f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

You know we hate to be spoil sports.  Nonetheless, for the

sake of the innocent consumer/client, someone needs to

interrupt the all-day public display of affection between the

blawgisphere and the Maryland personal injury law firm of

Miller & Zois.  See, e.g., Carolyn Elefant, Evan Schaeffer,

and Kevin J. Heller. 

Each of my distingusihed weblog colleagues has praised

M&Z for creating an Attorney Help Center, where — as Evan

says:

“you’ll find sample pleadings, motions, discovery,

jury instructions, and more. An example of what’s

offered is “Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions,”

a comprehensive set of requests for admissions in

a vehicle injury case that would work as a model in

most states.”

We in no way want to discourage lawyers sharing high-

quality samples of their work online.  And we presume

that Evan and Carolyn are correct in touting the quality

of the M&Z samples and forms.  Such materials should

(1) help attorneys to provide clients with competent services;

(2) allow attorneys to charge less for their services, as they

do not have to reinvent the deal; and (3) help personal

injury clients see how complicated or time-consuming the

preparation of their case might, or might not, be for their lawyers.

Instead, I want to point out that the M&Z P/I Help Center  

(of which the Attorney Help Center is a part) falls short,

in my estimation, in one very important way, in achieving its

stated goal of providing “real information of assistance to

injured victims.”  As stated in a Comment this afternoon at

Evan’s Trial Practice weblog:

“there was not a word on how to negotiate a fair 

contingency rate (or even that such rates were

negotiable).”

I added: “If injured victims or lawyers would like to learn about

this topic, and find an ethically-appropriate Sample Form, I suggest

they go to the Injured Consumer’s Bill of Rights for Contingency Fees.

More can be learned at how much money is likely to be rewrded

and collected, and how much work and expense the lawyer is likely

to put into the case.” 

  In the midst of writing this post, I discovered that Evan believes

I’m being unfair to Miller & Zois and that my Comment amounts

to Comment Spam — “the interruption of a thread to provide infor-

mation unrelated to the thread that’s of particular interest to the

writer.”  Evan left up the Comment, saying he agreed with the

substantive issue of contingency fees. 

Naturally, I had to reply, and here’s part of what I said:

Evan, I think we should ask a few clients just how relevant

my topic is for them, before deciding this is comment spam.

A potential client going to the M&Z FAQ page will find nothing

about fees when clicking on “How should I choose a personal

injury lawyer?”. The only mention of fees comes in the Answer

to “Do I have to pay you any money when I hire you?” M&Z

says:

“No. Miller & Zois is a 100% contingency fee personal

injury law firm. We are only compensated if we obtain a

recovery for you. In fact, if you do not recover anything

from your accident and we spend money preparing your

case, we absorb that loss. Miller & Zois never asks clients

to front expenses and costs.”

By failing to inform the consumer that fees are negotiable and what

factors are relevant, M&Z — despite all the other good it may do with

this site — continues the conspiracy of silence among personal injury

lawyers that allows the vast majority of them to charge the vast majority

of their clients a “standard” fee that is the maximum permitted in their

jurisdiction. That is not putting the client’s interests first, and the idea 

that it’s irrelevant to a website that purports to inform clients about

personal injury cases is a sad comment on our profession. 

By the way, you say you agree with my main point . . .  but you have

never mentioned the Bill of Rights Form that I created and that has now

been up at my website for over 8 months . . “

Of course, I have no way to know what Miller & Zois tells their own clients about

contingency fees.  That is not my point.  M&Z has built a website aimed at a

statewide and nationwide audience.  It says “we get thousands of hits every day

to this area of our site.”  The Help Center presents a golden opportunity to give

lawyers and clients important information about contingency fees — or, to contin-

ue the conspiracy of silence that exists with the use of the “Standard Contingency

Fee.”    It wouldn’t take a lot of effort to provide the information.  M&Z is very wel-

come to copy or link to our Bill of Rights, and to make use of the summary that

we left at Evan’s website:

Quick summary: the percentage fee charged should reflect how

likely the client is to win, how much money is likely to be rewarded

and collected, and how much work and expense the lawyer is likely

to put into the case. The “standard contingency fee” that is charged

by the vast majority of lawyers is usually the maximum fee allowed

in the jurisdiction. Potential clients should negotiate for a rate in line

with the criteria above, and the lawyer should give the client a good

faith evaluation of the case, with all the information needed to be able

to negotiate fairly.

This weblog has its roots in the contingency fee issue — our first hate mail

came from a p/i lawyer.  We also had an early “debate” with Evan Schaeffer

on the topic (forming a bond that has lasted).  I hadn’t meant to write about it

today, but here we are, with another debate.  Please check out Evan’s site

(where I would expect more rebuttal from Mr. S), and the materials we linked

above.  And, please let us know what you think.

Meanwhile, for a lawyer who always provides just enough

information, we can look to haijin Barry George:

winter sundown

our waiter returns

with a flaming tray

new
stockperson…
stacked!

lost flight briefing—
choking on the science
in their voices

 

 

winter sunset—
the art museum shimmers
on the river

          

 

half dark rooftops—
the sound
of falling snow

 

Barry George 

“winter sundown” – Frogpond XXVIII:3

‘new’- Simply Haiku senryu page (Summer 2005)

“lost flight”, “winter sunset” & “half dark” – Haiku Harvest (Jan. 2003)