Looks like Bragg got his stuff back

I never said I don't like lawyers! I'm not allowed to not like them. Well, them as a whole anyways. There are a few I can't stand... but that's a point better left to RL.

Interesting. Seeing as Katy is a lawyer and doubts the 100$K number .. Maybe I'm slightly less crazy than some people think.

I never said that every single fee from every single lawyer is legit. I said in THIS case. I stated because of the nature of the case, documents filed, the parties involved, and parties representing. I'm almost sure there are Mom and Pop private small firms that fudge. But they are increasingly being prosecuted.

While you are entitled (and welcome) to your opinion, your theory is flawed. Just because the lawyers submit legal documents does not make them not accountable for those documents. A classic example, Nifong and the DNA samples from the Duke lacrosse case.

Despite what those TV shows show, judges are not in the pockets of attorneys. No one has a favorite, though corruption within does make for a nice tidy hour long drama. Hell, even judges for the Supreme Court are accountable to an overseer. This isn't the 50's south. Over the years, the bar has set some pretty high standards of ethics. Will I say every single person in the legal system is perfect? No. No one in ANY system is perfect. I could find exception to anything. But rather than majority, it's a very small minority.

Driving 60 in a 55 is illegal yes, but it doesn't carry prison terms, lifetime record, ban from your field of work (anyone convicted of a felony is disbarred) and hundreds of thousands in fines. Bad comparison I'd say. That's like saying murder is illegal but it doesn't stop people, therefore all people are bad.

BTW, in case you are curious, part of the reforms for members of the bar, included disclosing fees BEFORE they are charged. A lawyer can't just say "I'll bill you for whatever later" and expect that all fees are paid for. A client can contest this in court. The same situation is being played for Birkhead/Opri (I like to tie my point in with real cases). His lawyer charged him for stuff he had no clue about. What happened? Judge froze HER assets and will almost positively waive the entire bill and demand repayment to him, for which was paid to her.

However, I know most people don't agree with the fees, but a lot of people don't understand what goes on behind them. Usually the most expensive are the best in their game. You pay for what you get in any other case, and this is the same. There are idiots who just like to charge that much and then there are those who are worth it. And more often than not, there's a reason why those fees are in place.

Like the mention of $20 per phone call, well chances are that was an arranged phone call that was missed. There are no computers that randomly call people, a time is set up and it is made based upon the agreed time. But there was probably a time, when someone spent their whole day chasing down people to work on their cases, and weren't making enough to cover their bills and all the other costs associated. (I personally don't know of anyone who does this, just presenting a scenario.) Most lawyers bill for only 50-70% of the hours actually put in. They don't usually account for administrative costs (that's a whole 'nother convo).

Junky fees aside - lawyers are paid to be inscrupulous. Fact of the matter. We always hear about the crappy ones, the corrupt ones, but that accounts for less than 2% of all lawyers in the US (and there are millions). Another fact is most people will never really need a lawyer for a trial case. All they hear is what's in the media. If all I listened to was media, I'd probably think they are the scum of the Earth. Fortunately, I've had the opportunity to watch some fight for child rights, child support, being child molesters behind bars, murderers, rapists, etc. All either pro bono, PA, or for cost.

What all this boils down to is quite simple. There's far too much at risk to fudge the fees. ESPECIALLY with the media watching.

But nothing was proven, it was *settled*. Therefore, any claims, assertions. imputations, allegations, and mojo are irrelevant.

You don't know if Bragg's counsel was paid, or if he was paid how much, and if so by whom. It is none of your business and you never will know.

Finally if you use "I heard that she-who-shall-not-be-named said X" as the basis for any belief, I recommend you catch a glimpse of how aforementioned third party presents herself: e.g. http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/10/amazing-rude-st.html

haha funny i see bring it on (not your funny the sueing funny). He's gone sue happy I hope he has a lot of money and he might find that some people well just aren't really "sueable" in the sense that they probably have nothing he can sue the for money wise so. Yeah funny that

I would however like a holiday all expenses paid trip to uh.. where is he gonna sue me from?

Well, I don't think this is an "all lawyers are scum" topic at all, just in case anyone is getting the idea it is.

I happen to have some lawyers who are the OPPOSITE of scum, and are highly ethical (and highly expensive!) lawyers, who have saved our butts twice now, and have done it while always staying on the high road. (Neither case was anything to do with anything that was our fault.)

And where we could have won hundreds of thousands, they agreed that what we wanted more was more important (thus not getting their cut of what could have been won).

At any rate, I've always had the utmost esteem for lawyers. I suppose you might say I never had any experience with lawyers other than the type I described above.

This, in my opinion, has nothing to do with lawyers in general. I imagine there are all types of people in the legal field, just as in all other fields.

Just wanted to make that clear.

coco

Look, I never said all lawyers make illegitimate charges. I furthermore never said you did. Since its obvious you are defensive about the things Ive said.

I was dubious about charges. I am always dubious when the fox guards the hen-house.

Your portrayal is far too simplistic, and far too flattering.

