The verdict in this case was $3.8M. There’s a playlist about this trial on my channel. The main costs were experts, travel, depositions, trial graphics and presentations, were the big ones. One of the experts was the guy who will Smith played in the movie Concussion. His testimony is on my page. And, the lawsuit by our client against the business that hurt her caused the business’ insurance company to sue the business. The insurance company didn’t want to provide insurance to the business for hurting our client. So, we had to be involved in that case as well-we needed to help the business that hurt our client make sure it had insurance coverage (crazy right?). So that was a large cost too.
The question shouldn't be 'why', but how. Also: just three years of studying and one exam? Which allows you to call yourself lawyer and defend or represent and sue individuals and companies at court all over the u.s.? That's ridiculous.
The fact that insurance companies are so commonly trying to not pay policy holders, while understandable as a business, is bonkers from all other points of view. In what other business do companies sue customers to avoid doing the most basic role of their industry? It's like a surgeon suing a person with a badly broken bone and saying "sorry, that's a complicated injury and isn't it really your fault? I shouldn't have to fix that." After you already paid for the surgery.
@@mbm8690That's three years AFTER normal university courses and such. Also the bar is typically extremely difficult, often requiring multiple attempts.
Oh you meant the trial you had nothing to do with? It's actually quite hilarious that you post these videos about cases you had nothing to with, and post a "primer" comment so you get the praise for the work of others. Classic lawyer. You're the reason lawyers get a bad rap.
Incedentally, it naturally aligns the interests of the lawyer with the cluent they are representing. Now they are both incentivized to go after the best deal possible.
The issue, which freakanomics goes into, let's you have a 5% cut. Lets say you have 2 options, where you have a 1m sale/settlement, or a 1.1m sale/settlement, but you need to wait for 6 months to make them come up to your price. The person is making 5k on 6months work. You are getting 95k. They are not incentivised to get you that 95k. So if you had a 1m dollar house, they might just push you to close it with the person who walks in with a 900k deal tomorrow instead of waiting sometime for a better opinion
@@gwop827 Counterpoint: By getting that 1m dollar earlier, you can invest that money. There's also 6 months of sunk expenses. If I'm even understanding your example correctly.
Paying a lawyer through winnings sounds actually very helpful for everyone involved. The lawyer has even more incentive to do their best, the client doesn't burn a whole in their empty wallet, and companies can't just win because they got more money.
The main advantage is the shift of risk. The lawyer does like 3-4 lawsuits a year, right? So if one of them goes bust, it's not the end of the world, they can still feed their family. A person with $20k in hospital bills that just lost the ability to do their job for a year or two does not have that same opportunity. If access to lawyers was behind fees, it would be unattainable. And if they lost, well, now they'd have the hospital bills, loss of income, AND legal bills. The alternative to this is capping the fees, and having insurance, I guess.
@@gregspecht3706oh they’ll take it, you’ll just be retaining them hourly instead of on contingency. So you better hope the court awards you costs afterwards or all that litigation will generally mean nothing.
For real! I had no idea about that till after my car crash and needed to get a lawyer. It’s a really good deal. Also if you’re able to, patience will help you get a better settlement.
Probably the most straightforward explanation. Also a very good explanation of why many people can't get a decent criminal defence. It simply costs too much.
this is absolutely true for criminal defense, especially if you're using a public defender. the state can spend a lot of money paying for experts and testing, but the public defenders office will outright decline to pursue any of those avenues because their budget is so small. even though they're supposed to provide the best defense they can. the states don't like spending all the money either, so usually they just convince the defendants to take a deal and plead to lesser charges. only instances I can think of where this isn't true is in high-profile cases. it really is a shame because offenders who are 100% guilty can walk away because they could afford a great defense, whereas someone who may be innocent ends up serving time and ruining their record forever... simply cause they're poor.
I honestly never knew much about lawyers until I started watching your videos. And now I have so much better respect and understanding than I ever did before. Thank you.
You can sell your house yourself and get close to max value if you put in a little work. You will never get close to what a PI attorney will get you for your injuries. That’s the difference.
This is 100% truth! A realtor is a convenience, a lawyer is an advantage. Every time I see self-representation cases, I can't help but think of the adage "he who represents himself has a fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer."
Honestly comparing the two is kinda stupid. It's like comparing a Radio shack employee that gets paid on commission for every tv sold, to a government military contractor. The literal only similarity in this instance is that they both get paid commission lol
It's entirely situational. If it's a car accident for instance, and the person doesn't have anything to take, the best PI lawyer in the world isn't getting you jack shit.
Why does having a few dozen highly-skilled lawyers make such a big difference so often? That's the real issue and may explain why we can't afford fair trials.
