I'd Like to Meet the Lawyer

lostman

lostman

500+ Posts
...who is representing the mother in this case: Mother Sues Pre-School for not Prepping Child for Ivy League School

I just wonder how you really determine the harm done here.
confused.gif
wtf.gif
confused.gif
 
Didn't say I hate the lawyer - just wonder how you determine that a 4 year old's chances for entrance to an Ivy League school are ruined after 3 weeks at a preschool. Now if the mother just said it was about the $19K non-refundable tuition I could understand that! But of course "It's not about the money." It never is!
wink.gif
 
NickDanger,

While I'm sympathetic to lawyers who represent unpopular issues or clients (e.g. terrorists, murderers, corporate wrong doers, etc), your post seems to suggest that attorneys (of which I am one) have no obligation to consider the merits of the lawsuit. I would very much disagree with this approach.

Did I misunderstand your post?
 
Aren't you a Doctor of Jurisprudence?

Sorry if that was offensive for either the accusation of being a lawyer or the failure to remember that you are not.
 
Buffalo etc

You aren't far off of what I was thinking. I was typing while you were. I didn't even click on the link and that might make a difference to a discussion, but it is my PERSONAL opinion that the most effective lawyer is one who BELIEVES in his client's case and not the money he/she might make off of the case. People believe different things. Just because someone believes in a ******** case doesn't mean they are evil. Maybe full of **** or stupid, but not necessarily evil or anything.

Lawyers get bashed on Hornfans while they freely give valuable (not saying infallible or even correct) advice. Perhaps I was too sensitive when reading the original title.

BUT, and this is a big BUT, the original title mentions Lawyer and it is easy to infer that the lawyer is to blame for a ******** lawsuit. If it is one. It sounds like it, but then again the McDonald's coffe in the crotch lawsuit is a poster child for lawsuit abuse and I think McDonald's did not get stung enough (and not just because their food sux).
 
OK. I apologize for the structure of this thread. The 3 of us have been typing on top of each other and it's easy to see how the responses don't line up with inquiries. With that in mind and with the work I have to get to in mind, I will engage in some radio silence that should not be interpreted in any way.
 
I really did not intend for it to come off as lawyer bashing at all. I am always interested in the way they see the client and the story. I blame the mother here, really. If you read the story later, you will see what I mean. The kid is 4 years old, was in this pre-school for 3 weeks, when the mother yanked her out. How do you really determine that her chances at an Ivy League school have been ruined. I'd honestly like to hear what her lawyer would say.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't she just accusing them of false advertising (not prepping her child for a standardized test in the specific manner they advertised)? The harm is the cost of tuition paid for a service she believes she did not receive, no?

I think it's a weak case brought by a crazy mom also, but...there you go.
 
I have recently quit law and have no regrets yet. Back when I was practicing, one of my spiels to clients was along these lines.

"almost all of my work is on a contingent fee basis and when I take a case on a contingency I look at 5 things.
Can we win?
If so, how much?
Can we collect?
How much work is it going to take to get that win collected?
Intangibles like representing a rapist or suing the catholic bishop here in San Antonio (I think you get it)

With hourly, you take almost all of the risk and with contingency I take almost all of the risk. Now, I have been doing this for decades and I have a pretty good feel for these things and if I'm not willing to take the risk are you sure that you ought to take the risk?"

Anyway that was the gist of my talk. I never had anyone say they would take the risk on a ****** case after that spiel. They would hire me on a contingency and then proudly proclaim that they were "willing to take their case to the supreme court". That's when I would ask them who was going to feed the mule they intended to ride to the supreme court.

So. I DID exercise discretion, but there are SO MANY instances in life where stories get told about what was going on (lawsuit, visit with oncologist, etc) and it turns out that sometimes stories get told in significantly different ways by the same person. If I had this lady in my office I would almost certainly have the talk above and probably talk her out of it. If the school misrepresented something I might be willing to go after that, but it fails the "If so, how much?" test for a contingent fee. 33% of 20k is about 5 grand (expenses almost always got comped to encourage people to take a pretty reasonable offer). 5 grand is not chump change, but there are obviously intangibles and the client "sounds" like an obsessed parent. I have been one over the college application process and I wouldn't want to have to hold my hand.

