{"id":4444,"date":"2006-03-20T18:32:07","date_gmt":"2006-03-20T22:32:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/03\/20\/practice-practice-toil-and-tr"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:04","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:04","slug":"practice-practice-toil-and-trouble-updated","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/03\/20\/practice-practice-toil-and-trouble-updated\/","title":{"rendered":"practice, practice, toil and trouble (updated)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Your editor got waylaid today, over at <\/font>The Practice<\/font><\/em><\/a>, responding to <\/font><\/div>\n
a post called “<\/font>The Contingency Fee Under Attack<\/font><\/a>,” by p\/i lawyer <\/font><\/div>\n
Jonathan Stein, who <\/font>purports<\/font><\/a> to care about the image of lawyers. <\/font><\/div>\n
I might have ignored the post, or left a few sentences and links to <\/font><\/div>\n
articles here, but this paragraph was part of Jonathan’s piece:<\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

\"questionDudeSN\"<\/font><\/div>\n
\n
“Finally, and this is what really set me off on this, the contin-<\/font><\/div>\n
gency fee is under attack, and it is under attack by people <\/font><\/div>\n
who just don’t get it. For example, there are some poetry <\/font><\/div>\n
writing attorneys, who are not even practicing and have never <\/font><\/div>\n
handled PI work, but argue that the contingency fee (sometimes <\/font><\/div>\n
called the “standard contingency fee” which is garbage by itself) <\/font><\/div>\n
is unfair. Of course, he also criticizes value billing. Interestingly, <\/font><\/div>\n
I do not see him criticizing the hourly fee, which in some instances <\/font><\/div>\n
is $500 per hour or more. I guess he is either too old to come to <\/font><\/div>\n
terms with anything other than the hourly fee, too lazy to analyze <\/font><\/div>\n
the contingency fee in context, or too afraid of being left behind <\/font><\/div>\n
by the times.” <\/font><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Since Mr. Stein was clearly talking about me<\/em>, but didn’t even bother to <\/font><\/div>\n
link to my materials about the standard contingency fee or value billing, <\/font><\/div>\n
or refer to me <\/font>by name, I felt that I needed to give a thorough response <\/font><\/div>\n
at his site<\/font><\/a>.\u00a0 [update<\/em> (March 22, 2006): By the way, Mr. Stein insists<\/a> that <\/font><\/div>\n
there are no insults<\/em> in\u00a0<\/font>the above paragraph.<\/font>]<\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"boy<\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I left two rather lengthy Comments there.\u00a0 Habitual readers of this site, <\/font><\/div>\n
hopefully, do not think of me as being too lazy and afraid, a part of the <\/font><\/div>\n
vast tort re-form conspiracy, nor incapable of capable analysis.\u00a0 You also\u00a0<\/font><\/div>\n
know there’s only one poetry-writing lawyer pundit here.\u00a0 All in all, an an-<\/font><\/div>\n
noying incident, brought\u00a0on it seems, by <\/font>my disagreement<\/font><\/a> with Jonathan <\/font><\/div>\n
Stein’s position that “Heavy Hitter” advertising should be banned as mis-<\/font><\/div>\n
leading and undignified.<\/font><\/div>\n
\n
afterthought<\/font><\/strong><\/em> (March 21, 2006): If you happen to be interested <\/font><\/div>\n
in my pro-client take on contingency fees and value billing, and <\/font><\/div>\n
would rather not learn about them at Jonathan Stein’s place, there <\/font><\/div>\n
are plenty of links\u00a0on the\u00a0<\/font>Fees<\/font><\/a> Page of the ethicalEsq<\/em> Archives.<\/font><\/font>\u00a0<\/font><\/div>\n
I’m not against the contingency fee.\u00a0 I merely believe that clients have <\/font><\/div>\n
these Rights<\/em><\/a> when entering into such an agreement and that lawyers <\/font><\/div>\n
should base the percentage fee on the likely risk<\/font><\/a> they are taking, and <\/font><\/div>\n
not apply a standard rate to every client.\u00a0 Similarly, I’m not against alter-<\/font><\/div>\n
natives to hourly billing, but I am against those who use the mantra <\/font><\/font><\/div>\n
of Value Billing as a ruse to charge clients\u00a0more<\/em> than they would <\/font><\/font><\/div>\n
be charged under hourly billing.\u00a0 See,\u00a0e.g<\/em>., <\/font>here<\/font><\/a> and <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/font>\u00a0<\/font> <\/font><\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"complaint <\/font><\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
My <\/font><\/font>feelings that the legal profession is too greedy and that too many <\/font><\/div>\n
lawyers charge far more than they are worth can be found through-<\/font><\/div>\n
out this site, and in comments across the internet. [see, e.g<\/em>., <\/font><\/div>\n
we need more low-fee lawyers (even in Ohio!)<\/font><\/a>\u00a0March 22, 2006]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Since I have already exceeded my agita-quota for this Season,<\/font><\/div>\n
I won’t be following the discussion at The Practice<\/font><\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 If I need to<\/font><\/div>\n
call a libel lawyer, please let me know. <\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