As well as the good old statistics with no sources, on a subject no data would be available for (where the heck does this 2% come from?)

Ive done contract work before I know how it works. Everyone needs their hours covered by some billable account. A whole lot of non-productive time gets charged by managers to accounts.

Thats even without the incentive of being able to charge your opponent to cover the bill.

Enough of the lawyer bashing!

When are we going to start on plumbers?

Please file profession of your choice to be first against the wall, when the revolution comes, here.......................................>>>

Wheres the lawyer bashing anyway?

Since I am supposedly the one doing the bashing - where is it?

I made a couple of comments about legal fees and what I think of them and someone has decided I am lawyer bashing.

Can't see anywhere in my post that points a finger at you Colette. It was a general, whimsical comment after reading through all the derailed comments.

And seriously, I'm going to kill my b****y plumber with those b****y tap spanners of his that cost me a fortune everytime he touches them to fix his own mistakes! Anyway that story's for another derailment.

LOL

I was the only one with a discouraging word about lawyers in the whole thread. I just wondered how it became bashing. Made me think their criticism tolerance level is extremely low.

hehe like in any proff there is going to be some that are better then others. I had in the past to deal with lawyers usually cause some guy was busy ripping me off and I needed to get my money back. In the space of that time I found one decent one and three duds that took forever to do anything just to get more money outa me. The one decent one got all the work that I took back from the lawyers busy sitting on my file and in one case I think he had the iq of a peanut, but that's another long and sordid story. Really it depends on luck of the draw the one with an iq of a peanut was recommended too he was god aweful and for an entire year did absolutely nothing. So like anything there are good ones and bad ones. I've also had horrible dentists, doctors, painters and other things same thing some are just better at what they do then others. Just something that is and usualy depends on how much they care about what they do.

I'm just finishing now work on a house that i paid money for 2 years ago replacing all the cermaic flooring in the house the guy who did my floors was a moron and in the words of my spouse "a monkey could have done a better job". I'm not a monkey but I did a much better job they actualy STICK TO THE FLOOR! lol

anyhow such is life there are good and bad wherever you look.

It's illegal because it's perjury. It doesn't matter whether it's about legal fees, or hours spent, or anything else.

Suppose someone was suing to collect the cost of repair for a car accident, and they submitted a quote from their local body shop. The quote was based on the standard hourly charges the body shop would expect to collect from an insurance company. And suppose the body shop is more than willing to negotiate the price down if the person loses, because the person had been a good customer in the past.

Is there anything wrong in this situation? No.

There is no requirement that a company charge the same prices to everyone, as long as they're not discriminating based on a protected class. The body shop has every right to submit a quote based on their usual practice, and the plaintiff has every right to submit that quote to justify the amount they're trying to recover in court.

It would be wrong if the body shop submitted a quote that was based on rates higher than they'd charge anyone else. But as long as the quote is consistent with amounts that they bill and collect from other clients, there's nothing wrong with using that amount to submit a claim, and then negotiating a discount if the plaintiff uses.

A related example: A medical clinic that charges a sliding scale based on income has every right to charge their higest rates to a patient with insurance coverage, even if that person's income would justify a lower rate on their sliding scale. They don't have a right to charge the insurance company more than they'd charge a person with a high income and no insurance.

Why is my language so confusing?

I'm not asking for the legal definition of why its illegal.

I'm asking why theres such a law in the first place.

I'm asking a reason question and everyone is trying to give me a technical answer.

Why do seat belts exist? Because at some point people realized crashing in a car is dangerous.

Yes, in many places its a law to wear a seat belt. And Yes, its a legal requirement in most places that cars are made with seat-belts. But thats not why seat belts came about.

Why do people go to Vegas on vacation? Because its a fun place to go, or because you can buy the plane tickets on Priceline?

Why do people climb a mountain? Because its 13,432 feet tall? Or because its there?

----------------------

So - Why are there laws about not falsely reporting legal fees?

Because at some point someone did.


----------------------------------------

Not so Random thought - Most Politicians are/were lawyers. Do you think the more bloat worthy figured out how to juggle financial books the way they do before or after gaining public office?

-------------------------------------

Perhaps I can shed some light onthe atorneys fees question.

First, I don't think Bragg's legal fees are anywhere near $100,000. Intitially he represented himself, so much of the early groundwork was done by him. Second, I will assume, that being a lawyer, Bragg had enough sense to present the file in an organized and complete manner to the attorneys who substituted in for him. You would be amazed at how much time and money that can save. I'm not aware of any actual work done by his atorneys that make his bill approach $100,000. I would GUESS its around $25,000, maybe $50,000 at the outside.

Next point: It is VERY, VERY rare to recover attorneys fees in a settlement, period. 99 times out of a hundred that's not going to happen. Both sides just walk away from he dispute, each bearing their own costs and legal fees.

