Welcome to the ShTexaslawyer.com Blog

The high gas prices of summer hurt not only the budgets of the average consumer and food prices, it hurt doctors and lawyers as well. With people driving less, and slower there were fewer accidents. Most of the doctors I associate with came to a near standstill before August. With no few accidents and a large number of doctors, there just wasn't enough work for everyone. The same happened to personal injury lawyers. Automobile accidents are a primary source of "bread and butter" cases for personal injury lawyers. Bu August, the gas prices were still very high, but people started driving anyway. New accident cases rose to just a little less than they had been before the dramatic price increases.

Many personal injury lawyers, like myself, also practice in some other area of law. I practice family law to supplement the erratic cash flow of personal injury work. The downturn in the economy has crushed this business now. Personal injury cases are contingent fee work. The client pays no money out of pocket towards the case. Family law is fee based. The client has to pay for all the fees costs and expenses. With household budgets in a crisis, nobody has the funds to pay for a divorce or a change of court orders on custody and visitation. That, and many likely are afraid to split their incomes in a time where they don't know if their job is secure or if they can afford to live separate from their spouse.

The whole nation, including doctors and lawyers has suffered from the high fuel prices of the summer and the following economic slump. I hope for us all, homeowners, doctors, lawyers, Americans, the world, that we can restore the economy sooner than later.

A recent search query that brought someone to my blog was, “why do lawyers make me crazy?” It amused me, but it also brought up a good question as to why there are such strained relations between lawyers, clients and the people they oppose.

The most obvious reason lawyers make people crazy is that they, and the whole legal process, are expensive. Court costs for litigation can be as little as some $3,000.00, or over $10,000.00 for many simple civil actions. Uncontested divorces have only filing fees and possible process fees. Contested divorces can get really expensive. I’ve seen both sides combined spend over $30,000.00 before. Hourly rates for lawyers run from just under $600.00 per hour to upwards of $400.00 per hour or more. Every call, visit, letter, fax, email… anything that happens in an hourly fee case can cause the bill to go up. This constant drain of money is maddening to clients. Not many have spare cash to just throw away, and in a hotly contested case it seems like the lawyers always has a hand in your pocket. It’s because of this the old joke about, “It was so cold today, I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets” is funny. If you have an hourly based case, the best thing to do is to know how you are being billed, to track the communications you get and verify if the time charged is accurate, and to limit your contact with the lawyer to essential and brief communications.

Another reason lawyers make people crazy is because they don’t tell you what you want to hear. Everyone believes they are right. If you were to talk to a person who ran a red light and caused an accident, even they would have some excuse as to why it wasn’t really their fault something happened. Most legal actions aren’t black and white. There is a lot of grey in the law, especially civil law. As a result, clients who often think they have a “slam dunk” case are frustrated when their lawyer points out potential problems in the case. Things most people take for granted as proof of facts are not admissible in court for that purpose, so they get frustrated when the lawyer doesn’t agree. For example, just because you always wear your seatbelt, and your family always sees you wearing your seatbelt, doesn’t make it true that you had the seatbelt on when you were the only person in the car and an accident happened. You saying it does not prove it, and your family saying they always see you wearing it doesn’t mean you had it on then. It is proof of your habit, but not proof it was on at that moment. These rules of evidence and procedure frustrate clients. This different set of rules seems arbitrary and unfair, because it isn’t what you are used to. The lawyer takes the blame for your frustration, because the lawyer is the only real person you can focus your frustration on.

Another reason lawyers drive you crazy is because if you have a lawyer, odds are the other side has a lawyer. I once heard an example of what it is like stress wise being a lawyer. Doctors have a lot of stress, but some studies say lawyers have more stressful jobs than doctors. A doctor in surgery has a life in his or her hands. The doctor has a support staff of nurses and technology at his side to assist in the surgery. By comparison, a lawyer is usually standing alone in a court room. He is trying to save his case. However, right across the room from the lawyer is another, likely equally qualified lawyer, fighting to kill that case. Imagine if a surgeon was trying to save a life while another surgeon was standing right across the table trying to kill the patient! The problem for clients is that even if they like their lawyer, the lawyer on the other side is like a demon. The other lawyer is making work for your lawyer, raising your bill. The other lawyer is fighting to disprove everything you seek to prove, and the other lawyer is fighting to keep from you anything you want out of the case. So naturally, that other lawyer drives you crazy.

