From: Colette Meiji
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.
The figures come from my classes. Thank you very much. Not some internet page I can just link to you, though I'd love to be able to link a copyrighted book and scan pages in, I sold them at the used book store, since I no longer needed them after that year.
Your portrayal frankly is far too far fetched along with sensationalism provided in only the way that 1 hour cop and legal dramas can show you. Contract work has nothing to do with any of this and your experience in "contract work" does not make your opinion any more valid.
I am defensive because you act like every lawyer out there has no checks and balances (I do recall you mentioned sarcastically that lawyers *in all caps none the less* submit legal documents) and that it's so easy for lawyers and their firms to lie and not get caught. You directly questioned the integrity of a document in a case that you obviously don't know much about in the logistics form, nor what's submitted to court. I'm correcting the misinformation by stating each and every point and a case to back it up.
Where's YOUR proof of your argument? Oh that's right, only those who come up with the assertions you made are not accountable for their argument while anyone who disagrees is.
You honestly have no idea how the legal system works, and are spreading false information related to this case (and how courts work in general). You questioned the legal fees, I'm responding.
And yes, there is proof of a settlement. The proof is in the blog. If there was no settlement, regardless of terms, Bragg would not have an account. So at some point, they gave him his account. Is this the only thing they did? I can't say that much, but I can tell you there was some sort of agreement reached. Any common sense in law would also tell you that a settlement can be out of court, but since the initial filing was in court, the settlement is submitted, signed off and remains sealed since the final settlement did not come in court, it is not a matter of public record. But for future lawsuits, to avoid "he said, she said" those papers are also notarized by the courts. Usually not for small claims settled out, but this case was NOT small claims.
Jake above also stated it with less detail, Susanne also makes some good points however is incorrect that people rarely recover lawyers fees. In almost all cases, large and small, if it's a judgement in full against a defendant (with no liability for the prosecution), their legal fees are also included in it. Since this was a settlement out of court, we can't be sure in this case, but actual judgements do.
Also, in a case where the defendant OR prosecution loses, legal fees cannot be waived merely on friendship. Cases on waived fees are pro bono only (which is determined when taking on as a client) and the person represented must show reason for pro bono work. No law firm, no matter how "friendly" will just let go of their fees and eat the money when it comes to taxes. Especially when they must claim at least 100k in the deal.
Collette, in regards to your daughter, I have a feeling we are only getting one side of the story. Lawyers don't just call repeatedly, randomly and from computers on dropped cases. (I removed the rest of this, it doesn't pertain to the situation, but you are more than welcome to PM if you want.) Main point is this: You are either versed or you are not. You can't claim to know X, Y and Z, but didn't have a clue about A.
PI cases, where "we don't get paid unless you do", there are two things to understand. One, they won't take the case unless it's damn near open and shut. Two, they eat the taxes on their bill and that's why the first is so important to them. Not to mention, even if the person is lying under oath (without lawyers obviously knowing), once judgement is done, they get paid. So even if 1 week later, that person is found by an investigation to be building a roof, the company goes after the person. The representing law firm cannot be held responsible.
And as a last note, this story WAS on CNN.com, it was on CNN in the morning, it was also in the AP and Reuters (I saw it by way of Yahoo News links and it was NOT done by Adam). I don't know how often you keep up with the news, but I know on at least the CNN morning show (Robin and Co. I believe) almost a year ago, they actually had some legal experts weighing in on "virtual property" and this case. It was also in Wired. You can search this, you might want to -blog in the search because of all the blogs on it, but Google is your friend. Or you can go to the individual sites, and search their archives.
Anyways, I think I've more than eloquently stated my side in the legal fees, the rest would just be semantics and I'm sure more questioning of me, without providing anything yourself. Feel free to comment, but my responding is futile at this point.
