Top Law Schools

How do you shitlawyers know which contingent fee matters are good and which stink? What are some pitfalls to avoid

I'll start:

Just because the D is a company with substantial revenue doesn't mean that they will pay a judgment against them. Lots of large and medium companies maintain each location as an individual entity. Get a large enough judgment and they will just BK that location. Good fucking luck piercing the wall.

Also, don't take contingent fee matters where your payment is dependent on anything but the litigation. I.E. I'll pay you if Y transaction happens (where your services are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Y).

Not a lawyer, but, I'd say a good contingent fee case is one where the D has a big insurance policy.

I'm convinced that there are no actual lawyers left on TLS.

I doubt the biglaw folks around here know much about contingent fees.

There's a new 'lawyers' section this would fit quite well in.

guano wrote:Not a lawyer, but, I'd say a good contingent fee case is one where the D has a big insurance policy.

This is actually CR

Veyron wrote:How do you shitlawyers know which contingent fee matters are good and which stink? What are some pitfalls to avoid

I'll start:

Just because the D is a company with substantial revenue doesn't mean that they will pay a judgment against them. Lots of large and medium companies maintain each location as an individual entity. Get a large enough judgment and they will just BK that location. Good fucking luck piercing the wall.

Also, don't take contingent fee matters where your payment is dependent on anything but the litigation. I.E. I'll pay you if Y transaction happens (where your services are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Y).

Insurance coverage is the key. If there's no insurance coverage (or if the insurer is defending under a reservation of rights) the defendant has to be big enough where bankruptcy is not an option (obviously a 100k verdict is different then a 100 million verdict).

And don't sue any Chinese companies that have no assets in the US.

Also, always take atty fees off the top first, then expenses after. Liens and litigation expenses will eliminate any recovery.

Also the type of law is a factor. For example, a Jones Act or FELA case is like automatic money.

kings84_wr wrote:

Veyron wrote:How do you shitlawyers know which contingent fee matters are good and which stink? What are some pitfalls to avoid

I'll start:

Just because the D is a company with substantial revenue doesn't mean that they will pay a judgment against them. Lots of large and medium companies maintain each location as an individual entity. Get a large enough judgment and they will just BK that location. Good fucking luck piercing the wall.

Also, don't take contingent fee matters where your payment is dependent on anything but the litigation. I.E. I'll pay you if Y transaction happens (where your services are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Y).

Insurance coverage is the key. If there's no insurance coverage (or if the insurer is defending under a reservation of rights) the defendant has to be big enough where bankruptcy is not an option (obviously a 100k verdict is different then a 100 million verdict).

And don't sue any Chinese companies that have no assets in the US.

Also, always take atty fees off the top first, then expenses after. Liens and litigation expenses will eliminate any recovery.

Could you elaborate on the mechanics of how one takes the atty fees off the top first, and then expenses later?

LeDique wrote:There's a new 'lawyers' section this would fit quite well in.

Lol, I'm not sending my bar card to some shit website.

Veyron wrote:Lol, I'm not sending my bar card to some shit website.

We're devastated by your absence.

Veyron wrote:How do you shitlawyers know which contingent fee matters are good and which stink? What are some pitfalls to avoid

I'll start:

Just because the D is a company with substantial revenue doesn't mean that they will pay a judgment against them. Lots of large and medium companies maintain each location as an individual entity. Get a large enough judgment and they will just BK that location. Good fucking luck piercing the wall.

Also, don't take contingent fee matters where your payment is dependent on anything but the litigation. I.E. I'll pay you if Y transaction happens (where your services are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Y).

You don't know a dispute when you see one . . Funny you call contingency fee lawyers "shitlawyers."

I'm so happy I'll always make more than you.

oblitigate wrote:

Veyron wrote:How do you shitlawyers know which contingent fee matters are good and which stink? What are some pitfalls to avoid

I'll start:

Just because the D is a company with substantial revenue doesn't mean that they will pay a judgment against them. Lots of large and medium companies maintain each location as an individual entity. Get a large enough judgment and they will just BK that location. Good fucking luck piercing the wall.

Also, don't take contingent fee matters where your payment is dependent on anything but the litigation. I.E. I'll pay you if Y transaction happens (where your services are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Y).

You don't know a dispute when you see one . . Funny you call contingency fee lawyers "shitlawyers."

I'm so happy I'll always make more than you.

That's no way to talk to your king.

