0
stratostar

TX Skydiving firm sued in student's death

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Poor Guy should've checked out Crap Lawyer before hiring him.


That would certainly be prudent of him. The problem is, it's not always easy to tell good lawyers from bad. What do you go by?
Quote



State bar associations, lawyer referral services, lawyer review organizations, previous clients (wins and losses), just to name a few.




Win-loss record? That helps to some degree, but maybe this guy just had a string of cases where the facts were very much against his client, so he lost them all.
Quote



A lawyer with a crap win/loss record because he had a string cases in which the facts were very much against his clients IS a crap lawyer. Good lawyers know better than to sue on behalf of clients when the facts are very much against them. That's one of the differences between good lawyers and crap ones. Hello?




The lawyer's apparent command of the law? Almost any lawyer worth his salt can make a pronouncement sound authoritative. Unless you actually know that area of the law, it's hard to tell that he's not giving you the full story.
Quote



You are correct on that, which is exactly why some people end up with a crap lawyer. You wouldn't hire an employee because they sound like they know what they are talking about. You would verify that they do.




Recommendations? Those are often based on outcome -- my lawyer got me $2.1 million. Okay, but maybe you had a really obvious and easy case that a fifth grader could have won.

State Bar complaints? That a person has none is good, but definitely not indicative of quality.
Quote



Both are a good start. Sure recommendations are based on results. Duh. That's what good vs crap lawyers are all about. A lawyer might get an occasional lay-down case, but they won't all be. If a lawyer has a high percentage of wins, there's certainly a much better chance that he/she is a good lawyer than if they have a high percentage of losses. A lawyer's job is to WIN CASES, so going with a lawyer with a high percentage of wins makes a hell of a lot more sense than going with one that doesn't.

One really good way to figure out if a lawyer is good is to ask an assortment of OTHER lawyers. Opinions vary of course, but really good lawyers typically have the respect of their peers and street cred that others in the industry are willing to talk about.


Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A lawyer with a crap win/loss record because he had a string cases in which the facts were very much against his clients IS a crap lawyer. Good lawyers know better than to sue on behalf of clients when the facts are very much against them. That's one of the differences between good lawyers and crap ones. Hello?


Sorry, the "bad facts" scenario was intended for defense lawyers, not plaintiffs lawyers. Defense lawyers often don't have a choice -- their clients get sued, they defend.

But in any case, how do you verify the facts of the cases that the guy has won or lost? Do you dig through each of his last five cases (assuming he'd let you, which he wouldn't), read each motion, read each case cited, analyze each statute?

It's not impossible, but it's difficult for someone to do, especially if they are not highly educated, or don't have a lot of time.

Quote

Both are a good start. Sure recommendations are based on results. Duh. That's what good vs crap lawyers are all about. A lawyer might get an occasional lay-down case, but they won't all be. If a lawyer has a high percentage of wins, there's certainly a much better chance that he/she is a good lawyer than if they have a high percentage of losses. A lawyer's job is to WIN CASES, so going with a lawyer with a high percentage of wins makes a hell of a lot more sense than going with one that doesn't.


Sure. What I'm saying, though, is that one can't always tell that one has a bad lawyer until it's too late (and often not even then), and that picking the one with the winning streak is not always, or even often, a guarantee.

Also, as the great majority of cases (over 90%) settle before trial, it's not always easy to evaluate whether the lawyer "won" or "lost".

So say a lawyer gets 10 cases, 2 that are slam dunks, 2 that are pretty difficult, and 6 that are in-between. He settles all of them, getting his client money in all 10 cases. In the 2 difficult cases, he gets very little, in the 2 slam dunks, he gets a lot, in the 6 in-between, he gets a decent amount. Is he 10-0? 8-2? 2-2-6? Does it matter if his opponent was an idiot? A top litigator? And how are you going to find out which the opponent was?

I'm not saying it's impossible to up your chances of picking a good lawyer. It's not. What I'm trying to say is that none of this stuff is so easy for the average person to do.

Quote

One really good way to figure out if a lawyer is good is to ask an assortment of OTHER lawyers. Opinions vary of course, but really good lawyers typically have the respect of their peers and street cred that others in the industry are willing to talk about.


