Quote:
Originally Posted by DMXF
There's no question attorneys provide some benefit, the question is does it warrant the fees they receive? I've seen business litigation, but more of an impact had my own personal experiences, including in a drawn out real estate transaction where as bills started racking up to a ridiculous level (not even a contingent case), I ended up being the one who had to come up with the ground breaking solution and meet with and negotiate acceptance with the multiple parties. The attorneys for the most part just processed paperwork/forms that once you see it done is not too difficult to duplicate the next time with adaptations. There is a concept in the business world called "value added" and that is where the issue lies. The legal system is also contorted as it is more of a game of who can push the boundaries further and is largely driven by who has the most $ to throw away to achieve their goals by wearing the other side out in to a compromised resolution - whether you are right or wrong is often more of a secondary concern.
|
Ah yes. Well, that's exactly the point isn't it? Who is driving the bus? Is it the clients who churn the litigation not wanting to compromise and be reasonable or the attorneys? My 30 years experience has shown me it is 90% of the time the clients who only start to become reasonable once they start bleeding too much money in fees. "Value added" has nothing to do with it. If you retain an attorney at an hourly rate that's the deal. If it's a contingency that's the deal. Do you have the other party in your business decide what your "added value" was once the smoke clears at the end. Doubt it.
Both sides are allowed to argue meritorious grounds, however, the Federal system under FRCP 11 and most states have frivolous claims rules and statutes for those that take unreasonable frivolous positions.
It's real simple, you are always free to cut the lawyers out and go
pro se. In most cases ,except for very simple matters it does not usually turn out well for the
pro se.