Aren't personal injury cases usually handled on a contingency basis? And why did the lawyer opt for a jury trial instead of judge-alone (sorry if that's a dumb question, I don't know the American system well).
I really hope you don't end up filing bankruptcy over this. As the plaintiff in a losing lawsuit I would expect you'd get stuck holding the bag for court costs, but I'm really surprised the attorney wasn't paid on contingency... that's probably the reason he went and hired the experts, which I know don't come cheap.
I am absolutely unqualified to give legal advice of any sort. All I can say is you have my sincerest condolences and unfortunately I feel your legal troubles may just be beginning. I expect your lawyer will be making use of his malpractice insurance in the near future, if you know what I mean...
Why shouldn't I complain? When we got a shitty justice system that takes 3 years to hear a court case because the defense lawyers file motion after motion, then we got judges that allow them to get away with murder, not to mention throwing out our experts from testifying and jurors that don't want to serve so they side with the defense so they can get out of jury duty faster. that's BULLSHIT.
Just to clarify, it's the OTHER side's lawyer that is filing a motion to have ME pay for his attorney's fees & experts. I guess they have the right to when they win the case. But I did hear judges don't always grant this.... I guess that's my only hope.My lawyer is asking for $10K to file an appeal, which does say it costs extra in our contract. He has not yet asked for any costs for the past 3 years.
I would hire another Lawyer for the case.
The fresh face could help you out big time...
And you can find someone cheaper. And it isn't that hard to argue so... Either the Judge will grant you it or not. But keep appealing and delaying... You can hope for a dropped suit... Keep that lawyer and defendent in case as long as you can
So 12 people collectively don't give a fuck about justice at the same time, because they want to go back to work tomorrow?
You said it yourself that you knew they were gonna rule against you last night. Why is the correct ruling in your favor? Sell it on here, since you didn't sell the jury.
You said it yourself that you knew they were gonna rule against you last night. Why is the correct ruling in your favor? Sell it on here, since you didn't sell the jury.
What was the difference between the offered settlement and the desired outcome of winning the trial?
And how did your lawyer even let this get out of discovery? Were you paralyzed or something? Drunk driver? AFAIK they don't assemble juries for run of the mill accidents. In Canada, torts cases run either judge-alone or jury of...6? I think... Anyway, some lawyers up here prefer jury trials because they believe it is easier to get a jury to sympathize with you than it is to get a crusty old judge who's heard it all before to sympathize. But virtually all cases are open-and-shut and end in settlement, or a pre-trial decision. Also mediation and arbitration are frequently recommended because of the high cost (in $ and time) of litigation. When a case does go to the jury, I still believe it is the judge who assesses damages, possibly because of the bias towards finding for the defendant that you've mentioned. Not sure if it's different in the US.
I feel it is important to mention that none of my statements have been fact-checked and every single one of them could be wrong. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this, but I'm not a lawyer.
And how did your lawyer even let this get out of discovery? Were you paralyzed or something? Drunk driver? AFAIK they don't assemble juries for run of the mill accidents. In Canada, torts cases run either judge-alone or jury of...6? I think... Anyway, some lawyers up here prefer jury trials because they believe it is easier to get a jury to sympathize with you than it is to get a crusty old judge who's heard it all before to sympathize. But virtually all cases are open-and-shut and end in settlement, or a pre-trial decision. Also mediation and arbitration are frequently recommended because of the high cost (in $ and time) of litigation. When a case does go to the jury, I still believe it is the judge who assesses damages, possibly because of the bias towards finding for the defendant that you've mentioned. Not sure if it's different in the US.
I feel it is important to mention that none of my statements have been fact-checked and every single one of them could be wrong. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this, but I'm not a lawyer.