Because without a lawyer, you have to do all the work. If you are filing a lawsuit, you have to go out and file the complaint, hire the process servers (legal requirement). You then have to do discovery, set up depositions which require people to type up everything said and to swear people in. You have to write filings based on the facts and evidence and respond to the other side's filings. You have to know the rules of the court. You have to make sure all filings are prompt and acceptable to the court's standards. Not only that, you have to answer the other side's requests for discovery on a timely manner, appear for their depositions. You need to understand all the legal jargon they're going to throw at you. There is hiring private investigators, experts and all the stuff that comes with that. But mainly, it's a massive time investment you may not have the time to do, because you have a job you need to do to pay the bills. He said that's $212,000 of expenses. Process Server(s), hiring investigators, experts, depositions.
You gotta hire specialists to prove points, people won't work for free, you gotta pay for tests on many cases where you need to prove liability, you gotta pay for people to handle all sort of things, and they all have families and need to get paid, so it will cost sometimes tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to start depending on the case.
@@TheOmegaRiddlerKeep in mind that the vast majority of cases are settled rather than going through a trial. That's one of the benefits of competent legal representation. What may seem complex to us, is something a lawyer has done literally 100's of times. Insurance companies would rather settle than go to court, but if you are representing yourself, they will likely go to court instead.
We should simply ban lawyers and level the playing field. If you've seen the end of a law book you're not allowed in the courtroom except to defend yourself.
Obviously a lawyer has to know *more* than a realtor, but a good realtor should now a bit about property law, mortgages, and specifics about the area like water and sewage ordinances. Though like Mike said, they don't *have* to, which is a shame. (Although in a lot of places to be a realtor or agent you need to pass a licensing exam at least.)
@@VitoD226 Oh for sure. I'm pretty sure those licensing exams are to keep you from defrauding people (and if you do, let authorities stick a "knowingly" on your charge *and* take that license away 😉).
Awesome explanation! When someone says "I got into a car accident and I can't afford a lawyer", I tell them "you can't afford NOT to have a lawyer". Any lawyer like you will tell them straight up if their case is worth defending and investing in.
Sometimes with this the only one that wins is the lawyers. There was a wrongful death case for a relative. They claimed they wouldn’t get paid unless we got paid. In the end they settled for an amount that only covered their expenses and claimed it wasn’t “profit” so it was in alignment with the agreement. So yea, we got a settlement and received 0 dollars and a bunch of stress.
Why does it take a lawyer to do important things at all? The law should be written in plain and simple language so the "Average Person" can understand it. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.
Legalese is designed to be as precise as it can be to be interpreted in as few ways possible. As many loop holes and interpretation gray areas as there currently are in current written law, there would be many more loop holes and interpretation gray areas if the law was written in plain English.
Dude, no one hides the law from you. You can read it all you want. It’s like saying “why do I need restaurants, when I can google all those recipes myself?!” You can do it, but unlike cooking, you get 1 (one) chance at presenting your case to the court. If you are THAT confident in your abilities-go for it, but it’s simply not worth it for most people.
It’s essentially the same concept for us real estate professionals. I’ve worked with buyer clients for 2 years consistently before a closing. By working from the proceeds of sale, no one has to come out of pocket until they close on a home. It also gives clients the freedom to change service providers or simply fire us without being forced to pay unless they achieve their goal and close on the purchase of a home. “So you can get really good quality (real estate representation) for FREE until you win”
@@Wontreplyeverdontbother so pay less for an agent that does just those things. All commissions are negotiable and consumers should only pay what they think is fair.
Yeah but the problem is the percentage amount. The 212k isn’t coming out of his cut. I know he doesn’t get that back if he loses but rest assure he isn’t putting 212k in if there is even a small chance of losing they will simply just pass on the case. Let’s just say he settled this case for 600k he take 200k as his share takes the 212k for expenses Injured party walks away with 188k nope injured party has to still pay his or her medical bills and probably walks away with 150k it’s highway robbery.
So true. Well said. The other reason you wouldn't want to use any attorney for your real estate transactions (regular residential) is that they don't know the market like successful realtors. However, lawyers do have the right to represent anyone in a real estate transaction because, well, they know how to read.
The best thing I’ve ever done after injury in a collision is hire a lawyer, good to have someone advocate for you, especially if your injuries have potential it affect you the rest of your life
Yes, I totally agree that it's beneficial to hire an attorney. You're able to maximize your award. However, the same goes for realtors. Is it as involved as going to law school? No but the realtor exam is not that easy, licensing is regulated by the state, you have recourse through the state, and you'll maximize your profits and they don't get paid until you sell.
