|
|
Posted by William Gill on 10/06/07 21:58
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:00:16
> GMT William Gill scribed:
>> Unfortunately, as with most serious problems, there is no single
>> simple solution.
>
> Actually, I think there is.
>
> Does an attorney, like anyone else, deserve to be paid for his work? Of
> course. Does he deserve to be paid well? Well, probably, but "doing a
> good job" comes into it. Does he deserve to be paid well enough to
> compensate for the times he is not paid so well, including "the losers",
> so to speak. Mmm, somewhat - the key being "within reason". Certainly
> anyone in any profession has good and bad times. Now here comes the
> killer - does he deserve a windfall based on his client's
> pseudo-windfall? (ie: "I get a third.") Absolutely NOT. Simple. A
> _reasonable_ bonus perhaps, but something like $20M+ for less than
> one-man-year's worth of work is not what I consider equitable.
>
> Of course, there are some so-called "sports" jocks making more. "The
> ignorance of The People knows no bounds."
>
I agree with everything you say, but I don't see the "single simple
solution."
"Equitable", "within reason", or like the ADA says "reasonable
accommodations", are as subjective as "common sense." BTW expenses come
off the top, before "a third" is calculated.
Having dealt with many contracts, laws, lawyers,and judges over the
years I have developed a deep respect for the law of unintended
consequences. The hair on the back of my neck stands up whenever I hear
"that will be easy to fix."
Companies hire actuaries all the time to calculate their "exposures."
Some decide it's cheaper to produce an unsafe product, or skirt a law,
than it is to fix or prevent a problem. It's a numbers game, and
lawyers play it too. Assume for purposes of discussion, that we are
able to define "reasonable" attorney compensation. If a lawyer knows
he/she can make X dollars on one case or the same X dollars on another,
but the second will take more time and effort, which one do you think
he/she will take? Companies have lawyers; they know the kinds of cases
others will shy away from. Are you ready to grant them license to
disregard any laws that don't "cost" them, because no one can or will
"prove it?"
Let's put the principle in another context. I have a couple million
dollars. I can put it in a bank and it will produce a nice safe return,
or I can invest it in a business where, if I'm successful, I can make a
nice profit, and BTW create a few jobs. I could lose everything, but if
I COULD make enough to chance it, I might. Now someone says "hold on a
minute, you're not paying your fair share of taxes." Will that change
the equation, and possibly my mind? What about those people who needed
those jobs?
Elsewhere in this thread, someone suggests putting it all in the hands
of judges to throw out the "unreasonable." Though they can and do do
this now, I'm not sure I want all that power solely their hands, and if
you had seen SOME of the judges I have seen, you wouldn't want any of it
in their hands.
Bottom line, I think we agree in principle, but I'm more cautious about
the solution. I believe in asking "If it's so easy to fix, why hasn't
someone already fixed it?" The answer may be "No one has tried." or it
could be "This is how we fixed it!"
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|