Lawyers essentially get the worst parts of every type of practice. They cannot promise their customers things that might not come true like a hygiene product might. Lawyers cannot give guarantees or warranties like a manufacturer. Lawyers cannot coddle their clients like a customer service desk. Lawyers cannot “rush” a job like a tradesman. Lawyers should provide quality customer service, but their hands are tied in those areas. Clients are accustomed to the services these business provide, and when they don’t get it they are frustrated.

With all that said, I’m pleased that most of my clients have all been happy with the services I provided. The best thing a lawyer can do is to keep expenses at a minimum, give good advice, be timely, answer questions in an honest and informative way, and do the best you can for the client. If a lawyer does this right, the client will be happy in the end, because the client understood the process and how things got to the end.

For years now the number one complaint about lawyers by clients and the number one reason for grievances has been that the lawyer didn't return phone calls. What a ridiculous reason to have a client upset with you! I once worked at a firm where I and one paralegal had over 400 cases. It was a nightmare. All I could do during work hours was answer phone calls. The phone calls were important to me though. What kind of service could I give if my clients couldn't get answers? I've never had a caseload like that again. It was absurd. From that experience I took away lasting thoughts of what is a logical caseload for any one lawyer. The problem is most lawyers don't think in terms of customer service first. Lawyers, like all other businesses, are focused on profits. The best way to insure large profits in a firm is to have lots of cases. The more cases you have the more you can make. At some point though, the volume of cases is larger than that attorney can cover.

In the firms we lawyers call "mills" there is usually one to three named partners. All the advertising is done in the name of those lawyers. The clients think they are represented by that named lawyer. On paper they are, but in reality their case is likely being handled by junior attorneys or even paralegals. I've worked in two such mills. Often clients would want to speak to the named lawyer. Sometimes they could get through, but the firm tried very hard to protect the named lawyer from client contact. The named lawyer was supposed to be free to do marketing and enjoy the profits of his firm's labor. Of course, clients with very high value cases could always get through to the named lawyer.

In these mills, the usual practice is to departmentalize the case process. The named lawyer is on the radio, TV and phone books. In some firms this named lawyer is actually very active in the case review process, in others the lawyer is just an advertising figurehead. Under this named lawyer is a small group of attorneys. The higher level attorneys handle the litigation, the lower level attorneys take care of client contact, case investigation and negotiations. Working alongside these lawyers is an army of paralegals. The paralegals are usually grouped by task. There are paralegals assigned to litigation files, to pre-litigation case packaging, and those assigned to managing the case in the investigation phase. Alongside these employees are a cadre of secretaries and clerks. These people take the initial calls, set up meetings to sign cases and handle office functions.

The experience of the client in these mills is very confusing. Aside from the employee turnover in these kinds of practices causing an ever changing set of names, clients rarely have one person they can always talk to. As their case moves through each department the name of the paralegal or lawyer they talk to is constantly changing. Clients in the mills often think their case is getting shuffled around or they are not important to the firm. Bonds formed with a lower level paralegal or attorney are lost as the client's case moves through the factory style office.

I never liked that kind of practice. It is hard on the clients and it just feels wrong. I understand why the mills operate that way. It is a very efficient "manufacturing" process for moving a large number of cases. Each employee has a specific set of specialized and repetitive tasks. The firm can sign up a tremendous caseload and process them through as quickly as possible, generating cash to fund more advertising and hopefully more cases. It is a very profit-minded, capitalistic model. It works great... as a business, but not as a law firm.

What clients want when they hire a lawyer is to feel like their case is being treated like a personal matter. Legal issues strike at the core of a person's existence. Relationships, families and livelihoods are at stake for the client. The client wants to feel confident that ONE person is looking after their case like it was THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to be done. Clients want to hear a voice they have come to trust tell them answers they can understand about what is going on in the case. Clients hire a lawyer for peace of mind, and a chaotic factory process dopes not give a client any peace of mind, no matter how successful the outcome of the case.

