Over the past 4 - 5 years, I have dealt with many attorneys and have attempted to assess their capabilities by giving them a 50 page state coa/sc appeal to read. Before that though, we always heard that they would require a retainer of $15,000 to $25,000 upfront or paid in two equal installments. There were no guarantees that this retainer would cover all expenses in writing a habeus corpus appeal to Federal Court. Other expenses would be billed at $300/hour.

Not wanting to leave them in the lurch, we would give them the state apeal documents to provide them with a background for the case, in which to learn about the case, provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the costs, and to know the case for when we arrived in their office for a 60 to 90 minute conference. Since my wife, pro bono attorney, and myself had read all of the transcripts and appeals documents; we were privy to many things known only in the content of the appeal document. I expected the attorneys to read the 50 pages to gain an idea of what the case was about and not spend their time explaining "mens rea" or "volition" to me. On the average to gain a minimal understanding of the case, asking them to read 50 pages (1-1/2 hour and excellent bathroom reading) seemed quite reasonable.

Surprisingly, maybe 1 or 2 actually read the state appeals brief. It was easy to tell who had and who had not by the questions they asked and comments they made. All wanted their money ($15,000 to $25,000) up front with a minimum billing hour; but very few would invest the time upfront to learn the case by reading the 50 pages. Why should I buy a horse without examining the teeth?

Not sure whether it was a lack of respect for the client or the bill payer; but most did not want to do the slightest amount of homework before the conference. In which case, why should I want to leave such a case of importance in their hands? We ended up going out of state for attorneys who understood the case, read the state appeal, understood constitutional law, and understood the concepts of "mens rea" and "volition." Yea, there is such a thing as a billable hour; but, you have to win the case and know something about it before you can bill to it and then not come back and say:

"Oh shit, I didn't know this was about this!"

Your experience is a direct result of the billable-hour system. Why would a partner, who can bill an established client upwards of $1,000 per hour, want to invest two hours of non-billable time to possibly land a new $15,000 client that will likely scrutinize the bill closely?

My guess is that you approached some big-name firms at first. These firms are often married to large corporate clients who are willing to pay without looking at the bill, so it's no suprise that the attorneys responded the way they did.

I'm glad to hear that you found a firm that was willing to give your case the appropriate attention.

AZChicago:

Actually no big firms; but medium sized ones who came on recommendations. First, the why accept the case. It will make law in the state I live in as it has a "no-capacity" law in it which forces people in insanity pleas and violates the concepts of mens rea and volition. If one is not congnisant and still can function violently, than how can one be held guilty or guilty and mentally ill when it is not mental illness? There is daubert and jury instruction laced into this also. I gave a range of dollars as it was explained to me. The going price was ~$20,000. One firm wanted to keep the interest.

Tied to this case was one malfeasant attorney and one malpracticing attorney who we dealt with throught the initial trial. The malfeasant one lied to the court and hamstruck the ineffective one, who failed to make the right objections. The malfeasant one turned out to be a crackhead and is implicated in supplying crack to a crack-whore who died in his appartment. Fortunately two Fray attorneys helped write the appeal to the state appeals court and made the right arguments giving us a pathway to federal court. Convoluted yes?

Which brings me to my point, why should I trust you with my son's life and my money if you can not take 90 minutes to read the state COA and state SC appeals brief of 50 pages. Especially after having been lied to, stolen from, and criminalized in court? I can no longer believe recommendations nor can I believe uneducated opinions. I need to know right up front and I explained this to all.

The attorney who did finally accept the federal part of it is a well known constitutional lawyer, who did read the brief, and discussed it with us. You would know him as having testified against Alito in Congress. There is an Innocence Project watching it also. Because I can not trust recommendations or uneducated opinions, I make my judgements based upon what I and a pro bono attorney hear from a candidate attorney and firm. Just me dude and I have lost far to much and my son has paid the price for us not being more careful in the beginning.

I explained this to the Grievance Comission to make my point. When one goes to the doctor, we go with a large degree of trust in their ability to correctly diagnose our illness and prescribe the correct treatment. When one goes to an attorney we go under the same premise, that the attorney will guide us through the morass of court and law helping us from harm. As the patient or the client, we do not expect doctors or attorneys to deliberately cause us harm through malfeasant or unknowledgeable actions. We trust in their knowledge. We trusted and now I can not.

Well, you can trust some. The real problem is that there is no way for ordinary folks to know who is who. The same problem, to an extent exists in medicine.

Jack:

Between you and Bev, I know this and I did draw that medical legal comparison at the end of my post. Where would we be today if someone had not answered my post on TheFray? We did not have a clue and now we are like walking law libraries of terminology and cases. Not what I wanted to do as I grew older.

Thank you Jack for listening to us.

Run:

You and I know it all too well - the billable hour system is a farce (read my post). It really is. I've said it once, and I'll say it again - the push to make billable hours is counter to the client's best interest. Lawyers shouldn't charge to get up to speed on a matter.

It took me about 15 minutes to "get" what your case was about. I didn't do hours of research - i read some things, digested, thought about it, and said - I think X, Y, and Z.