I agree this is better than nothing. But it assumes that: (a) you know a bunch of other lawyers; and (b) that these lawyers are good lawyers, whose opinion you should trust. In smaller communities, perhaps this would work better, because there aren't that many lawyers. In larger ones (like Los Angeles, for example), it's much harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That could still be enough to ruin the rest of your life. (Think how much money you clear each year after taxes, rent, and food. Divide that into $200,000 + annual interest. That's how many years you will have no money for any extras.



Couple of thigns you're missing. 1st, many states won't allow a garnishment to exceed 25% of take-home pay per check. Second ,in many states, bankruptcy offers protection against judgements.

-Blind
"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Couple of thigns you're missing. 1st, many states won't allow a garnishment to exceed 25% of take-home pay per check. Second ,in many states, bankruptcy offers protection against judgements.



Yes. Just to clarify with a bit more detail:

- The 25% limit of take-home pay is a Federal limit, meaning that by Federal law, nowhere is it allowed to be more than 25%. (Actually, it's the lower of either (a) 25% of take-home pay, or (b) the total amount by which your weekly wage exceeds 30 times the federal hourly minimum wage.) Some states set their limits at even lower than the federally-mandated 25%. And 4 states do not allow any wage garnishment at all to satisfy most civil judgments.

-Bankruptcy is also under Federal law; and thus it offers certain protection against judgments in all states. The extent of the protection varies a bit from one state to another, mainly having to do with the amount of the Homestead Exemption available in each state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Couple of thigns you're missing. 1st, many states won't allow a garnishment to exceed 25% of take-home pay per check. Second ,in many states, bankruptcy offers protection against judgements


Bankruptcy can indeed shed judgments. However, then you have to file bankruptcy. Which means you liquidate all current assets except for the bare necessities.

In regards to limits on garnishing wages, while that may be true, judgment creditors are not limited to garnishing wages. They can also levy on bank accounts, put liens on real property, force the sale of property.

In any case, my larger point stands -- in a loser-pays system, the potential plaintiff has much more to worry about before he sues. In return, this will discourage frivolous lawsuits. Which system you consider better depends on which value you think is more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In any case, my larger point stands -- in a loser-pays system, the potential plaintiff has much more to worry about before he sues. In return, this will discourage frivolous lawsuits. Which system you consider better depends on which value you think is more important.



I don't think it will stop it, I think it will just force litigators to game the system a little more. Most of the work arounds you described are only effective on the upper or middle class (and even then only for those who haven't taken proper precautions). Few if any of them will stick to those in poverty who would then become the people the litigators would chose to "champion."

Your concpet is also hampered somewhat by the legal doctrine that allows you ot bring suit against someone where ever they do business. that would allow a litigation team to select "clients" from states with strong homestead laws. After that it's a relatively simple cases of transferring major assets out of the client's name and transitioning them from bank accounts to eba cards. As long as all this is done before the lawsuit is filed, there's not a lot that can be done about it.



-Blind
"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

do you see me performing surgery without a license?

If there's no video it never happened :)

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

do you see me performing surgery without a license?

If there's no video it never happened :) Wendy P.


I guess I meant to say, "You don't see me performing surgery without a license, do you (as in, "y'all") ?" The answer to that is No. There's a reason for that. (..was my point...)

I get the same itch when I see non-medical professionals give medical advice. Personally, I just tell people to bleed themselves with leeches, and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think it will stop it, I think it will just force litigators to game the system a little more. Most of the work arounds you described are only effective on the upper or middle class (and even then only for those who haven't taken proper precautions). Few if any of them will stick to those in poverty who would then become the people the litigators would chose to "champion."


I agree it wouldn't stop frivolous law suits. But it would discourage them.

Quote

After that it's a relatively simple cases of transferring major assets out of the client's name and transitioning them from bank accounts to eba cards. As long as all this is done before the lawsuit is filed, there's not a lot that can be done about it.


It's doable, I agree, but my point again is just that it gives plaintiffs more to think and worry about. If a defendant had any whiff that a plaintiff had done such to become judgment proof, the defendant could bring a claim for fraudulent transfer. At debtor's examinations, judgment creditors can and often do ask for bank statements going back 5 years. So you'd have to have a LOT of foresight.

Can a person survive a judgment if they don't have the money to pay? Sure. But it makes their life much harder. In CA, for example, they could be required to appear every 120 days for a debtor's exam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wrong.
Come on, people, do you see me performing surgery without a license?