In my practice I enjoy answering the phones myself. There are no other lawyers here, so anytime a client or potential client calls I am the one answering the phone. Clients do not have to speak to a paralegal who will tell them, "Mr. Howard will call you back." I enjoy having the phones ring my cell phone as well as the office number. I have no excuse for missing a call this way. It isn't a matter of being a control freak, it is how I like to practice law. I like making my clients comfortable, I like being there to answer their questions, and I like my clients. If I didn't like them I probably wouldn't take their case. Cases can take a long time to resolve and there is no sense in forming an attorney/client relationship if either of us doesn't like the other.

Someday I may have other attorneys in the office or a partner. When I do, I hope I can convince them of the need to keep that personal a contact with the clients of the firm. It is how I want to make this firm stand out. If they don't want to practice that way, perhaps they really don't want to be a part of this firm.

Twenty years ago I went to buy a suit at a nationally advertised suit "warehouse". I wanted a black, double-breasted suit. They obviously didn't have one in my size. But, that was what I wanted. The salesperson, rather than help to find a place I could look, or offer to order one, tried to force a blue single breasted on me. When I said I wasn't interested he insulted me by saying, "When you grow up you will realize you have to own a blue suit." I turned and walked out without saying a word. I never, ever went back. I still refuse to go back.

Okay, maybe that is unreasonable of me. I don't hold many grudges. However, I refuse to do business there ever again. It is a matter of principle. Considering that in my personal life I am a very friendly and forgiving person, this decision is very uncharacteristic of me. It did drive home a very important lesson though. Customer service is key to business survival. That off-handed remark by the clerk drove me away from that business for a lifetime. I have warned others not to do business with them as well. For a huge national chain selling goods in high demand it may not be as important as it is for a solo practitioner offering very specialized services. For my practice, such a situation is unacceptable. I treat my clients with respect. I treat them the way I expect to be treated. If I treat them well, they will refer others to me. It has worked. A substantial part of my practice comes from referrals.

I won't name the suit shop publicly, but if you are curious, drop me a line. I'd be glad to rant about them... even if it was twenty years ago.

One of the most frustrating things for any entrepreneur has to be when your family and close friends don’t know what you do. It seems no matter how often you remind them, somehow it gets forgotten. I can remember once spending an hour discussing a potential case with a cousin-in-law’s wife (is that what you cal that lineage?). I never heard more about it for about a year, and then another relative told me the case was signed with another lawyer. It was a two part case and the first case had settled for a tremendous sum. It was being told to us as just some family news. We mentioned to the relative I did that kind of work. “Oh, you do? I didn’t know that…” Then there was the day my in-laws called to tell us of an issue for some friends of theirs, in mid-conversation we interrupted to say, “You know I do that kind of work?”

Again, I heard the, “Oh, you do?”

Sigh….

It isn’t just me. Another lawyer I know spent a Thanksgiving discussing a case with a relative, a few weeks later the relative called to say the had hired a “big dog” lawyer. Never mind that the lawyer I was talking to had settled several million dollar death cases, his family didn’t see him as a “big dog.”

I guess it likely happens to all entrepreneurs. Isn’t there some old adage that no matter how successful you may be, your still a nobody in you hometown?

Lawyers are told to avoid impropriety. It is a complicated way to say, "be good". It is unfortunate that it even has to be said at all and is a statement of society. We should all be raised to avoid impropriety, it makes life better for all. Almost every problem in a person's life can be traced back to having done improper things. Drinking too much, infidelity, excessive gambling, lying, and a host of other "bad" acts come back to haunt people later in life.

Some think that being virtuous and avoiding bad acts is dull, or that it confines them too much. Some think that there are no repercussions to their acts or decisions. Some think that any effort to control them must be rebelled against. Some even think that a person cannot succeed without bad acts. It isn't true. If your bad acts are so important to you that life without them is dull, then perhaps you should re-assess your life. How much long term pleasure is there from drinking to excess, gambling to excess, infidelity or lying?

Usually bad acts are done because of either not thinking about the consequences, or because of short term thinking. Sure, some bad acts are done in desperation and may be quite planned out. Most however are momentary decisions. A person sees money laying about and wants to grab it, in a sexually charged moment a spouse may give into a moment of pleasure disregarding their vows, etc. When the moment passes, the actor finds themselves in the mess they have made due to that careless decision.

I don't want to preach here about what is right or wrong, I would simply admonish you to do as lawyers are admonished and avoid impropriety.

