Lawyers and lawsuits

[Stagger Lee]

I didn't want to post too much publically, but I'm involved in a lawsuit on behalf of someone else. The other party offered a lowball settlement, not even a third of the medical costs. Even what my lawyer is asking is much less than I feel the damages are. The things my lawyer said are disturbing. He saying I shouldn't expect much and the low settlement offer is good. Clearly he doesn't want to take it to trial and wants to settle. But it's almost like he's being paid under the table and doesn't care about getting a higher settlement and won't take it to trial. Is it possible insurance companies can pay off lawyers?

I know there are some attorney on here. I can't make sense of why my lawyer acts so indignant and concerned that I said the settlement is no where near commensurate with the damages. He started putting words in my mouth and act like he was going to drop the case. Bizarre.

 

[Bible_Belt]

yes, PM him.

No offense to pairplus, but just about every lawyer I have ever met is a lazy, lying piece of sh!t who wants to get paid for doing nothing.

 

[amoka]

I believe this lawyer is scum that needs to be fired. Try shopping around for a better lawyer.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I believe this lawyer is scum that needs to be fired. Try shopping around for a better lawyer.

I am inclined to agree, but the way I understand it is my state has laws that make it hard to win this type of case and the juries are stingy and often don't want to give a person restitution.

From the way I understand it, once you hire one lawyer he is entitled to fees even if you hire another lawyer and win. Then, it just prejudices you with the other lawyer to fire a lawyer. It seems like you are at the mercy of your lawyer, he gets paid under the table to settle and you get nothing. That's what it seems like.

Your lawyer is not necessarily crooked. Lawyers generally don't want to go to trial unless a case is a sure-thing and the reward is high. All things being equal, they would rather take a bad settlement notwithstanding the fact that you wont be able to pay your medical bills. Obviously they still want a bigger settlement since they get 1/3 of that. General rule is settle rather than go to trial because trials are a lot of work and stress.

SOME lawyers enjoy the risk of trial and can afford to take the risk of potentially zero return on investment where the reward could potentially be very lucrative. These lawyers can be dangerous if you have a bad case, of course, as you could wind up with nothing.

I understand that and agree. But is it possible lawyers do get paid off on the side by insurance companies to take a low settlement since the settlement won't be the lawyer's only pay out? It was just his comments that I PMd you that was very odd and off putting.

 

[logicallefty]

Courts want you to try to settle outside of court to keep their caseload down which makes sense. So there's some truth to trying to settle. But if your lawyer seems anxious enough to keep it out of court that he's willing to let you settle for less than you deserve then I agree that it's time to either shop for another lawyer or represent yourself. Look into the Nolo Press books on self representation . Simply put it's red pill law. Blue pill law is that everyone needs a lawyer all the time . One advantage to having a lawyer is actually all of the under the table connections and conversations with other parties that your lawyer will have access to that you probably won't. But an advantage to representing yourself is that you can get everything you want to be heard right in front of the judge without having the lawyer as a buffer. The lawyer might be filtering your interest out based on their own interests. Let me know if you need some clarification on what I mean by that. And regarding your question about is it possible for lawyers to be paid off, absolutely it is. I may only be a cop and not a lawyer but I've a had a lot of legal dealings in my personal life . I've went up against lawyers representing myself and beat them . I'm not saying all lawyers are bad I'm just saying if your gut tells you something is wrong with one then it probably is wrong .

 

[Stagger Lee]

I don't know what to do, or what I can do, but the case would be hard for me to represent myself.

The issue I have is the settlement amount that my lawyer is calling "good" is less than what I believe
Medicare will want to be repaid. My lawyer said Medicare will probably only take a third of the settlement after attorney's fees. But I believe medicare can and will take the entire settlement up to what it paid in medical bills. So in other words by accepting the settlement, my lawyer gets paid his share and medicare will take the rest leaving nothing. Why would I settle for this low amount when I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose other than time and effort by refusing to settle and asking for a trial?

http://www.teaguecampbell.com/medicare-liability-settlements/

So, by way of example, assume the following:

A liability claim is settled for $10,000.00, with $3,333.34 payable to the plaintiff’s attorney in fees and $125.00 in legal costs. However, the Medicare conditional payment lien is $50,000.00. Under this scenario, the “total procurement costs” would be considered $3,458.34, which is the total of attorney’s fees and costs. Because the settlement is less than the conditional payment, Medicare’s recovery would be reduced by the total procurement costs.[2] Thus, the net amount due to Medicare would be $6,541.66.

According to that, Medicare will take the whole settlement if they paid medical bills as much or more than the settlement. I can't find any source they say Medicare will typically only take no more than a third of a settlement. This is whole situation is bull.

