Contingency Fee or Regular Legal Fees?

[Brent5167]

Jurisdiction

California

I was injured in a slip and fall accident in a supermarket. I have an attorney who I would like to hire for the case and he has offered to take the case on contingency. If I can afford it, Is it better to just pay the legal fees outright or take the contingency deal?

 

[army judge]

I was injured in a slip and fall accident in a supermarket. I have an attorney who I would like to hire for the case and he has offered to take the case on contingency. If I can afford it, Is it better to just pay the legal fees outright or take the contingency deal?

The choice is yours to make, and yours alone.

I choose a contingency.

Why?

The bigger the award or settlement, the more the attorney makes.

That motivates the attorney to work harder, because the more you get, the more the attorney gets!!!

 

[Brent5167]

The choice is yours to make, and yours alone.

I choose a contingency.

Why?

The bigger the award or settlement, the more the attorney makes.

That motivates the attorney to work harder, because the more you get, the more the attorney gets!!!

Right, I would not argue that the gross settlement would be larger under the contingency scenario. However, after giving the attorney 40% of that settlement, in addition to expenses, I'm not sure if I would end up ahead.

 

[adjusterjack]

Right, I would not argue that the gross settlement would be larger under the contingency scenario.

I've always been amused by that myth. Your claim is worth what your claim is worth. It's not worth more just because you have an attorney, though personal injury attorneys insist that it is. I used to routinely slice the fat out of attorney demands and got claims settled for less because the attorney wanted his payday.

If you hire an attorney by the hour you'll very quickly rack up bills in the $10,000 to $20,000 area and your claim may not be worth even a fraction of that if it's worth anything at all.

By the way, just because your slip and fall happened doesn't automatically make the business owner liable.

I suggest you post your details and I'll tell you if you even have a claim as well as whether it's worth hiring an attorney at all.

 

[Brent5167]

I've always been amused by that myth. Your claim is worth what your claim is worth. It's not worth more just because you have an attorney, though personal injury attorneys insist that it is. I used to routinely slice the fat out of attorney demands and got claims settled for less because the attorney wanted his payday.

If you hire an attorney by the hour you'll very quickly rack up bills in the $10,000 to $20,000 area and your claim may not be worth even a fraction of that if it's worth anything at all.

By the way, just because your slip and fall happened doesn't automatically make the business owner liable.

I suggest you post your details and I'll tell you if you even have a claim as well as whether it's worth hiring an attorney at all.

Sure, I slipped on some produce that was smeared on the floor in the supermarket. The resulting fall caused a herniated disk in my back. My neurosurgeon has recommended 6 weeks of physical therapy. It is likely that I will need surgery to fuse two vertebrae if the physical therapy is unsuccessful. The result will be a permanent reduction in mobility with a possibility of chronic or recurring back pain. I have also missed work resulting in about 8k in lost wages so far, with more to follow.

 

[adjusterjack]

Sure, I slipped on some produce that was smeared on the floor in the supermarket.

How do you think that makes the store owners responsible for your injury?

It's an important question and your answer will tell me just how much of an explanation of negligence law I'll have to give you.

Be specific in your answer.

 

[Betty3]

You/your lawyer will have to prove the store's negligence. Every store accident is not the "store's" fault.