- Quickdraw McLaw
- 26 Comments
- 314 Views
KTNV has an article about what red flags to look for when choosing an attorney in Las Vegas. Craig Mueller, who was interviewed for the article identified a few things like the attorney won’t answer/return your calls, won’t see you, or won’t give you requested documents. While we agree those might be some red flags once you have already chosen a lawyer, they may not be helpful in selecting the right lawyer the first time. What do you look for when choosing a lawyer? What would you recommend others look for? Are there really any red flags you can see before you establish the attorney-client relationship?
If they appear on a billboard, don't hire them.
In Las Vegas, many choose their lawyer based upon the impressiveness of that lawyer's billboard. The same is true about politicians and and voters.
Who do we blame? The school system?
Not a billboard lawyer, but why would you consider that a red flag. Just because someone is aggressively advertising doesn't mean you should avoid them as a lawyer.
Small firms typically have fewer institutional controls. So, while not all smaller firms have problems, the opportunity to exploit an accounting system is greater the smaller the firm or the more one person controls the finances of the firm. I am not sure how this helps the average consumer, except to suggest that they stay away from small firms, but that isn't a fair assessment.
Having worked for bigger firms in this town and smaller firms, I disagree with the assessment. At bigger firms, the firm relied upon office management and (in one case) out-of-state central office. I had no understanding or involvement in firm finances. At a smaller firm, I had a much better handle and involvement in firm finances.
The perception that small firms have more problems was challenged by Justice Cherry in discussions around the time of the audit debate. Are smaller firms a bigger problem or is it the case that smaller firms are easier targets? We don't discipline larger firm lawyers with the same fervor that we tear apart small firms. We create the perception that small firms are more economic risk after watching LSC and G&S crater. Pick a good lawyer who you trust, with whom you have a personal relationship and who is invested in your case. Never get too deep into your lawyer; never let your lawyer get too deep into you.
"If you stop by a small law firm, it's problematic if the attorney refuses to see you."
Or, it might just be that the attorney is busy as hell, or is actually intent on seeing his/her family at some point, and so ruthlessly controls his/her schedule. A "drop in" quickly becomes a 45 minute client rant that cascades into problems later on in the day. Make an appointment.
Jesus this. Big firm lawyers can legitimately hide behind receptionists and secretaries, but solos and small firm attorneys are expected to be at your every beck and call.
Yes yes yes to this as well. Nothing wrong with an attorney requiring appointments, I'd add that it is wise to have a paralegal do a brief phone/email discussion to see what the issue is. If you're a PI lawyer and the drop-in client is for a family law issue, a quick and polite referral to an appropriate lawyer saves everyone time and money.
Also on point would love to see the identical thread from a different perspective–red flags as attorneys for clients that we should not represent.
I've worked for both an advertising firm and a non-advertising firm, in the same field. The advertising firm had higher quality attorneys and staff, pretty much across the board. I wouldn't *choose* an attorney based on his/her advertisements, but neither would I disqualify an attorney based on them.
Michael Cohen was just sentenced to 3 years.
Michael Cohen, Esq., a proud graduate of the Thomas M. Cooley School of Truck Driving & Law.
Michael Cohen, former Deputy Finance Chair for the RNC, was just sentenced to 3 years for committing crimes that the President of the United States instructed him to commit.
He got 3 years, but unfortunately, the US gets 4.
It is clear that 10:16 and I have an honest difference of view point.
Perhaps the view of 10:16 is more supportable if we are discussing a firm having some limited advertising approach to supplement their other methods of attracting clients(e.g. referrals from past and present clients and referrals from other law firms, various forms of networking, etc.).
However, if we are discussing those personal injury mills that for years have been advertising at saturation levels, I do not believe such advertising firms "have higher quality lawyers and staff,…across the board." I believe the opposite is in fact the case. I believe that when one hires a heavy advertising personal injury mill, the following dynamics often control:
1. The advertising attorney has little or nothing to do with the case once the client signs up. Perhaps they are present, or stop in on, the initial consultation, but that's it.
2.You actually would not want the advertising attorney handling your case as he/she has spends most of their time with the advertising, public relations,
and the financial/business aspects of the firm. They often have very limited skill as an attorney.
3. So, what occurs is that your case is assigned to a grossly over-worked paralegal. It will not even be assigned to or handled by an associate attorney if the case is in the pre-litigation stage and no complaint has been filed.
4. Your case will receive low ball offers, and ultimately settle for less than value, on account that the insurance adjusters, and defense attorneys, know that the firm cannot generally afford to litigate. Plus, they have little or no respect for the often non-existent litigating skills of the advertising attorney. The firm must keep trying to settle all their cases to keep the constant influx of massive income to pay for the huge monthly over-head, much of which is the staggering advertising budget.
So, if 10:16 worked for an advertising firm, and honestly believes your case will settle for a greater amount and be more skillfully handled than by a non-advertising firm, I suspect the firm 10:16 worked for had some limited advertising presence. They could not possibly have been one of these personal injury mills that advertise to saturation level on the television, radio and billboards.
You don't think cases are assigned to grossly overworked paralegals in solos/small firms that don't advertise?
