Thank you for the detailed explanation of my own profession. :rolleyes:
I am familiar with pitching for...
Its hard not to give you a detailed explanation of your own profession Sighs. I wish you hadn't thrown around the Global Firm thing, I was cutting you some slack over being in Australia. :hilarious:
I'll answer your question about how it would be possible to give an assessment without accidentally giving away free legal advice. The attorney asks you to summarize in brief the conflict or legal issue.
He then tells you what he thinks your options are based on what you have just told him, including that those options may change in light of different facts emerging. This is not legal advice, the options are in short form.
He then tells you if he would be willing to take your case, and what the estimated maximum cost may arrive at. He tells you to think about it and feel free to get other opinions, if you have more questions for him , you can make another appointment but you will be charged because it is no longer an assessment. If he is not willing to take your case, he will tell you why.
If he thinks you cant afford it he'll tell you, if he thinks you don't have a valid case he'll tell you. He will tell you to ask other attorneys for advice before dropping it based on what he has said, and preface every word with " in my opinion. That is releasing responsibility for him, but also makes it
not legal advice. You haven't paid him, therefore he is not your attorney. Ta dah! Now you get the pay off. A good attorney won't charge for a consult with someone when he may realize in the first conversation he doesn't want to be involved with them or their case.
I didn't claim that attorneys are obligated to assess a case briefly before deciding to give more involved advice or take your case. I said the good ones do. That doesn't mean that some excellent and highly successful attorneys don't charge for that assessment. I know of a couple in my own jurisdiction that do.
It is not considered good form for reasons I have explained already, and they're valid. When someone who is asking for advice regarding a family issue or minor business legal matters has no previous experience with attorneys, it is exactly how a good attorney should handle their questions.
These legal predicaments are not big money or high priority cases for the attorney. That is what makes the appointment a mutual interview. He may take your case because he likes you and no other reason, he may hate the opposing guys attorney and do it for fun. Whatever the reason, if you're dealing with an established and successful attorney, he will be assessing you and not in it for the money in small disputes. Once a roughly 30 minute window of information is exchanged, if he offers to take it, and you decide to move forward after understanding the costs, risks and potential outcomes, then the contracts are signed and the clock starts ticking.
Two elements are almost always present when this is not the case. It is the reason I give the advice that I do, which does not have anything to do with getting a " free half hour "
One: The attorney is of the washed up variety, used to have a thriving practice but has been replaced in the county with better over time. He's trading on his old reputation and is not maintaining his financial status quo. ( one of the attorneys most guilty of that here is a woman, I should point that out because I keep using 'he' ) This guy will not be as honest about possible outcomes and pad his bill doing ' research ' and filing delay motions.
Two: They know they don't want you as a client before you walk in, either because they don't have time for it, or because your case is no good, or they doubt your ability to pay the full fees for winning the case. They consider your appointment lunch money, and that's why they let you make it.
I live in an extremely competitive area, there are billion dollar businesses, not just million dollar court cases everywhere. The legal profession is big business, and just about every business has it's own attorney on board. The comments I made apply to the situation that was being wondered about, and I absolutely stand by them. It's getting tempting for me to tell you exactly why I know these attorneys, but that's not why I'm on this forum.
I do question why you can't seem to separate various client positions and different areas of law. As an attorney I'd think you'd have an innate understanding of that.
I should probably let you drop the medical doctor analogy without clarifying it, but ...I just cant.
Medical doctors are paid by insurance companies or state coverage of some kind. Either partially or almost in full, depending on how great your coverage is. For the same reason pharma. companies charge 1000% above manufacturing costs of some drugs, and the same reason hospitals charge $ 20 for a band aid, doctors do not feel the need to encourage your business or negotiate fees. When you cant afford them, or your insurance co. is not on their list, they just tell ya to call another doctor. Or rather their front office does, doctors never discuss fees directly with patients in regard to their cases. Attorneys and other business contractors do. :D