 

[amoka]

I don't know what to do, or what I can do, but the case would be hard for me to represent myself.

The issue I have is the settlement amount that my lawyer is calling "good" is less than what I believe
Medicare will want to be repaid. My lawyer said Medicare will probably only take a third of the settlement after attorney's fees. But I believe medicare can and will take the entire settlement up to what it paid in medical bills. So in other words by accepting the settlement, my lawyer gets paid his share and medicare will take the rest leaving nothing. Why would I settle for this low amount when I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose other than time and effort by refusing to settle and asking for a trial?

http://www.teaguecampbell.com/medicare-liability-settlements/


According to that, Medicare will take the whole settlement if they paid medical bills as much or more than the settlement. I can't find any source they say Medicare will typically only take no more than a third of a settlement. This is whole situation is bull.

Tell the lawyer to take his 1/3 after Medicare takes its share....if he believes Medicare won't take all of it. If he disagree, tell him you'd like to take the case to court and he jeopardize getting nothing if he loss the case. That may get him to work harder on it. You also must be willing to get nothing or far less, which it seems like you are getting as things stand.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Tell the lawyer to take his 1/3 after Medicare takes its share....if he believes Medicare won't take all of it. If he disagree, tell him you'd like to take the case to court and he jeopardize getting nothing if he loss the case.

That sounds sensible but medicare will always leave the attorney's fee even if they take the rest. No attorney, and certainly not this one, would agree to take his 1/3 out after reimbursing medicare or worse a 1/3 of the 1/3 medicare leaves remaining. This jerk of a lawyer will probably just say either I accept the "best" offer he gets or he'll withdraw from the case.

That may get him to work harder on it. You also must be willing to get nothing or far less, which it seems like you are getting as things stand.

I don't think he'll take the suit to trial even if I insisted. But what's worse is there's no call for him act incredulous and flying off the handle just because I think the settlement is too low. And I'm really concerned that he is mistaken or more likely lying to me about how much medicare will take. How is it I should be forced to accept a settlement amount without even knowing what if I'll end up with anything in the end?

 

[Stagger Lee]

I think I figured out the only way I could accept a low settlement and not risk all of it going to medicare. If I required an allocation hearing and a judge ruled that only 1/3 or maybe 1/2 of the settlement was for medical expenses, then medicare would only claim the medical expense portion of the settlement, instead of claiming the whole settlement as medical expenses.

Any lawyers here think this would be a good plan? There's no reason my lawyer shouldn't agree to motion for a settlement allocation hearing. But this jerk of lawyer will probably refuse and say, " I don't understand what you're saying..I'm concerned about this conversation..and being able to take this case forward.".

But I have conflicting info whether or not medicare will honor an allocation judgment "if it's not decided on the merits of the case".

This says medicare will, how-you-can-reduce-or-eliminate-a-medicare-lien.cfm

This says medicare probably won't, apportioning-settlement-proceeds-to-exclude-medical-expenses-does-not-work-medicare-wins/

“[t]he only situation in which Medicare recognizes allocations of liability payments to nonmedical losses is when payment is based on a court order on the merits of the case.” MSP Manual, Ch. 7, § 50.4.4 (emphasis added). The nature of the unopposed motion to allocate expenses did not even remotely rise to the level of a hearing “on the merits” as envisioned by Medicare.

Since its inception, Franco Signor LLC has utilized the same MSP Manual references to counsel its clients. Whether a case has gone to judgment, or whether the parties are considering a court hearing with respect to the medical element of damages, we have remained vigilant and consistent on this point: Do not attempt to sidestep Medicare by arriving at a court order that is without adverse submissions of proof.

I'm not sure how to make the hearing be on the merits and have adverse submissions of proof, without going to a full trial which my lawyer won't do?

The fvcking government thinks it's entitled to take everything and an injured person should not get anything for their losses that they alone fought to recover.

 

[Fatal Jay]

I didn't want to post too much publically, but I'm involved in a lawsuit on behalf of someone else. The other party offered a lowball settlement, not even a third of the medical costs. Even what my lawyer is asking is much less than I feel the damages are. The things my lawyer said are disturbing. He saying I shouldn't expect much and the low settlement offer is good. Clearly he doesn't want to take it to trial and wants to settle. But it's almost like he's being paid under the table and doesn't care about getting a higher settlement and won't take it to trial. Is it possible insurance companies can pay off lawyers?

I know there are some attorney on here. I can't make sense of why my lawyer acts so indignant and concerned that I said the settlement is no where near commensurate with the damages. He started putting words in my mouth and act like he was going to drop the case. Bizarre.

first off lawyers always and do mean always get paid the most out of most settlements.

Also most people don't know that you can hire a paralegal to be your lawyer which will be ten times cheaper then having a lawyer