Small firms hire cappers that pay tow truck drivers, ER personnel, body shop guys, and others for referring cases. That's why they don't have billboards or advertise in any way, shape, or form. They reimburse the cappers and engage in fee splits with non-lawyers. Look up some of the non-advertising P.I. attorneys who you have tons of cases with. Type their bar number in the Odyssey system and see how many open litigation cases they have. How did they get SO many cases with no advertising??
There are some bad advertising attorneys who take full fee and rip off the clients, but there are some really good ones too. And don't let solos and small firms fool you – they're often the dirtiest.
As another one, I would avoid lawyers who say they do everything. One lawyer simply cannot be competent at handle employment counseling, and commercial lit, and estate planning, and criminal defense, and family law. There are great solos and small firm lawyers, but in my experience they specialize just like lawyers at large firms.
So much this. If you are a tax attorney, chances are you have no idea what you're doing in a divorce proceeding or PI case. There isn't enough time in the world to be the best at all areas of law.
Agreed. Although I don't agree with 10:16 that heavy advertising firms generally have better attorneys and staff, that does not mean that non-advertising, solo practice attorneys necessarily provide better service.
As 10:44 suggests, often they are a small firm, or solo practitioner with little or no support staff, and they claim they practice in many areas. They often don't handle any area particularly well, and are often over their head in handling any discovery-driven litigation, that also requires an advancing of substantive costs in order to competently handle it.
This is generally a good rule of thumb. I work for a small firm that only practices in one very specific area of law. Whenever I have a client who needs an attorney for P.I., divorce, DUI or something else, I always send them to someone else who does nothing but that. Whenever one of these jack of all trades lawyers stumbles into my area of practice, they usually get worked over really hard.
I view these matters the same as 10:35, but 10:35 is far too diplomatic when discussing 10:16 and showing respect for the opinion of 10:16. Perhaps 10:16 currently works for an advertising firm and that explains the insistence that such firms have much better attorneys and service in general.
But until now I have never heard anyone suggest that the client gets better service from a heavy advertising firm, and that the attorneys are much better. I could not disagree more. 10:35 barely scrapped the surface as to all the reasons that view is totally unsupportable. 10:35 did not even get into the area of the complete lack of supervision, which often draws State Bar scrutiny. The paralegal handles all aspects of the case, including negotiating the settlement. And they attempt to insulate themselves(sometimes successfully) by merely indicating that they are relaying offers and counter-offers and that Attorney X must be the one who will determine whether to accept the offer or not. But it is all a smoke scree as the grumpy, hopelessly over-worked paralegal essentially handles it all, and often not too well.
This is 10:16. Let's be clear, I did not say that advertising firms have better attorneys "in general." I said that the one advertising firm I worked for had better attorneys than the one non-advertising firm I worked for. My point was that quality of legal service does not directly correlate with marketing. Also, I can absolutely say that you are wrong about paralegals handling most aspects of the case — in this one firm. In this advertising firm, there were twice as many attorneys as paralegals, and the division of labor in litigation was handled exactly as it would be handled in any respectable non-advertising firm.
I have no doubt that there are other advertising firms that operate as you and 10:35 say, but my point stands. You need to look deeper than just the TV/billboards ads to see whether the service will be any good.
Last night, the last comment concerned the COA vacancy. The poster singled out only five people as viable. The post mentioned that Judge Wiese is the best choice, but that the two Family Court judges may be viable as a lot of the appeals are Family Law in nature. The post then indicated that Commissioner Bulla is bright and capable, and viable and that any demeanor concerns are not of much significance once she is on such court. It then mentioned that John Hunt is held in high esteem by many, while others view him as too self-promoting.
I had some concerns with some of those representations, but my main problem is that the poster insisted that after we get past those five, none of the others would be considered for appointment as they lack juice and any meaningful name recognition in the legal community.
I think that is a bit harsh and dismissive. Does anyone have any info. or opinion about these other applicants(other than the ones just mentioned), that they are willing to share?
To:11:02. Why bother asking for input as to the legal skills of the ones who lack any real name recognition, reputation or connections?
As the last poster of yesterday indicated, people who lack meaningful name recognition in the legal community, and who do not have the necessary connections, will not be appointed even if they may be skilled attorneys.
I have been practicing for many years, and most of the time the person appointed seems far less deserving than some of other applicants–but the eventual appointee had the right connections and profiled a certain way.
In instances where we get lucky and the appointee is one of the most skilled, capable attorneys among the applicants, in those cases the eventual appointee, although deserving, also was fortunate to have the right connections, etc.
In other words, anyone who thinks he/she has a good shot at an appointment merely because they are a good attorney is a myopic fool who knows nothing about the realities of politics, or the world in general.
Perhaps I stated that too harshly and cynically, but I think that reflects the reality. And no, I have no ax to grind. I never applied, nor would I ever want to. But I have seen great colleagues passed over for much lesser skilled, but far more connected applicants, so perhaps I do have an ax to grind to some extent.
Another factor is some are from northern Nevada so they may be better known up there. I heard the Supreme Court has a rule that the appointee must maintain chambers in Las Vegas, though. I wonder if the northern applicants know this or think they can stay in the north like Michael Gibbons has done.
Gibbons occupies the seat assigned to the north so this jurist will be placed in the Taj Mahardesty.
Reno Jim, borrowing, who Cadish thinks she will reign in, Lmfao.