Comments on: Lawrence v. Graubard Miller

By: October 24 roundup

October 24 roundup — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:29:16 +0000

[…] skeptical of ultra-high contingency fee in Alice Lawrence v. Graubard Miller case [NYLJ; earlier here and […]

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:16:52 +0000

Lawyers, in some areas of the world, are still referred to as “advocates”. This is another great example of how very VERY much that is not true in this country.

Fiduciary obligation?!? WHAT fiduciary obligation?

Sick. And your last point was particularly spot-on.

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:48:22 +0000

“Graubard Miller failed to suggest that she consult independent counsel about the multi-million dollar negotiation.”

Let me get this straight. So she should have hired an attorney to negotiate fees with her attorney? When does that end? Should she then hire another attorney to negotiate fees with the attorney who is negoiating her fees?

By: David Hardy

David Hardy — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:28:06 +0000

GOOD GRIEF!! I’ve practiced for 30+ years, and always followed the rule that you don’t, and cannot, renegotiate a deal with a client. You’re in a fiduciary relationship. No matter how things have changed, no matter how fair might be your new proposal, you cannot cut a new deal. You cannot even ask for it. And this sounds like one heck of an unfair deal — 40-50% contingency? That’s for a chancy small claims matter, not for when the only question is how many millions the client will get.

I’m even staggered by how much they got under the hourly basis. I’d happily agree to devote my full time, for the remainder of my life, to a case for $18 mill. I’d do so if I were fresh out of school. I mean, the interest on it alone would come to around a million a year!