Comments for Overlawyered http://overlawyered.com Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:40:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on Claim: You rated our constituents as too creditworthy by Todd Rogers http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/claim-you-rated-our-constituents-as-too-creditworthy/#comment-36026 Todd Rogers Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:37:11 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7951#comment-36026 This is where I provide a "non-comment." If I write what I'm thinking, it will likely surface in a job interview twenty years from now and the spin will indefensible. This is where I provide a “non-comment.” If I write what I’m thinking, it will likely surface in a job interview twenty years from now and the spin will indefensible.

]]> Comment on “Chiropractor Sues Patient Over Negative Yelp Review” by David Wisniewski http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/chiropractor-sues-patient-over-negative-yelp-review/#comment-36024 David Wisniewski Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:22:08 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7944#comment-36024 Although I am not a California attorney, it seems that CA's SLAPP statute is applicable here. Although I am not a California attorney, it seems that CA’s SLAPP statute is applicable here.

]]> Comment on Lawyers! Getcher hot “pearl-shucked” case leads! by David Wisniewski http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/lawyers-getcher-hot-pearl-shucked-case-leads/#comment-36023 David Wisniewski Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:18:17 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7945#comment-36023 Servicestolawyers.com spam the Philadelphia Legal Services portion of Craigslist quite frequently. Why would any self-respecting attorney work with a spammer? Servicestolawyers.com spam the Philadelphia Legal Services portion of Craigslist quite frequently. Why would any self-respecting attorney work with a spammer?

]]> Comment on Wal-Mart trampling suit by kimsch http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/wal-mart-trampling-suit/#comment-36022 kimsch Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:04:57 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7948#comment-36022 I think that even if that Walmart had one security person for each potential customer it wouldn't have been enough. I don't know how foreseeable it is that customers would rip the doors off the hinges. I think that even if that Walmart had one security person for each potential customer it wouldn’t have been enough. I don’t know how foreseeable it is that customers would rip the doors off the hinges.

]]> Comment on Advice for frivolous pro se litigants by matt http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/advice-for-frivolous-pro-se-litigants/#comment-36017 matt Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:56:12 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7950#comment-36017 another thing that helps is not to be named johnathon lee riches another thing that helps is not to be named johnathon lee riches

]]> Comment on Claim: You rated our constituents as too creditworthy by nevins http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/claim-you-rated-our-constituents-as-too-creditworthy/#comment-36016 nevins Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:55:28 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7951#comment-36016 If you think community organizations are a front for social shenanegans, then look out for the 'community organizer' in chief. If you think community organizations are a front for social shenanegans, then look out for the ‘community organizer’ in chief.

]]> Comment on Claim: You rated our constituents as too creditworthy by K http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/claim-you-rated-our-constituents-as-too-creditworthy/#comment-36013 K Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:26:06 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7951#comment-36013 This way it works is: the ratings agencies have money. The community organizations want money. This doesn't seem to be in federal court. Yet. It is an attempt to get administrative action. That may bully the rating agencies into a payoff. And it may well work. The agencies will probably also agree to award a seat on their board to some already rich community organizer. This way it works is: the ratings agencies have money. The community organizations want money.

This doesn’t seem to be in federal court. Yet. It is an attempt to get administrative action. That may bully the rating agencies into a payoff. And it may well work.

The agencies will probably also agree to award a seat on their board to some already rich community organizer.

]]> Comment on Claim: You rated our constituents as too creditworthy by PatW http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/claim-you-rated-our-constituents-as-too-creditworthy/#comment-36008 PatW Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:58:32 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7951#comment-36008 Don't these people realize that without subprime loans the poor people wouldn't have been able to buy the house int he first place? Are they seriously saying that the banks should have given poor people favorable loans? Don't they know that poor people get subprime loans bexause that's the only loans they CAN get? I think they DO know this, and they are greedy and looking for money for nothing. They also strongly imply that blacks and hispanics get subprime loans because they are black and hispanic. How are they allowed to imply something so blatantly wrong? Don’t these people realize that without subprime loans the poor people wouldn’t have been able to buy the house int he first place? Are they seriously saying that the banks should have given poor people favorable loans? Don’t they know that poor people get subprime loans bexause that’s the only loans they CAN get?

I think they DO know this, and they are greedy and looking for money for nothing.

They also strongly imply that blacks and hispanics get subprime loans because they are black and hispanic. How are they allowed to imply something so blatantly wrong?

]]> Comment on Claim: You rated our constituents as too creditworthy by Matt http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/claim-you-rated-our-constituents-as-too-creditworthy/#comment-36002 Matt Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:12:18 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7951#comment-36002 The lesson here is to be wary of the word "community", because invariably it is used to place a facade of popular support on someone else's agenda. The lesson here is to be wary of the word “community”, because invariably it is used to place a facade of popular support on someone else’s agenda.