I had to give a third of what Social Security owed me to my lawyer. It was worth every penny. They had denied my disability claim when I became unable to work. The lawyer got me before a judge and the judge overturned their decision. The cherry on top was that my lawyer himself was in a wheelchair. It gave me confidence that he understood my struggle.
It’s actually nice to know it works this way, because as someone who is very poor, my thought tends to be even if I had a very good case, it wouldn’t be worth trying because I couldn’t even afford a lawyer. It’s nice to know that if I ever need to sue someone I might still be able to. I mean not a thing I plan to do, but if I ever get injured by someone else’s fault, or since I’m a writer, if my work ever gets stolen, it’s nice to know I would in fact still have recourse if the case was solid enough for a lawyer to be willing to front the work.
He’s absolutely right. I’m a patent attorney so for the majority of my clients I would say I work with them on average between 1-3 weeks to draft their application. I’m not going to hide it I get paid very well for those few weeks of work. But I am very hands on in that time frame. But injury lawyers are completely different. The thing a lot of people don’t understand is how much work injury lawyers are doing behind the scene we’re talking about hundreds if not thousands of hours behind the scene. If they billed hourly only the top 1% would be able to avoid injury lawyers.
All of that is well and good, but let's be honest. Personal injury lawyers get somewhere between 25% and 45% of the recovery, with the average being about 33%. Real Estate agents get something between 1.5% to 3% if they cooperate with another agent and an absolute max of 6.5% or 7% if they source the buyer AND the seller. So let's not pretend that anyone is making the argument that they are the same.
@@trentwickenheiser8661 you may be right, but in the few experiences I've had with my lawyers, in the contracts I signed the lawyer would get a percentage of the settlement and of that percentage they would pay off their expenses and the rest was their pay.
@@KingChocobo no it’s not he even says in another video. He takes his percentage then he charges you his expenses, so like another person put in a response. If you win $1m he takes his 1/3 so $333k then say he spent $217k in expenses you then pay him that so you are left with $450k I don’t know if that is taxed like the other person commented as I’m not in the us but basically they double dip on your payout.
This is different to the Australian system, contingency fees are banned here, and there are multiple cases of lawyers loosing their license for only that.
In England, you pay lawyers and estate agents about the same percentage. If your lawyer makes a mistake, they are liable for the cost of putting that mistake right. If your real estate agent flat out lies to you, there's no penalty for that. Example: I worked with a guy who was selling his house. Buyer's lawyer finds out the extension on the house didn't have planning permission. My friend went back to the lawyer he used when he bought the house and asks why HE didn't spot that. I think it ended up costing the lawyer's insurers almost £80K because for some reason they couldn't get retrospective planning permission so the extension had to be demolished, the hole in the house fixed and the house was worth less than it would have been with the extension.
Pointing out that megacorps and billionaires (neither of which have a morally coherent justification to exist) overpay lawyers to whale / pay2win the justice system, and therefore the common man should be required to also, is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
I mean it’s a bandaid solution obviously that doesn’t help everyone but what else are we a supposed to do? You want him top dress up as Robin Hood and disappear billionaires into the night? I mean it would be amazing but he would be caught the first go round. They don’t play with their own safety the same way they play with ours. Until something changes this is one of the best solutions.
Caveat is some attorneys knowingly assess forehand & use insurance like tactics of risk aversion for taking a case... Some just want the opportunity of low hanging fruit.
Yes, everyone wants to get paid for their work. If all you can offer is a percentage of settlement money, and the guy sees that your case is hopeless-you are asking him to work for free.
You know this guy is rich af. But he presents himself so well he seems to actually give a fuck about what he does and not a scum bag it looks like he isn't an elite ist I love
That method of payment is not legal in Denmark. A personal injury compensation is creditor protected. But as a part of your content insurance you have coverage for legal aid which will cover legal fees up to (about) $ 35.000. In most cases that's amount is sufficient to cover most lawyers.
When I was a lawyer my immigrant wife decided she wanted to become a real estate agent. Basically everything she needed to know was covered in about 3 or 4 classes I had in law school on property law and I included trusts and estates. She passed the test with a score over 90%.
You just described the similarity between real estate agents and lawyers. We both get paid the same way because we both take the same risk. It just so happens that a lawyer's number is different than an agent's from an individual basis. However, if agents did not exist; meaning promulgated forms and the very minute legal aspect of which we practice didn't exist, lawyers would be on the hook for the majority of our transactions.