1. What makes you so sure I don't have a license to practice law?

2. I am not dispensing legal advice, I am discussing the advantages / disadvantages of implementing a loser-pays legal system. In doing so, I have "short-handed" a lot of things that are not primarily relevant to the discussion.

3. If my understanding of bankruptcy is wrong (that, with the exception of the bankruptcy exemptions, your assets are liquidated and distributed to a tiered list of creditors (secured, unsecured, etc.)), then feel free to educate me. I'm happy to learn new things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it's a relatively simple cases of transferring major assets out of the client's name and transitioning them from bank accounts to eba cards. As long as all this is done before the lawsuit is filed, there's not a lot that can be done about it.



Sorry, but it's not quite so simple; and Yes, there is something that can be done about it: namely, a claimant can seek to have the court nullify the transaction(s) under the doctrine of "fraudulent transfer". The "fraudulent transfer" doctrine applies not only to assets transferred in response to a lawsuit or judgment, but also assets transferred in anticipation of the assertion of a claim, so long as the triggering event has preceded the transfer. The triggering event is the incident/occurrence that generates the claim, not whatever lawsuit, formal claim, etc. that might follow thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Wrong.
Come on, people, do you see me performing surgery without a license?


1. What makes you so sure I don't have a license to practice law?

2. I am not dispensing legal advice, I am discussing the advantages / disadvantages of implementing a loser-pays legal system. In doing so, I have "short-handed" a lot of things that are not primarily relevant to the discussion.

3. If my understanding of bankruptcy is wrong (that, with the exception of the bankruptcy exemptions, your assets are liquidated and distributed to a tiered list of creditors (secured, unsecured, etc.)), then feel free to educate me. I'm happy to learn new things.



My "license" joke was not intended entirely literally; it was a metaphoric jab at people who purport speak knowledgeably about things outside their respective fields (which can be perfectly ok), but get it wrong. Because of my own field, I happen to notice it most when people talk about legal stuff. ("Speaking knowledgeably" does carry with it the possibility that one's audience might choose to take it as advice; but that's an angle I'm really not focusing on right now.)

Very simplified, sometimes bankruptcy does involve liquidating many if not most assets, as in the case in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for individuals. But other times it specifically does not require liquidating assets; rather, it provides a plan for keeping assets while reorganizing debts, as in the case of a Chapter 13 for individuals, and a Chapter 11 for a business. It's more or less the difference between "giving a lot of your stuff up, in exchange for walking away with a clean slate" (Chapter 7) versus "reorganizing your finances and going on a payment plan to pay down your debt" (Chapters 13 or 11).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally, I just tell people to bleed themselves with leeches lawyers, and leave it at that.



SPELLING POLICE FIFY!
Just tryin' to help.
:D:D:P


See what I mean? You guys make it waaaaaay too easy.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The triggering event is the incident/occurrence that generates the claim, not whatever lawsuit, formal claim, etc. that might follow thereafter.



Sorry guess I should have been clearer. I'm working off the, perhaps cynical, assumption that all this would be done to a potential crop of clients in anticipation of a triggering event rather than after one.

-Blind
"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The triggering event is the incident/occurrence that generates the claim, not whatever lawsuit, formal claim, etc. that might follow thereafter.



Sorry guess I should have been clearer. I'm working off the, perhaps cynical, assumption that all this would be done to a potential crop of clients in anticipation of a triggering event rather than after one.

-Blind



Would a LLC work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your postings made it fairly obvious that you were not an attorney.


Heh. I find that interesting, and am very curious what about any of my posts made you think that it's "fairly obvious" that I am not an attorney. Would you be willing to share?

And, because I am not trying to play a "gotcha" game, but am genuinely curious, I will let you know that I am an attorney. Licensed to practice (and practicing) in California since 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Your postings made it fairly obvious that you were not an attorney.


Heh. I find that interesting, and am very curious what about any of my posts made you think that it's "fairly obvious" that I am not an attorney. Would you be willing to share?

And, because I am not trying to play a "gotcha" game, but am genuinely curious, I will let you know that I am an attorney. Licensed to practice (and practicing) in California since 2006.



Just a friendly reminder, this thread has never been about you. Nor is this the penis measuring competition.

have a wonderful day !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0