I have always abhored the hourly deal as it makes conflict resolution more difficult. Defense lawyers especially will be as inefficient as they need to be to maximize profits without being so inefficient as to lose the client. No, they aren't ALL that way, but a LOT of them are. That means that they have an incentive to be obstreperous or just freakin churn a file.

FWIW, I personally have no desire to meet either the lawyer or the client in the linked matter. If the facts are correct (almost always a matter of perception) and if the lawyer took the case on contingency, he's not very bright. If he took it hourly, he's probably giving his client a bad deal if he didn't give her the talk above (or something like it). He might be her brother-in-law and had to do this to keep his wife from freezing him out. He might just be doing it for notoriety and future business. That would really disgust me as I always looked at my practice as part of a profession that had pretty cool rules and goals and I just really enjoy helping people. I DID make a good living. Can't deny that. Also helped me make a faster dying though.
 
Nick, thanks for the response. I think that is very well put. I don't really have an opinion on the lawsuit in question. I very well may think it is frivolous, but its entirely possible of course that the article is frivolously misrepresenting the lawsuit.
 
I will add my thanks as well, Nick. I have never had to deal in this way with an attorney at all. So I have always wondered how such cases even get legs. Your explanation says a lot.
 
I REALLY like to solve puzzles/issues. Unfortunately, a large number of people who want/need conflict resolution assistance want ALL of their problems solved when I saw that my only mission was to solve an ISSUE.

You have to find your own happiness.

I haven't figured out philosophically where the populace and the civil justice system OUGHT to intersect and even then it would only be MY opinion, but I left law for 3 reasons that I can identify.

1. I wanted to help people solve issues and they wanted me to solve more than what was there and when I got them something that solved a conflict (say a disoute with a builder), but didn't solve their lives and I made it look easy (because I have a tendency to not disclose all the things that I do)* they didn't feel good about my work even though their issue was almost always more than adequately solved.

2. I just don't want to fight with people.

3. I got so tired of being bashed for being an attorney when I took my mission and ethical obligations so seriously.

I look for NO sympathy, but the bashing HAS played a part in driving me out of the system and I will never admit was a BAD part of the conflict resolution system.

The criminal justice system is more than a tiny bit different. I have a feel for it, but no experience.

*This is just my own personality, but it would not be unusual for me to lie awake an entire night tryig to figure out the Jenga piece for a client's problem. I can't be alone just because I have a law license. I would bet LOTS of people do **** like that, but you can't really say on a bill or a justification for a bill that you had an Oprah "Aha" moment while taking a dump (wich didn't stink - joke) or a shower.

Lots of posters around here have to deal with bitchy insane or unappreciative clients in other fields than law. They rarely have to fade heat for trying to serve them.

Some of that faded heat is justified by lawyers who act like they are at some really lofty level above reproach. That is ********. The lofty above reproach noftion being the ********.

I listened to someone who made a fairly cogent argument that Muslims were responsible for their fringe violent element. If they didn't want to be seen that way, they werre responsible for reigning in thier own. The argument had a certain appeal to me in that the ethical lawyers had the job to reign in their fringe morons. The bar association sorta tries, but it's a little more complicated than just saying "take care of your own before you ***** that you have been painted with a broad brush". The same argument can be used to say that Republicans/Democrats need to censure the nutcases that claim to be a part of their party. Or that christians need to run off their fringe people. Or that ...

How do you do that?
 
In civil law, lawyers have a professional responsibility to take valid and legitimate cases. I'm a lawyer. This case is not valid. It's stupid and does nothing more than cost the school the money to defend. Frankly, If i were the school, id file sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney. i'm for the british system, loser pays. we wouldnt have crap like this filed if that was the case.
 
"Loser pays" means that plaintiff attorneys and their clients have MUCH MORE incentive to take personal injury cases. I don't think our conflict resolution system is broken nearly as much as our population of clients is.
 
...but it is my PERSONAL opinion that the most effective lawyer is one who BELIEVES in his client's case and not the money he/she might make off of the case.

Belief in a client only goes so far. I'll take subject matter expertise, cleverness, and hard work over "belief" any day of the week.
 
Mine has rolled his eyes at his parents VERY often, but we had a big group hug when he chose his room with his chosen roommate last night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top