]]> Comment on Lawyers! Getcher hot “pearl-shucked” case leads! by PhilG http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/lawyers-getcher-hot-pearl-shucked-case-leads/#comment-36001 PhilG Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:59:28 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7945#comment-36001 Ron Coleman has asked if anyone has metrics on "marketer" lawyer referral fee income. I think hard figures would be difficult to obtain since lawyers don't want their clients to be aware that they are being bought and sold and, despite bar association regulations, rarely let clients know that referral fees are being exchanged, never mind the amount of those referral fees. Lawyer referral fees are a well kept secret. However there is lots of indirect evidence of how lucrative collecting referral fees is. For example, by far the most expensive Google adwords are those used by marketer lawyers, with many of them costing those lawyers over $50 per click (see http://overlawyered.com/2007/09/search-engine-index-ii/) compared to just cents per click for typical Google adwords. And just spending a bit of time watching daytime TV will show you that advertising on daytime TV is dominated by marketer lawyer advertising (with companies providing cash in exchange for assignments of lawsuit structured settlements also prominent there). But beyond the bulk advertisements of the mass marketers of lawsuits, many individual lawyers, who are not practicing trial lawyers, but make their income in other ways, such as employees of corporations, supplement their incomes, often substantially, by referring relatives, friends, and coworkers to personal injury lawyers in exchange for referral fees (which they keep secret from those being referred as you can understand). In fact politicians, such as state and federal legislators, who are also lawyers, can supplement their incomes very substantially by referring constituents who are involved in accidents to personal injury lawyers in exchange for secretive referral fees. And the fact that these referral fees from tort cases are so profitable to lawyer legislators is one of the reasons why tort law reform is so difficult to achieve. It is interesting that the going rate for referral fees is around a third or so of the contingency fee. On first hearing of referral fees, one would assume that referral fees would be much lower, perhaps around 5% or 10% or so of the contingency fee. But referral fees are so high because contingency fees themselves are so incredibly lucrative that the lawyer handling a case can easily afford to give away a third or so of his or her contingency fee and still have lavish amounts of money left over for himself or herself. Now you would think that since referral fees typically amount to about a third of the contingency fee, a savvy consumer could approach directly a tort laywer who he or she wants to handle his or her case and negotiate a contingency fee which is up to a third less than the standard contingency fee, saving a lot of money, with the lawyer still making the same income or more as if he or she had to pay a referral fee. But the bar associations, in a rather perverse application of logic, forbid this discounting since "it wouldn't be fair to the client coming in through a referral to pay more than a client coming in without a referral." The US Justice Department has convinced other trade associations to change other similar restraint of trade rules and one would hope that the Justice Department might similarly convince the bar associations to change this rule. But with an incoming Democratic administration, heavily financially supported by trial lawyers, that isn't likely to happen. Ron Coleman has asked if anyone has metrics on “marketer” lawyer referral fee income. I think hard figures would be difficult to obtain since lawyers don’t want their clients to be aware that they are being bought and sold and, despite bar association regulations, rarely let clients know that referral fees are being exchanged, never mind the amount of those referral fees. Lawyer referral fees are a well kept secret.
However there is lots of indirect evidence of how lucrative collecting referral fees is. For example, by far the most expensive Google adwords are those used by marketer lawyers, with many of them costing those lawyers over $50 per click (see http://overlawyered.com/2007/09/search-engine-index-ii/) compared to just cents per click for typical Google adwords. And just spending a bit of time watching daytime TV will show you that advertising on daytime TV is dominated by marketer lawyer advertising (with companies providing cash in exchange for assignments of lawsuit structured settlements also prominent there).
But beyond the bulk advertisements of the mass marketers of lawsuits, many individual lawyers, who are not practicing trial lawyers, but make their income in other ways, such as employees of corporations, supplement their incomes, often substantially, by referring relatives, friends, and coworkers to personal injury lawyers in exchange for referral fees (which they keep secret from those being referred as you can understand).
In fact politicians, such as state and federal legislators, who are also lawyers, can supplement their incomes very substantially by referring constituents who are involved in accidents to personal injury lawyers in exchange for secretive referral fees. And the fact that these referral fees from tort cases are so profitable to lawyer legislators is one of the reasons why tort law reform is so difficult to achieve.
It is interesting that the going rate for referral fees is around a third or so of the contingency fee. On first hearing of referral fees, one would assume that referral fees would be much lower, perhaps around 5% or 10% or so of the contingency fee. But referral fees are so high because contingency fees themselves are so incredibly lucrative that the lawyer handling a case can easily afford to give away a third or so of his or her contingency fee and still have lavish amounts of money left over for himself or herself.
Now you would think that since referral fees typically amount to about a third of the contingency fee, a savvy consumer could approach directly a tort laywer who he or she wants to handle his or her case and negotiate a contingency fee which is up to a third less than the standard contingency fee, saving a lot of money, with the lawyer still making the same income or more as if he or she had to pay a referral fee. But the bar associations, in a rather perverse application of logic, forbid this discounting since “it wouldn’t be fair to the client coming in through a referral to pay more than a client coming in without a referral.” The US Justice Department has convinced other trade associations to change other similar restraint of trade rules and one would hope that the Justice Department might similarly convince the bar associations to change this rule. But with an incoming Democratic administration, heavily financially supported by trial lawyers, that isn’t likely to happen.

]]>