to pay more.

You might want to keep in mind that the time the attorney spent on your case was time he could not spend on other pursuits, like working on a case for another client willing to pay for his services.

With that said, you are free to argue with the ailing attorney all you want. I am not sure there is much more that needs to be discussed on this forum, however.

Ok, thanks for your perspective. I have appreciated the discussion and feel that it has been good stuff but if folks want me to leave of course I will. Do you feel it is contrary to the intent of this forum? thanks

 

[mshockey17]

I like the analogy, but many tax professionals do not charge anything for taxes unless they are completed and filed. Accounting in general is still a good analogy.

Good point. The return is the culmination of the effort and pointless without it. I would not say that is completely true for my case since a significant portion of the work he has done was in support of activities other than the trial. It is those trial activities that I am more focused on. Thanks

 

[quincy]

Ok, thanks for your perspective. I have appreciated the discussion and feel that it has been good stuff but if folks want me to leave of course I will. Do you feel it is contrary to the intent of this forum? thanks

Do I think trying to find analogies for a dispute over legal fees is contrary to the intent of this forum?

If the purpose is to help a poster understand a legal matter, then it falls nicely within the intent of the forum, the intent of which is to educate posters on their legal issues. If a poster cannot understand what forum members are saying without the use of an analogy, then analogies are often used to help the poster understand.

If a poster understands what has been said, on the other hand, and only wants to use the forum to find a good analogy to use with an attorney when asking for a refund (that may or may not be owing), I think that is contrary to the intent of this forum.

As an additional note: The time the other attorney spends on trial preparation will be based on the work provided by the first attorney, which makes the first attorney's work valuable. The new attorney will be reading and doing his own research and revising as he prepares for the trial, so his time is valuable, too. Whether you want to pay for the attorneys who are assisting you in your case is a decision you will have to make on your own. If you don't feel fees were earned, discuss it with the attorney. The attorney should understand what you are saying without an analogy.