Luke77
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- California
Hi, first time poster. My attorney and I just settled an auto accident case, and I'm wondering what a fair split would be, for each of us to take. Our contract is that he gets 40%. I understand that. But, we did not get the settlement we'd hoped for, and if he takes his 40% off the top as he's entitled to, per our contract, I'll get much less than him--although, my medical bills will be paid (so, yes, that is something, to be sure).
I'd like to know if it's customary, or at least not uncommon, for an attorney to take less than 40%, if he's only able to get a settlement that covers his client's expenses, but leaves his client with little or nothing else, in terms of recuperation of lost wages and pain and suffering damages.
Here are the relevant figures:
Medical = $8,500
Lost Wages = $7,000
Settlement = $15,000
Attorney Expenses = $1,000
Attorney Commission = 40%
Which means, if the attorney takes 40% of $15,000 ($6,000) off the top, that leaves $9,000. Subtract from that the $1,000 in expenses he incurred, and we're down to $8,000. As you can see, that's not even enough to pay my medical bills. When I mentioned that to my attorney, he said I'll probably be able to negotiate a 20% reduction in medical expenses, which would mean I'd owe $6,800. And that would in turn mean I'd get just $1,200 for my lost wages and pain and suffering. I asked my attorney if he would also take 20% off of his $6,000 cut, and he agreed. Which means, he'd be pocketing $4,800, and I'd be pocketing $2,400.
While I appreciated him agreeing to that, I'm tempted to ask for him to give up more, before I sign anything officially. I contributed a great deal to this case, including writing the demand letter, which he said was excellent. And I was very credible and likable in my deposition, which he said gave the opposing counsel pause about going to court against me--even though they likely believe the facts of the case would mean a win for them with a jury. To that point, it was a low-speed accident, with only $800 in property damages, and a car bumper without a scratch on it. (The steel bar underneath the bumper was caved in, however.)
I want my attorney to be treated fairly. But I also want to be treated fairly. And as it stands right now, he'll be taking home twice ($4,800) what I take home ($2,400). When I originally contracted with him, he said he thought he could get the case settled for $25,000, which would've meant a lot more for each of us. Of course, that was no guarantee. But he fell short of that, by $10,000. I suppose my question boils down to this:
Is it customary, or at least not uncommon, in cases like this, for the attorney to agree to split the spoils of the settlement--if not 50/50--then close to it? If you add his $4,800 to my $2,400, that totals $7,200. Given we did not get the settlement he said he thought he could get, and given my significant contributions to the case, I would feel better if we split that $7,200 evenly, each taking home $3,600. But, I'd even be fine with him taking $4,000, and me taking $3,100...or some similar split like that. But for him to take twice as much as me, I just don't feel comfortable with that. Am I being unreasonable to ask for a more even split?
Thank you for your time. (And please, just so I know a bit about who you are, please say whether you're an attorney, or a former claimant who's dealt with a similar case before.)
I'd like to know if it's customary, or at least not uncommon, for an attorney to take less than 40%, if he's only able to get a settlement that covers his client's expenses, but leaves his client with little or nothing else, in terms of recuperation of lost wages and pain and suffering damages.
Here are the relevant figures:
Medical = $8,500
Lost Wages = $7,000
Settlement = $15,000
Attorney Expenses = $1,000
Attorney Commission = 40%
Which means, if the attorney takes 40% of $15,000 ($6,000) off the top, that leaves $9,000. Subtract from that the $1,000 in expenses he incurred, and we're down to $8,000. As you can see, that's not even enough to pay my medical bills. When I mentioned that to my attorney, he said I'll probably be able to negotiate a 20% reduction in medical expenses, which would mean I'd owe $6,800. And that would in turn mean I'd get just $1,200 for my lost wages and pain and suffering. I asked my attorney if he would also take 20% off of his $6,000 cut, and he agreed. Which means, he'd be pocketing $4,800, and I'd be pocketing $2,400.
While I appreciated him agreeing to that, I'm tempted to ask for him to give up more, before I sign anything officially. I contributed a great deal to this case, including writing the demand letter, which he said was excellent. And I was very credible and likable in my deposition, which he said gave the opposing counsel pause about going to court against me--even though they likely believe the facts of the case would mean a win for them with a jury. To that point, it was a low-speed accident, with only $800 in property damages, and a car bumper without a scratch on it. (The steel bar underneath the bumper was caved in, however.)
I want my attorney to be treated fairly. But I also want to be treated fairly. And as it stands right now, he'll be taking home twice ($4,800) what I take home ($2,400). When I originally contracted with him, he said he thought he could get the case settled for $25,000, which would've meant a lot more for each of us. Of course, that was no guarantee. But he fell short of that, by $10,000. I suppose my question boils down to this:
Is it customary, or at least not uncommon, in cases like this, for the attorney to agree to split the spoils of the settlement--if not 50/50--then close to it? If you add his $4,800 to my $2,400, that totals $7,200. Given we did not get the settlement he said he thought he could get, and given my significant contributions to the case, I would feel better if we split that $7,200 evenly, each taking home $3,600. But, I'd even be fine with him taking $4,000, and me taking $3,100...or some similar split like that. But for him to take twice as much as me, I just don't feel comfortable with that. Am I being unreasonable to ask for a more even split?
Thank you for your time. (And please, just so I know a bit about who you are, please say whether you're an attorney, or a former claimant who's dealt with a similar case before.)