Why is anyone helping this guy? I mean, someone gives him actually useful advice, and he complains about how there aren't any lawyers here. I guess only real lawyers can offer insightful, substantive advice about things like "piercing the [corporate] wall."

Maybe there should be a "let's talk malpractice insurance" addendum, or something.

dead head wrote:Why is anyone helping this guy? I mean, someone gives him actually useful advice, and he complains about how there aren't any lawyers here. I guess only real lawyers can offer insightful, substantive advice about things like "piercing the [corporate] wall."

Maybe there should be a "let's talk malpractice insurance" addendum, or something.

I think you just lost your point right there

rad lulz wrote:

guano wrote:Not a lawyer, but, I'd say a good contingent fee case is one where the D has a big insurance policy.

This is actually CR

Environmental claims dating from before the 70s is the real honeypot - CGL policies did not yet have an environmental exclusion and policies tended to be occurrence based, rather than claims based, meaning that you can sue any insurer who had ever issued a policy on the property, and you can stack the policy limits.

guano wrote:

dead head wrote:Why is anyone helping this guy? I mean, someone gives him actually useful advice, and he complains about how there aren't any lawyers here. I guess only real lawyers can offer insightful, substantive advice about things like "piercing the [corporate] wall."

Maybe there should be a "let's talk malpractice insurance" addendum, or something.

I think you just lost your point right there

That was my point: it was a direct quote from the original post.

dead head wrote:

guano wrote:

dead head wrote:Why is anyone helping this guy? I mean, someone gives him actually useful advice, and he complains about how there aren't any lawyers here. I guess only real lawyers can offer insightful, substantive advice about things like "piercing the [corporate] wall."

Maybe there should be a "let's talk malpractice insurance" addendum, or something.

I think you just lost your point right there

That was my point: it was a direct quote from the original post.

I didn't really read the OP, because it didn't offer anything useful.

guano wrote:

dead head wrote:

guano wrote:

dead head wrote:Why is anyone helping this guy? I mean, someone gives him actually useful advice, and he complains about how there aren't any lawyers here. I guess only real lawyers can offer insightful, substantive advice about things like "piercing the [corporate] wall."

Maybe there should be a "let's talk malpractice insurance" addendum, or something.

I think you just lost your point right there

That was my point: it was a direct quote from the original post.

I didn't really read the OP, because it didn't offer anything useful.

Non-lawyer commenting on usefulness of insight into legal topic. As seen on TLS. But I'm sure you know law reel good since you are undoubtedly a claims adjuster or something.


More generally, I'm not really talking about picking the "lottery ticket" kind of case. I'm asking what sort of tips there are to pick the best day-to-day contingency fee cases. The ones worth five figures.

Insurance is important, no argument here but that is a bit too obvious to be a "tip."

Veyron wrote:Insurance is important, no argument here but that is a bit too obvious to be a "tip."

Veyron wrote:Just because the D is a company with substantial revenue doesn't mean that they will pay a judgment against them. Lots of large and medium companies maintain each location as an individual entity. Get a large enough judgment and they will just BK that location. Good fucking luck piercing the wall.

Not going after shell companies should also be damn obvious. I'd amend this to say don't bother going after a company that doesn't have insurance.

Veyron wrote:Also, don't take contingent fee matters where your payment is dependent on anything but the litigation. I.E. I'll pay you if Y transaction happens (where your services are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Y).

There are circumstances where it might make sense to go along with such a situation. As an example, if preparing the basic materials is relatively quick/easy/cheap, for a situation that will involve a lot of repeat transactions billed at full (and possibly inflated) price.
One example I am familiar with involved a V30 biglaw firm preparing documents, opinion letters and other startup work for free (fee would probably not have exceeded $25k) with an agreement that every transaction of that type (estimated to be roughly 5-10 per year) would incur a flat $100k fee per closing (which is a multiple of what it would be on a per-hour basis)

Not going after shell companies should also be damn obvious. I'd amend this to say don't bother going after a company that doesn't have insurance.

My point wasn't about shell companies so much as it was about going after companies operating an individual location. In this case the company has real assets and revenue which makes it a bit more deceptive.