\"tiny\u00a0 <\/font>Law Practice Tip<\/font><\/em><\/a>per Jim Calloway decide<\/font><\/font>d to <\/font>include <\/font><\/font><\/div>\n
Stein’s Contingency Fee post in <\/font>Blawg Review<\/em> #49<\/font><\/font><\/a> <\/font><\/div>\n
today, while snubbing f\/k\/a<\/em>‘s workproduct from last <\/font><\/div>\n
week [– see update immediately below.] <\/font><\/font>Nonetheless, <\/font><\/div>\n
we urge <\/font>you to cull the\u00a0<\/font>offerings in\u00a0<\/font>Blawg Review<\/em> #49<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/a>\u00a0— <\/font><\/div>\n
if only, <\/font>to keep <\/font>in the habit for our hosting gig on April 10th<\/font><\/div>\n
and George Wallace’s bi-blogal<\/font><\/a> feat on April 3rd.<\/font><\/div>\n
update<\/strong><\/em> (April 7, 2006):\u00a0 I just learned from Jim Calloway<\/div>\n
that he had tried to include a post from f\/k\/a<\/em> in BR49<\/em>, but<\/div>\n
ran into the problem, at the time he had to post his edition,<\/div>\n
\u00a0of our webserver being down.\u00a0 He thought he had a bad link<\/div>\n
and could not get a correct one due to the webserver problem.<\/div>\n
We should have known Jim is a straight-shooter and apologize<\/div>\n
for any suggestion he might have had ulterior motives.\u00a0 It would,<\/div>\n
of course, have been nice to have been included once Jim<\/div>\n
learned the link was good and the webserver functioning. That<\/div>\n
has not happened.<\/div>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\"raindropS\" It’s been a long day.\u00a0 Let’s celebrate the arrival of Spring, <\/font><\/div>\n
seen through the eyes of peggy lyles<\/a>:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
moonlight<\/font><\/div>\n
the winter look <\/font><\/div>\n
of baby’s breath
\nin bloom<\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"hand<\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

paw prints
\nacross the moon roof
\ncats in love<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

a whistle
\ncut from bamboo
\nthe long day<\/font>
\n\u00a0<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

old homeplace . . .
\naround the pear tree
\nfragrant light<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

spring sunbeam
\nthe baby’s toes
\nspread apart<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
peggy lyles<\/font><\/a><\/a><\/div>\n
Pinecone<\/font><\/em><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0(The North Georgia Haiku Society)<\/font><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"one<\/font><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Your editor got waylaid today, over at The Practice, responding to a post called “The Contingency Fee Under Attack,” by p\/i lawyer Jonathan Stein, who purports to care about the image of lawyers. I might have ignored the post, or left a few sentences and links to articles here, but this paragraph was part of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-19G","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4444","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4444"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4444\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12725,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4444\/revisions\/12725"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}