LEO encounter at Home Depot in Allentown

[Statkowski]

Modern airplanes can lift off with minimal experience behind the controls. As told to me by a veteran pilot, any idiot can take off and fly in a straight line - it's landing that's the problem.

If you really want to have fun, try a helicopter simulator. Foot pedals for rear blade, right hand for yoke, left hand for cyclic. Been there, done that, crashed.

Don't know what airplanes have to do with Home Depot or Allentown, Pa., but I think it falls under the category of Thread Drift.

[bogey1]

Modern airplanes can lift off with minimal experience behind the controls. As told to me by a veteran pilot, any idiot can take off and fly in a straight line - it's landing that's the problem.

If you really want to have fun, try a helicopter simulator. Foot pedals for rear blade, right hand for yoke, left hand for cyclic. Been there, done that, crashed.

Don't know what airplanes have to do with Home Depot or Allentown, Pa., but I think it falls under the category of Thread Drift.

try rc planes/heli's...10 times harder....

back on topic

[whoshisface]

Sigh. The only one who doesn't get it is clearly you.

After two years of specialized and highly trainied services, including hundreds of hours of work, trips to depositions, research, etc., the attorney should have gone away with LESS than his advertised rates for services?

Get real.

The attorney did what he was contracted to do. The attorney used his education, years of experience and professional skills to achieve a sucessful outcome for the plaintiff. And the plaintiff paid him according to the prior contracted terms. Just like any other service. He could have gone elsewhere, he could have tackled the lawsuit himself. He chose to pay someone with the ability to win.

Seriously, your repeated harping on this unrealistic peeve of yours is nothing but thread-shitting at this point. Give it an ever loving rest already.

I still think the attorney should have made sure the victim gets more than himself, even if that means going to trial..

[Pa. Patriot]

I still think the attorney should have made sure the victim gets more than himself, even if that means going to trial..

And if the plaintiff doesn't want to go to trial?

This makes no sense, no where did the attorney force the plaintiff to not got to trial...

[whoshisface]

And if the plaintiff doesn't want to go to trial?

This makes no sense, no where did the attorney force the plaintiff to not got to trial...

I'm not sure, nor am I implying it.

However when the split is so lopsided it does, regardless of rather or not the plaintiff found it to be fair, make the whole system, specifically lawyers, smell bad.

[Pa. Patriot]

I'm not sure, nor am I implying it.

However when the split is so lopsided it does, regardless of rather or not the plaintiff found it to be fair, make the whole system, specifically lawyers, smell bad.

Another one that thinks the attorney should give up his pre-agreed to fee/wage. WTF?

The plaintiff chose settlement over going to trial. Terms known. How is that a problem with the attorney that was hired, at his pre-disclosed rate/%?

[rmodel65]

why are people complaining about what the attorney made...could the OP have done all the trial stuff by himself? could you do it? doctors make a lot of money because they know their trade...same as a good lawer

[GunLawyer001]

I'm not sure, nor am I implying it.

However when the split is so lopsided it does, regardless of rather or not the plaintiff found it to be fair, make the whole system, specifically lawyers, smell bad.

I'm not sure that you have a firm grasp of the realities here.

My understanding of this case is that the courts were not being kind to the plaintiff, and dismissal against all parties was likely. Not certain, but very likely. In which case, the plaintiff would receive nothing at all.

Many lawsuits are settled for "nuisance value", meaning that the defendant will pay the plaintiff the cash that would have been spent in defense lawyer fees. Why not? The defendant is going to spend around $25K on lawyers, and might lose and have to pay more; why not hand that cash to the plaintiff and end the case at that amount?

A good lawyer will tell you when NOT to hire him. I do that all the time, when I tell clients not to pay me $1K to try to get back their handgun, or I tell them not to appeal an LTCF revocation that's supported by the UFA. I tell potential pardon applicant's not to write me a check yet, because it's too soon, or they aren't good candidates yet for other reasons.

When your lawyer tells you to settle now, rather than roll the dice and put a lot of hours into depositions and enjoying the ambiance of rooms filled with career criminals and perennial plaintiffs and then get nothing at all, there's a strong chance that he knows what he's doing. The best interests of the client are not served by always going for the maximum possible payoff, if you forfeit a reasonable settlement on the way there.