A firm would've fielded a team of associates to go through your prior documents, line by line, submit it to a half interested partner for review.... then get it wrong. I've seen it happen, and I know.

(tomkashnyc) - formerly ohthehumanity

tom:

The thought was to give them the opportunity to gate a quick glimse of the case rather than have them go through 4 feet of transcripts. In that manner, since they are learned lawyers, they would be able to discuss the case with me rather than look like idiots when they propose different scenarios that had alrady been discredited.

Nice to see you again!

I dunno, run. If someone walked into your office and said, "I'm talking to half-a-dozen outfits. Give me a couple of hours of your time, for free, and maybe I'll hire you later," would you consider that good business?

Would you expect a physician to do that? If the case was an invasive cancer, or a complex heart defect, instead of a prison sentence, would you expect several oncologists or cardiologists each to spend two or three hours reading through your paperwork, and then -- maybe -- after they've given you several hours of their time for free, then maybe you'll pick them for the job? A job that, to be strictly candid here, is not going to make them one dime more than the next guy, who's not asking for several hours free upfront?

Or do you pretty much expect that you're going to pay for an office visit whenever you show up at the doc's?

In the legal field, a half-hour chat might be a reasonable gift to a potential client. However, most of a morning is more than most people want to waste on a client who will probably go elsewhere.

I suspect that if you'd offered to pay them a single hour's fee to look over the brief and talk to you about it, that you would have gotten a very different response (especially if they see a lot of these "gimme a freebie" cases in a week).

once:

Thank you for your response.

Each spent 1-2 hours of time with myself, wife, and pro-bono attorney. By the end of the hour of listening, making a few comments, and asking a couple of questions; it was obvious that they had not read the 50 pages of brief to acquaint themselves with the case. Remember you are going up against me who sat through the trial and read the 4 feet of transcripts.

If you read my words here, you may realize we were burned by one attorney who had "exparte" conversation with judge, lied to the court for one year at a cost of ~$15,000, and did nothing. He was smart enough not to have malpractice insurance in a state that will not license you to drive unless you have auto insurance. Is the damage any less? Furthermore, he was found in possession of crack found guilty of it, and is now on trial for contributing to the death of another by supplying it. We suspect he was using when he took our case. We chose poorly based on recommendations.

The first attorney so severely hampered our case that the 2nd attorney, who was relatively ineffective and came on recommendation, found himself hemmed in by a partial and hostile judge, and failed to make objections necessary besides not asking the judge to recuse himself. Another $15,000 pissed away. All of this in a state that is just to the right of Texas and Oklahoma. Mind you, this was just District Court.

As you probably know(?), an attorney's actions in District court can preclude any appeals. It is necessary for them to make the right objections and actions in order to win or at worst move forward in appeal. I have just presented you two instances of a attorneys who were not competent to the extent we needed them to be and holding another person's life in balance. One being malfeasant and the other ineffective. When holding one's life in balance, is the reading of 50 pages the sum that determines it? The attorneys interviewed all knew of our situation. All had said they reviewed it; but by listening, it was apparent they had not. After our experience with 2 attorneys, wouldn't you be careful?

It is true that doctor's and lawyer's expect to be paid for 2nd opinions. It is not true that this is the case for most occupations. As a part time consultant, I am expected to go on jobs and spend a day or two assessing a client, what they want us to do, know their circumstance, and sell them on our ability through my knowledge of their facility. My cost per hour is between $200 - $300 hour which I see a small portion of it (my projects have been written up). The sale does not come without our time being spent getting to know the client and their environment. My time is valuable and I do not know of many professions that do not make the sales pitch before and after knowing the client. My time as charged is valuable and the results of it can mean the life or death of a company.

And how happy are you about a potential client, if he says: "I'm bringing in a different consulting outfit each day this week. Your day is Wednesday. Please spend the whole day talking to people. At the end of the week, I'll hire one of you. In return for investing a full day, you'll have at 20% chance of getting a month-long job." Would you jump at the chance? Or would you say, "All things considered, I've already got plenty of clients, so why don't you just go with one of the other four"? I think that's what the lawyers are doing to you: They've got plenty of clients, and they don't need your business.

once:

I can see you telling catapillar that you do not need their business.

How happy was I when we spent ~$100,000 worth of time in consulting for 30 business days and not get paid? We were not happy at the time; but you know what? Clients do that and it is the nature of the business. When you look at the nature of manufacturing, you can tell who listened and who did not. After applying the wrong solution, this privately held company was sold twice.

The issue is whether you can demonstrate knowledge of the client's problems and persuade them you are the best that can be had to solve the problems. 50 pages and 1 hour of bathroom reading and I get to fork over $30,000 or 100 times the 1 hour of cost for your time. It took myself, my wife, and one other attorney 10 minutes to know whether the attorneys had read the brief or not by the questions they asked or the statements they made.

I do not need mens reas, volition, no-capacity, jury instruction, daubert, frye, blakely, crawford, etc. explained to me: i do need someone who can cut to the federal constitutional issues for me on the spot and knowing how to defeat the state.