There are circumstances where it might make sense to go along with such a situation. As an example, if preparing the basic materials is relatively quick/easy/cheap, for a situation that will involve a lot of repeat transactions billed at full (and possibly inflated) price. One example I am familiar with involved a V30 biglaw firm preparing documents, opinion letters and other startup work for free (fee would probably not have exceeded $25k) with an agreement that every transaction of that type (estimated to be roughly 5-10 per year) would incur a flat $100k fee per closing (which is a multiple of what it would be on a per-hour basis)

You're probably right that this would make sense for a biglaw firm. They have the resources to vet potential startup applicants that a shitlaw firm does not possess. I'm trying to think of a shitlaw example where this might also be a valuable strategy but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Its like, some exec came in my door the other day and was like "how about a nationwide class action pardner." And I was like brb, going to go hire 50 attorneys.

Veyron wrote:

Not going after shell companies should also be damn obvious. I'd amend this to say don't bother going after a company that doesn't have insurance.

My point wasn't about shell companies so much as it was about going after companies operating an individual location. In this case the company has real assets and revenue which makes it a bit more deceptive.

I wasn't literally talking about shell companies, I was using it in the pejorative sense. There are a lot of businesses that operate through a large number of LLCs (or other such structure) where even particular lines of business of the same company/location are separate legal entities. The downside to this sentiment is that you might not learn the details of such structure until discovery.

Veyron wrote:

guano wrote:There are circumstances where it might make sense to go along with such a situation. As an example, if preparing the basic materials is relatively quick/easy/cheap, for a situation that will involve a lot of repeat transactions billed at full (and possibly inflated) price. One example I am familiar with involved a V30 biglaw firm preparing documents, opinion letters and other startup work for free (fee would probably not have exceeded $25k) with an agreement that every transaction of that type (estimated to be roughly 5-10 per year) would incur a flat $100k fee per closing (which is a multiple of what it would be on a per-hour basis)

Might make sense for a biglaw firm. They have the resources to vet potential startup applicants that a shitlaw firm does not possess. I'm trying to think of a shitlaw example where this might also be a valuable strategy but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

How about a local property developer who is developing a single tract into multiple homes? You could do the initial work needed to get things going on a contingent basis, in return for being guaranteed all legal work related to subsequent sales/closings at a higher than standard rate.

guano wrote:

Veyron wrote:

Not going after shell companies should also be damn obvious. I'd amend this to say don't bother going after a company that doesn't have insurance.

My point wasn't about shell companies so much as it was about going after companies operating an individual location. In this case the company has real assets and revenue which makes it a bit more deceptive.

I wasn't literally talking about shell companies, I was using it in the pejorative sense. There are a lot of businesses that operate through a large number of LLCs (or other such structure) where even particular lines of business of the same company/location are separate legal entities. The downside to this sentiment is that you might not learn the details of such structure until discovery.

Veyron wrote:

guano wrote:There are circumstances where it might make sense to go along with such a situation. As an example, if preparing the basic materials is relatively quick/easy/cheap, for a situation that will involve a lot of repeat transactions billed at full (and possibly inflated) price. One example I am familiar with involved a V30 biglaw firm preparing documents, opinion letters and other startup work for free (fee would probably not have exceeded $25k) with an agreement that every transaction of that type (estimated to be roughly 5-10 per year) would incur a flat $100k fee per closing (which is a multiple of what it would be on a per-hour basis)

Might make sense for a biglaw firm. They have the resources to vet potential startup applicants that a shitlaw firm does not possess. I'm trying to think of a shitlaw example where this might also be a valuable strategy but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

How about a local property developer who is developing a single tract into multiple homes? You could do the initial work needed to get things going on a contingent basis, in return for being guaranteed all legal work related to subsequent sales/closings at a higher than standard rate.

This would work in a state where attorneys do sales/closing work. Although not sure if the ethics rules would allow the second step.

Why is a 2013 grad even asking this question?

IAFG wrote:Why is a 2013 grad even asking this question?

Because its 2014 and not 2004 and lawyers are again willing to take things on contingency. Obvious question is obvious?

Edit: Especially hybrid-contingency. The real gateway drug. And it also allows for the client to potentially recover some fees.

don't sock-puppet anonymously to make it sound like someone else is defending you, when you've already posted the question non-anonymously.

Anonymous User wrote:

IAFG wrote:Why is a 2013 grad even asking this question?

Because its 2014 and not 2004 and firms are again willing to take things on contingency. Obvious question is obvious?

What firm is asking a first year to help them figure out what contingency cases to take? Sounds like Veyron needs real mentorship, and from an attorney barred in his state, not TLS.