If a case goes to trial AND if there is an attorney's fees provision in the contract, the prevailing [winning] party MAY collect reimbursement of their legal fees. In California this is done by filing with the court a "Memorandum of Costs." The other side has achance has a chance to reveiw the cost memorandum and nit pick it to death in a :Motion to Tax Costs." An experienced attorney can, and should, go through the other side's legal bills in a case like that and point out padded or unreasnable entries. Judges are notoriously conservative in awarding attorney's fees and routinely redice the amount requested.

Its not as simple as geting a friend to pad up a legal bill and getting it rubber stamped by the court. That stuff probably happens, but I have never seen it done in 16 years of legal practice. the fact that this was a pretty well publicized lawsuit would make it even harder to get away with because the judge would know that every decision he made would be highly scrutinized.

Sooz

how well publicized was it really? We tend to look at SL through a magnifying glass.

Its just a couple news stories scattered around from what I could tell.

I didn't see it on CNN or anything.

Not saying you arent right about them being really careful.

Now Dagmar seemed to be claiming he saw the claimed legal fees and they were supposedly over 100K.

Thats why I initially asked him how he knew this. Though Maybe I misunderstood his explaination. I wasn't about to go tracking down non-working and non-provided links.


-------------------------------------------------

I have actually been the victim of what I consider padded legal fees. My daughter was arrested for shop lifting. The charges were DROPPED. Because she didn't do it. The item in question was worth less than $5. We were intially sued for over $200. Keep in mind she was never found guilty of anything and the item never left the store.

Every single time they had a computer call me, the pay them off the fee went up $20. Literally. There has been no court case either criminal or civil. She was never found guilty of anything. However this law firm continued to increase the size of the bill because of "time spent" in pursuit of this case. In some warped world these are probably considered legitimate fees. But in no way are they morally legitimate.

Now back to the friend thing. I didn't mean to imply that the legal fees were just made up if he had his buddy do them. I mean that he would tally and produce a reasonable bill. One that if they won, LL would have to pay. But if they lost, would be largely waved. Because he knew the person. That was my speculation which of course could be entirely wrong.

Ive actually known someone who had a case similar to that when he sued over what he considered a bogus DWI arrest. He (not the lawyer, the buddy) bragged about it. They lost, the legal bill wasn't paid.

In personal Injury cases many lawyers actually work for a percentage. "You don't pay unless we win" sorts of thing. Its not a lot different other than the lying part.

White and Williams represented Bragg from as early as October 4, 2006 according to an article in the Second Life Insider, and probably earlier than that since that was the first filing submitted by W&W. Bragg's initial complaint was withdrawn and W&W filed a new action based on fraud. We really don't know much about what kind of attorney Bragg is or if he is even a practicing attorney. There are many non-practicing attorneys who are in no better position to organize papers for their retained litigators than any other educated layman. While we don't know Archinaco's billing rate, $500 is not an outlandish estimate for a partner who is a commercial litigator with expertise in technology law. 200 hours over the course of almost one year is not unthinkable, and Bragg's initial response to LL's interrogatories, signed by W&W, asserts that plaintiff's fees were in excess of that amount as of August, 2007.

She knows this because of the link she posted which works just fine:

http://lawy-ers.com/int1tobragg.pdf

It's a large file. You have to wait for it to load up the page.

then I stand corrected. $100,000 still sounds excessive to me, but I don't know all of the facts.

Sooz

Would work better with img tags -




Edit-

Ive looked through this a couple times - for some reason .PDF files are slow on every computer Ive ever used.

Which page is the $100,000 legal fee figure listed? Ive been unable to find it.

Well the $100,000 figure probably came in the response to number 5 where he responds that his attorneys fees exceed $100,000 and growing.

Frankly, $100,000 is not all that bad, given the hourly rates at the firms involved. Litigation is expensive.

With respect to fees, the vast majority of people obtain a tremendous bargain in what they pay for value of services given when it comes to litigation. In general attorneys fees are represented to the court by way of declaration. Falsifying a declaration is perjury and that is what is punishble. Fraud on a client is also punishable. Neither of these offenses is limited to lawyers.

In all liklihood I seriously doubt anyone with half a professional brain would misrepresent attorneys fees to the Court.

I agree withalmost everything in this post. Litigation IS expensive, but I am probably just more cost effective than Bragg's lawyers were.

Sooz

Okay - since everyone is caught up in semantics, would the word GOUGING work better?

Since thats not "misrepresented"

Of course its not limited to lawyers.

Ah I can see the code now for img tags now that I am in edit mode. Thanks for the tip. (Are they ever going to revamp forums like they said they would many many moons ago?)

It's Interrogatory No. 5 beginning on page 6 and carrying over to page 7. I think pdf files load slowly because they are image files and the load speed is limited by the site bandwidth regardless of how fast your connection is. I get the same problem. I just noticed some other language in the that interrogatory response. One of my litigator friends said that it's language in response to "fishing expedition" interrogatories. That may be one reason that the legal fees got so high as W&W/Bragg were insinuating that LL and its attorneys were trying to pile up legal costs with bad faith interrogatories.

I actually don't think so. Its been about 5 months. If it was going to be done would have happened by now.