Does Lewis Brisbois pay like crap? Forum

[Alex-Trof]

Lol. When I mass mailed a few weeks ago I'd be all like "ooh, this firm look o.k." and then I'd see insurance defense and I'd immediately turn the page.

I would likely leave law before I ever defended insurance companies. That's about my one limitation.

Edit: note that I say "likely." If I could not feed my family or something w/out this kind of job of course I'd do it.

What is wrong with defending insurance companies?

The fact that you'd be defending an entity that its sole purpose and business model is to screw people as much as possible?

Insurance companies transfer risk from an individual to a company that is able to absorb the cost of loss in case such happens. Insurance companies facilitate business activity by shielding projects that people would never undertake without financial protection. Many business wouldn't operate right now if they were not able to insure their operations. It is easy to believe that insurance is evil altogether, but it is very deceiving. Insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in the U.S.. Everything gets disclosed, competition is extremely heavy. It is almost impossible to make sustainable profit without constant innovation.

Insurance fraud, however, is very serious problem that puts many small companies out of business (especially if you're an auto insurance firm in Florida). Not paying claims is not a way to make money in the long run. Absolute majority of insurance companies realize that and are diligent and fair in paying real claims. There is absolutely nothing wrong with insurance defense and I would have no problem doing that.

[A'nold]

Lol. When I mass mailed a few weeks ago I'd be all like "ooh, this firm look o.k." and then I'd see insurance defense and I'd immediately turn the page.

I would likely leave law before I ever defended insurance companies. That's about my one limitation.

Edit: note that I say "likely." If I could not feed my family or something w/out this kind of job of course I'd do it.

What is wrong with defending insurance companies?

The fact that you'd be defending an entity that its sole purpose and business model is to screw people as much as possible?

Insurance companies transfer risk from an individual to a company that is able to absorb the cost of loss in case such happens. Insurance companies facilitate business activity by shielding projects that people would never undertake without financial protection. Many business wouldn't operate right now if they were not able to insure their operations. It is easy to believe that insurance is evil altogether, but it is very deceiving. Insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in the U.S.. Everything gets disclosed, competition is extremely heavy. It is almost impossible to make sustainable profit without constant innovation.

Insurance fraud, however, is very serious problem that puts many small companies out of business (especially if you're an auto insurance firm in Florida). Not paying claims is not a way to make money in the long run. Absolute majority of insurance companies realize that and are diligent and fair in paying real claims. There is absolutely nothing wrong with insurance defense and I would have no problem doing that.

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

[Master Tofu]

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

A'nold, are you an 0L?

[Danteshek]

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

A'nold, are you an 0L?

A'nold is a 2L, as am I.

[Master Tofu]

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

A'nold, are you an 0L?

A'nold is a 2L, as am I.

Two points.

1. Have you guys taken a professional ethics class yet? Regardless of who you represent, as a lawyer, you have to act with integrity. If your client tells you to lie, you can't lie and then offer the client instructions as an excuse to the disciplinary committee. I haven't worked in-house at an insurance company, but I suspect that those lawyers value their law licenses and won't lie/cheat their way to favorable results for their clients.

2. Your view of the free market is very skewed. You realize that even as you represent securities fraud plaintiffs. as you claimed in your earlier post, your clients a) sometimes are big corporations themselves and b) are injured because they themselves believed in the profitability of the stocks and securities that they bought. The "corporations are evil" argument works well in college class discussions but I think you need to do more extracurricular reading if you're going to bring this argument up now. I have my own qualms about how some corporations do their business and if people want to engage in discussions about specific ways to make corporations behave well, I am game. But that is a different discussion from the broad-brush approach that you take.

