<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Jim Sokolove, Stanford, and the &#8220;Roadmap to Justice&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/01/jim-sokolove-stanford-and-the-roadmap-to-justice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/01/jim-sokolove-stanford-and-the-roadmap-to-justice/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:45:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: PointOfLaw Forum		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/01/jim-sokolove-stanford-and-the-roadmap-to-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-39327</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PointOfLaw Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=8336#comment-39327</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;New at Overlawyered...&lt;/strong&gt;

If you&#039;re not reading my other blog, Overlawyered, you&#039;re missing out on a lot: Intensive coverage -- maybe the most at any blog -- of the policy disaster that is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the implications of......]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>New at Overlawyered&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>If you&#8217;re not reading my other blog, Overlawyered, you&#8217;re missing out on a lot: Intensive coverage &#8212; maybe the most at any blog &#8212; of the policy disaster that is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the implications of&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: PhilG		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/01/jim-sokolove-stanford-and-the-roadmap-to-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-38795</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PhilG]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=8336#comment-38795</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the Boston magazine profile on Jim Sokolove, it says &quot;Sokolove decided he&#039;d start referring the bulk of his cases to other firms, collecting 10 percent of all fees in return&quot;.  That gives the impression that he currently collects only 10 percent of the contingency fee as his referral fee.  But the going rate for referral fees is much higher, around a third or so of the contingency fee. 

So I am quite suspicious that Jim Sokolove currently keeps closer to the going rate  of a third of the contingency fee than that 10 percent that he spreaks of in the article.  But he probably deliberately gave that misleading figure since he thought it would be more palatable to the public than what he really keeps, which is probably more in the range of  a third or so of the contingency fee.  

Perhaps at the very beginning of his business of being a lawyer advertiser he did charge only 10 percent of the contingency fee although, if he did, I suspect that would have been only for a very short period of time until he realized how much he really could get since contingency fees are so incredibly profitable to the lawyers collecting them.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the Boston magazine profile on Jim Sokolove, it says &#8220;Sokolove decided he&#8217;d start referring the bulk of his cases to other firms, collecting 10 percent of all fees in return&#8221;.  That gives the impression that he currently collects only 10 percent of the contingency fee as his referral fee.  But the going rate for referral fees is much higher, around a third or so of the contingency fee. </p>
<p>So I am quite suspicious that Jim Sokolove currently keeps closer to the going rate  of a third of the contingency fee than that 10 percent that he spreaks of in the article.  But he probably deliberately gave that misleading figure since he thought it would be more palatable to the public than what he really keeps, which is probably more in the range of  a third or so of the contingency fee.  </p>
<p>Perhaps at the very beginning of his business of being a lawyer advertiser he did charge only 10 percent of the contingency fee although, if he did, I suspect that would have been only for a very short period of time until he realized how much he really could get since contingency fees are so incredibly profitable to the lawyers collecting them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