A legal case is a lot like wood carving, where you the client bring in a piece of wood that might have potential. The artist does the actual work of turning it into something of value. So how should the proceeds be divided, 50/50 between the guy who spent 100 hours carving and shaping and polishing the wood, and the guy who handed him the piece of tree trunk?

In a typical tort case, the lawyer gets 30-40% of the proceeds, but in a typical tort case, the plaintiff has actual, provable, measurable damages. Maybe $200,000 in medical bills, permanent disfigurement, loss of a limb. The sorts of damages that juries will throw the defendant's money at. Not "I was mildly embarrassed in public for 15 minutes". From a juror's standpoint, they endure worse indignities every time they board an airplane; they have any weapons confiscated, they are searched, groped, made to provide ID and drink any fluids they brought. A juror who took a long trip in the last year or so would have awarded nothing for "damages".

Sure, you and I can see that having your rights violated by agents of the state is intolerable, and massive retaliatory punitive damages are appropriate. But neither you nor I would have been on that jury, IF it survived to get to a jury.

[whoshisface]

Another one that thinks the attorney should give up his pre-agreed to fee/wage. WTF?

The plaintiff chose settlement over going to trial. Terms known. How is that a problem with the attorney that was hired, at his pre-disclosed rate/%?

Its not, you have the right to do whatever you want (same with this plantiff) but when a lawyer makes $20K and the plantiff make $2 that makes the whole system smell. Period.

[whoshisface]

I completely understand, right now I charge $1850 a day. He agreed to this fee, that's fine. However I think you know why it looks bad. It should never cost this much to get justice. In general, if they just offered him $3k without a lawyer that would be good. Or if the lawyer could have reached this conclusion without having to do as much work. Something is broken. I'm a big fan of loser pays.

On a side note I just saw a report on a "Don't touch my junk" t-shirt for the TSA

I'm not sure that you have a firm grasp of the realities here.

My understanding of this case is that the courts were not being kind to the plaintiff, and dismissal against all parties was likely. Not certain, but very likely. In which case, the plaintiff would receive nothing at all.

Many lawsuits are settled for "nuisance value", meaning that the defendant will pay the plaintiff the cash that would have been spent in defense lawyer fees. Why not? The defendant is going to spend around $25K on lawyers, and might lose and have to pay more; why not hand that cash to the plaintiff and end the case at that amount?

A good lawyer will tell you when NOT to hire him. I do that all the time, when I tell clients not to pay me $1K to try to get back their handgun, or I tell them not to appeal an LTCF revocation that's supported by the UFA. I tell potential pardon applicant's not to write me a check yet, because it's too soon, or they aren't good candidates yet for other reasons.

When your lawyer tells you to settle now, rather than roll the dice and put a lot of hours into depositions and enjoying the ambiance of rooms filled with career criminals and perennial plaintiffs and then get nothing at all, there's a strong chance that he knows what he's doing. The best interests of the client are not served by always going for the maximum possible payoff, if you forfeit a reasonable settlement on the way there.

A legal case is a lot like wood carving, where you the client bring in a piece of wood that might have potential. The artist does the actual work of turning it into something of value. So how should the proceeds be divided, 50/50 between the guy who spent 100 hours carving and shaping and polishing the wood, and the guy who handed him the piece of tree trunk?

In a typical tort case, the lawyer gets 30-40% of the proceeds, but in a typical tort case, the plaintiff has actual, provable, measurable damages. Maybe $200,000 in medical bills, permanent disfigurement, loss of a limb. The sorts of damages that juries will throw the defendant's money at. Not "I was mildly embarrassed in public for 15 minutes". From a juror's standpoint, they endure worse indignities every time they board an airplane; they have any weapons confiscated, they are searched, groped, made to provide ID and drink any fluids they brought. A juror who took a long trip in the last year or so would have awarded nothing for "damages".

Sure, you and I can see that having your rights violated by agents of the state is intolerable, and massive retaliatory punitive damages are appropriate. But neither you nor I would have been on that jury, IF it survived to get to a jury.