Being a lawyer can be bittersweet. For example, today I finished a trial for a client. They hired me to finish a very difficult eviction. The tenant had free legal help through legal aid, because they had no income. The had been on housing assistance, the rental contract had ended, no rent had been paid by the tenant or the housing agency for months. My clients were out over $3,000.00 in unpaid rent. We had won in the JP Court and the tenant appealed to the county court. Of course I ant to do the best I can for my clients. They are loosing thousands of dollars to a person illegally occupying their property for months.

We won today, but personally I feel a loss. I just won a hearing that puts several unemployed women and children onto the street in five days. I'm not proud of that part. There really is no "win" in a situation like that. The tenant has known for months that they had to get out, they forced my clients to seek the courts to evict them without setting up a place to go. At the same time, I can't help but feel compassion for a lady trying to keep her family in some kind of shelter in the dead of summer.

Lawyers can pick and choose cases the cases they take. This internal conflict is why I stay out of criminal law. I chose to take the case. I'm proud to have done a good job. I just hope the tenbant fids a new place before my client has to move her out under the court's order.

Occasionally I meet folks who want to know if they should go to law school or not. Of course, if it is something you really want in life, go for it! But, if you are trying to choose between two career choices it is a tough decision.

Before I start this story, I enjoy what I do. I don’t regret the choice to practice law. There have been some very bad times as far as a career goes, but I’m better off for having decided to become a lawyer.

When I graduated from college, I was quite torn. I wanted to be a history professor, but I had curious inclinations about practicing law. I had a long visit with my favorite history professor, Dr. Kyle ( http://www.uta.edu/ra/real/editprofile.php?pid=1529 ). He was great in helping me analyze the decision. He told me teaching in the university setting was a lot of fun, and very rewarding. He told me that the pay was not the best, and that there was always paperwork to grade and papers to write. I can't recall if he said this next part or not though, but it was how I made my decision. If, I taught history, and never tried to go through law school, I might regret having never tried. If, for example, one day I was looking at getting a second mortgage to pay for braces on a daughter I hadn't had yet, I might wonder if things would have been different had I became a lawyer.

So, I decided to apply to law school. I got accepted and nearly quit in the first year. I hated the first semester of law school. Then I can remember the day as finals approached, that I decided I wasn't going to let "them" (them was never defined) stop me. I threw myself into school and graduated. I passed the bar exam on the first try. It was then that the realities of starting a legal career hit me.

My roommate had better grades than me, he had several years of paralegal experience, he was on law review. He sent out four hundred resumes, and didn't get a single offer for an interview. I was sending out three to five resumes a week, and having no lock either. Some six months after being licensed, I was still looking for my first attorney position. I started answering ads for paralegals. Fortunately for me, James Stanley and Alfred Pandolfi ( http://www.law-jms.com/ )interviewed me for a paralegal position. They were stunned I was a licensed lawyer looking for work as a paralegal and hired me as a lawyer. I will always think of James Stanley as my dad in the legal profession. He taught me a lot. Unfortunately the position ended in a year.

Since that ignoble start, I have worked at several firms, there have been long periods of non-employment. I call it non-employment because I was working, but not for a firm. It wasn't until the tenth year of practicing law that I really liked the practice. At that time I was finally in a firm I loved. I thought it would be the last place I ever worked. I had hopes to become a owner. Then, one day the firm decided I would not have a salary, I would be straight commission only.

With, at that point fifteen years of experience, I could fulfill my desire to own a firm, keep 100% of the profits and not be paid a commission. I decided to open a solo practice.

So, do I think you should go to law school? Short answer, sure. Long answer, only if you really want it, you know people who will employ you and keep you, and if you are ready for a lot of heart aches.

Would I want my kids to go to law school?

NO!

Not unless they really wanted it and I could hand them a fully functioning firm that would be theirs to own.

A few final thoughts, if you have a scientific degree in engineering, biomedicine or such, you might do well. A patent office license to practice patent law is very lucrative, and those types of lawyers are not as common as most.

I ran across a blog article regarding contingency fee cases at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2007/08/29/why-do-lawyers-lie-about-contingency-fees/. The article was a tad old, being from August 2007. However, the site raised issues that bothered me.

First, I’ve never lied about my fees in contingent cases. There are no hidden costs. The fee I charge is 35% of the gross if I can settle the matter without a lawsuit. 40% if I have to file a suit, and 50% if there is an appeal. I point out to my clients that the fee is not inclusive of any expenses, but that I only count something as an expense if I have bill in my hand. I do not pass “overhead” costs such as folders or paper onto my clients. Lastly, I make a personal promise to my clients that I won’t take more of the proceeds of the case than them, after expenses have been paid.

