Personal injury attorneys: Good, bad, or indifferent?

These lawyers claim to be good hearted individuals who are only interested in pursuing justice. To prove their commitment, they are willing to work for free until a favorable settlement is achieved. What cash poor accident victim could refuse such a noble proposition?

Please consider: Nobody works for free.

These lawyers are able to cherry pick their cases based upon how lucrative their practices are. No competent lawyer will accept a personal injury case unless they are sure of a settlement. Also consider that the lawyer will typically receive 60% of the settlement plus their expenses (taken off of the top). The kindly lawyer will end up receiving upwards of 70% of the settlement, leaving a miserable ~30% for the person who actually was injured (talk about adding insult to injury).

If you doubt me, then just try to hire a personal injury attorney on a hourly basis. They make so much more by working on “CONTINGENCY” that you won’t have any takers.
Gunny T: You are incorrect. I am making no assumptions regarding juries, judges or attorneys in general. I am specificly questioning the motives and manner in which PERSONAL INJURY attorneys operate.

Sounds to me like you are making some assumptions yourself.
1) Are you absolutely positive that the plantiff’s attny was working pro bono vs on contingency?
2) How do you know that the jury voted against a just decision in order to watch television?
It sounds to me as if you are a little biased as to your specific case. Perhaps you were the plantiff?

Published by: Admin on September 30th, 2009 | Filed under Attorneys Personal Injury