[Alex-Trof]

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

I have personal experience in auto insurance industry so I am speaking from that standpoint. Allstate was experimenting with trying to pay less. They are still suffering consequences from that. Btw it was not their idea, Mckinsey constants advised on it. (In my opinion, it is much more ethical questionable to be in the business of reorganizing companies to maximize quarterly profits in all costs). Insurance companies do not mind paying legit claims. They make money by pricing individual risks correctly, thus, charging appropriate premium with regards to the level of risk. I don't know of a single instance, besides the one mentioned above, where insurance company was trying to not pay claims. (Sometimes they try to drop people who have to many losses, which, because of crazy amount of regulation, they often cant, but, thats a different story)

P.S. Back to Florida. I saw a flier made by some doctor's office, inviting people to "PIP auto insurance party". Isn't that crazy? But, hey if you believe insurance companies are evil, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

[bdubs]

In Southern California, Lewis Brisbois recruits would typically come from Loyola, USC or Pepperdine. Now he talks to alums from UCLA and Georgetown.

The insurance-defense-focused Lewis Brisbois pays first years about $85,000, Barber said. But the firm gives its lawyers room to develop their practice.

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2 ... sbois.html

That's gotta hurt for USC kids

[Danteshek]

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

A'nold, are you an 0L?

A'nold is a 2L, as am I.

Two points.

1. Have you guys taken a professional ethics class yet? Regardless of who you represent, as a lawyer, you have to act with integrity. If your client tells you to lie, you can't lie and then offer the client instructions as an excuse to the disciplinary committee. I haven't worked in-house at an insurance company, but I suspect that those lawyers value their law licenses and won't lie/cheat their way to favorable results for their clients.

2. Your view of the free market is very skewed. You realize that even as you represent securities fraud plaintiffs. as you claimed in your earlier post, your clients a) sometimes are big corporations themselves and b) are injured because they themselves believed in the profitability of the stocks and securities that they bought. The "corporations are evil" argument works well in college class discussions but I think you need to do more extracurricular reading if you're going to bring this argument up now. I have my own qualms about how some corporations do their business and if people want to engage in discussions about specific ways to make corporations behave well, I am game. But that is a different discussion from the broad-brush approach that you take.

I have no interest in representing corporations in any matters whatsoever. I want to represent individual whistleblowers bringing claims against corporations and the government. I am 29 years old, interned at the SEC last summer, and worked in finance for several years before college (an industry I abhor). My beliefs about corporate america are well founded.

[A'nold]

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

A'nold, are you an 0L?

Lol.

I don't know why everybody keeps trying to put words in my mouth. I don't agree w/ a lot of the way business have to be purely cut-throat and all about the bottom line, but insurance companies are a different beast. Their entire purpose is to take as much money from people as possible and pay the least in return. I don't like that business model. I am not a communist and not this anti-free market guy you guys seem to keep indicating that I am. I can't believe you guys are naive enough to think that insurance companies "almost always pay a fair claim." Why kind of la la land are you living in?

[kings84_wr]

In Southern California, Lewis Brisbois recruits would typically come from Loyola, USC or Pepperdine. Now he talks to alums from UCLA and Georgetown.

The insurance-defense-focused Lewis Brisbois pays first years about $85,000, Barber said. But the firm gives its lawyers room to develop their practice.

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2 ... sbois.html

That's gotta hurt for USC kids

Reminded me of this:

LAW CLERK POSITIONS (Part-Time):
Requrements: 2nd or 3rd Year Law Student at Loyola, USC, or Pepperdine. Class Rank: Top 45%

--LinkRemoved--

I almost applied just to see what they would do

[nealric]

They are the only biglaw firm that does not seem to pay anywhere close to competitive. Is this correct?

I know they are a big firm by number of lawyers, but I wouldn't really call them a biglaw firm.

[kings84_wr]

They are the only biglaw firm that does not seem to pay anywhere close to competitive. Is this correct?

I know they are a big firm by number of lawyers, but I wouldn't really call them a biglaw firm.

Yeah thats one of the problems with the NLJ numbers.

Lewis Brisbois counts Wachtell does not

[A'nold]

In Southern California, Lewis Brisbois recruits would typically come from Loyola, USC or Pepperdine. Now he talks to alums from UCLA and Georgetown.