With all that said, I think the article’s title was misleading. The biggest issue the author had with contingent fee cases was that he felt 1) attorneys can get more than the value of the work done to resolve the case, and 2) that clients don’t know they can fight to sign contracts at other fee rates. From there, the article became less informative, and more of a series of arguments. But, I want to address those two issues.

As to the potential of a windfall to the attorney, there is really only one way this can happen. It is possible that an attorney could sign up a case at a 1/3rd contingent fee, do very little work due to an obvious set of facts and terrible injuries, and end up getting paid thousands of dollars for only a few hours of real work. Yes, such a circumstance is unfair. Or is it?

Lawyers cannot know for certain what the value of every case they sign up will end up being. There are some averages they can look to, they can see problems that could diminish the value of a case, or factors that could increase the value as well. But, no lawyer can tell any single client what their case will ultimately be worth at the very beginning. There is too much that can go right or wrong as the case develops. As a result, the lawyer is taking on a case that he or she believes will have “some” value, and putting their effort into getting the most value possible from the case. The client directly benefits from this, as the lawyer cannot get more, without making the client more as well.

Signing a case has a lot of back loaded overhead in it. The lawyer has paid for his education, license, continuing education, taxes, staff, supplies, advertising, equipment, etc. long before any one case is signed. The lawyer has to cover those past costs as well as his future costs from what he signs up now. Additionally, each case will have its own particular costs. Some cases I have worked on had no expenses beyond staff time, equipment and supplies. Others have had thousands of dollars poured into them for experts, depositions and the like. As a result, the lawyer is taking on a calculated risk with every case.

Sure, if you base the fee earned solely on hours worked, sometimes lawyers are earning outrageous hourly fees, but if you look at the cases that don’t do well they have also worked for wages far below minimum wage. That is the nature of the gamble in contingency cases. Some will do well, some won’t. Some will eat up your budget, while others are practically free to work.

There are cases that are more likely to have higher returns than others. Dead loved ones, missing limbs and the like naturally have higher settlements that a minor whiplash case. Should the lawyer take a lower percentage just because the case could do really well? Maybe, then again there are other options available to clients, which gets into point number two.

Regarding contingent fee negotiations, I have seen lawyers charge a wide range of contingent percentages for the same types of work. I have heard of fees around 20 to 25% for auto cases, as well as having heard 40% across the board fees for any type of case. There is market competition. Clients do have a choice as to whom they want to hire. Some lawyers will reduce their fees to sign a contract, others will not. The issue for clients is do they want to risk the potential of a large fee, or risk why the lawyer they are hiring charges less. I heard a great comment along the lines of “you get what you pay for.” I once heard a person ask, do you want a discount lawyer to discount work, or do you want a full priced lawyer to do his or her fullest effort?”

In the end, the client has full control. The client decides whom they want to hire and what portion of the case they are willing to part with. Despite this argument over whether there is something wrong with contingent cases, we should all be glad there are such cases. Imagine if you were badly hurt, would be out of work, had mounting medical costs on an already strained budget, and the only way to get help was to pay an lawyer an retainer or an hourly rate? For all but the very wealthy, it would be impossible to afford representation, and the accident would become the beginning of the complete unraveling o f their lives. Thank goodness that you can hire a contingency fee based lawyer, otherwise you might not be able to hire a lawyer at all.

I got a call from legalmatch. I won't put the ".com" on the name because I don't want it to pop up as a link I in any way support. Basically, this is just another "service" that claims to be marketed to consumers or potential clients, but in reality it just feeds off of lawyers annual marketing budgets.

The concept is that an attorney will pay an annual fee to be a participant in their online marketing effort. Then the attorneys are matched with potential claimants in their area. It seems like a good idea at first, but in reality there are no controls. There is no guarantee of a return on investment. You could pay the fee and be on the list, but how many potential clients will find legal match. I think some proof of that number is in the fact I had never seen their site or heard of them till today.

Rather than pay an advertising service thousands of dollars to be in their exclusive version of a "yellow pages" I think I will just keep doing what has worked in the past, for much less money up front.