The insurance-defense-focused Lewis Brisbois pays first years about $85,000, Barber said. But the firm gives its lawyers room to develop their practice.

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2 ... sbois.html

That's gotta hurt for USC kids

Reminded me of this:

LAW CLERK POSITIONS (Part-Time):
Requrements: 2nd or 3rd Year Law Student at Loyola, USC, or Pepperdine. Class Rank: Top 45%

--LinkRemoved--

I almost applied just to see what they would do

That is hilarious.

[RVP11]

They are the only biglaw firm that does not seem to pay anywhere close to competitive. Is this correct?

I know they are a big firm by number of lawyers, but I wouldn't really call them a biglaw firm.

Yeah thats one of the problems with the NLJ numbers.

Lewis Brisbois counts Wachtell does not

The NLJ numbers are fine. The vast majority of the firms in the NLJ250 are rightly called BigLaw, and the vast majority of firms you'd consider BigLaw are NLJ250.

Also, firms like Lewis Brisbois hire few/zero people out of law school.

[A'nold]

They are the only biglaw firm that does not seem to pay anywhere close to competitive. Is this correct?

I know they are a big firm by number of lawyers, but I wouldn't really call them a biglaw firm.

Yeah thats one of the problems with the NLJ numbers.

Lewis Brisbois counts Wachtell does not

The NLJ numbers are fine. The vast majority of the firms in the NLJ250 are rightly called BigLaw, and the vast majority of firms you'd consider BigLaw are NLJ250.

Also, firms like Lewis Brisbois hire few/zero people out of law school.

Wow, they are just every potential lawyers dream, aren't they?

[Wholigan]

You had me until the bolded. Btw- insurance companies need defending (although I still propose that they shouldn't need as much defending as they do, for obvious reasons) and by all means do it if that is what you want to do. I'm just saying that that is like the one area of law that I am morally opposed to doing for myself.

A'nold, are you an 0L?

Lol.

I don't know why everybody keeps trying to put words in my mouth. I don't agree w/ a lot of the way business have to be purely cut-throat and all about the bottom line, but insurance companies are a different beast. Their entire purpose is to take as much money from people as possible and pay the least in return. I don't like that business model. I am not a communist and not this anti-free market guy you guys seem to keep indicating that I am. I can't believe you guys are naive enough to think that insurance companies "almost always pay a fair claim." Why kind of la la land are you living in?

I couldn't disagree with this more. I'm not saying insurance companies never screw anyone, but the big cases where insurance companies screw people usually get attention, while the far more numerous cases where people screw insurance companies draw little fanfare. People who make it their life's aim to sit on their ass and live off bogus work related injuries (or work under the table while on workers comp), or those who sue for the same back injury 10 times every time they are in a minor fender bender are all too common. I would suggest that insurance company lawyers can "feel good" about their work about as much as any biglaw work. (Which isn't saying much, of course.) In addition to the above, staged accident rings and medical mills where treatment never rendered is billed to insurance companies are very common. I'm sure it's rewarding for a lawyer to uncover something like that.

As far as being set up to screw people, I don't see how its different than any other business. Many insurance disputes are based on contractual problems, which are difficult for lay people to understand, so it's automatically branded "screwing people." Try going into a Honda dealer with 38,000 miles on your broke down car on a 36k warrantee. You think they are going to do you any special favors? Most insurance companies run on a combined ratio of close to or even over 100%. This means close to or over 100% of premium dollars are laid out in expenses and claim payments. They only make money because they can invest it in between when they take the premium and pay your claim. If they paid more claims, the cost would be passed on to the consumer just like in any other business. You get what you pay for. If you want insurance that is going to pay your claims more generously and with less questions asked, you can get it - it just costs more, just like any other product. I really don't want to do plaintiff or insurance work, but I'm pretty sure I could sleep better at night doing insurance if it came down to it,