My divorce lawyer, the best in town -- but it's a small town -- costs $450/hr. She's had to raise her rates a couple of times over the course of the divorce due to changing circumstances and increased costs. Either way, if I had to pay her for more than a handful of hours per month, I'd have gone broke long ago. I'm perilously close to going broke at it is. A lengthy, complicated lawsuit, requiring hours and hours and hours of depositions, discovery, witness interviews, motion preparation, and courtroom time? Forget it.
Mike, in East Asia like China or Japan. Personal injury lawyers rarely do percentage. They were either do a flat fee based on stage of litigation or like 10 or 15 percent with a cap. No Plaintiff will pay 50 percent...
I think it's a great deal, tbh: I get an amazing lawyer, increasing my chances of a payout exponentially, and because they're getting a percentage, they're incentivised to get me as much money as humanly possible; it's a win-win for us.
Just as a small caveat to the people pointing out "Lawyers getting a percent makes them work harder for the bigger pay out", I will point to the comparison again and mention Freakonomics, where they studied various situations from an "econimics" standpoint, and one situation was "why would a real estate agent go for the smaller deal for their client?" And the reason was because they only got a percent, and so while you might get $10k more, they might have to spend a week fighting for that $10k, and they'll only see $1k but spent maybe $500 getting it for you and they could have spent that week chasing another $200k-500k sale somewhere else. A percent does provide incentive to go big, but you can always find lowering results because of risk, time and effort. You can run into a sleaze that will encourage you to take the $100k settlement because while your case is worth $500k, they also know the company will drag out the case for nearly a year and maybe they don't have the money to chase that percent they'll get or they'd rather take the smaller percent for a couple weeks of work versus a year.
Except a lawyer can’t do that because they could get disbarred. If you client says fight for a week longer, then you gotta do it or risk being sued for malpractice. That, and bad PR if they talk about their experience. Plus, if your client refuses to settle, then you have incentive to work hard so you don’t like your money.
@@AnnoyingMobileGames there's a similar case for the realtor, but they will tell you as many reasons as they can that you might screw yourself chasing the bigger pay out hoping you'll listen, cause "Why would they mislead you, it's in their best interests to get you as much as they can."
@@daxter8792 this is fair. You can still get a lawyer disbarred if you have evidence of the counsel he gave you and bring that before a judge. However, I know the case law a little and judges don’t like to disbar lawyers. The burden is high because what may seem like bad counsel is just the lawyer’s experience in their jurisdiction. MedMal on the other hand… Btw, a fun way to think about this though is to further engage the economics. If the lawyer’s time is worth x, but the case can only go up by >x, then it’s better macroeconomically to have lawyers avoid wasting their time. Obviously we shouldn’t opt for that rule since ethics, but just more fun economics.
Would you consider working on an hourly basis for a rich client who is trying to "prove a point" with a case unlikely to result in a huge financial victory?
I would love to see a breakdown of expenses from an example lawsuit to see how the costs pile up so quickly because to a non-lawyer, it's difficult (if not impossible) to understand how those expenses can reach those levels (especially when they get into the millions).
Litigation is super labor intensive. Lawyers taking on cases need to pay to gather evidence, identify witnesses, hire expert consultants, conduct legal research, pay court fees, and litigate several motions before opening statements even begin.
As a Colorado real estate broker, I went to school for 3 weeks and I get to practice law in a limited scope by filling out contracts and write clauses. AND IT BURNS LAWYERS UP!
In australia you have to pay for your lawyer, however if you win, the losing party pays. It's so people don't sue over absolutely nothing and waste peoples time.
It only cost to much because lawyers charge that because they get paid from the settlement. If they charged a rate that was fair then people could actually pay it.
A little complex but extremely interesting. I read about a lawsuit, a small claim, where the house seller changed real estate companies. The first real estate company filed a small claim lawsuit against that seller & won for their out of pocket $1,000 spent on advertising that customers house. If i understand real estate state laws, that party won because the seller was still bound by a legally binding contract to use that first real estate company. It was simply breach of contract. I just explained legal agreements to my 14yr old twin. Also that small claims court *do not* allow Attorneys retained in any way nor be present at small C hearings. Small C cases are commonly cut & dry, either there's strong evidence A owes B or theres not
"They have expensive lawyers, therefore you need expensive lawyers as well" is sad, but true. It's not the biggest deal until you get to class action suits. Those things are criminal. I suppose there's something to be said for a big company doing misdeeds worth only $4 per client but hundreds of millions overall due to the size of the class, but the idea that lawyers get a percentage of that is insane.
The system is fawked when, even if you right for justice for yourself, you'll only ever see half the money you deserve if you're fortunate enough to win at all.
It's a risk transfer too. Percentage is valuable on cases that have uncertainty. Even if you can dedicate a lot of money to it, there's no guarantee you will end up winning or the costs will not grow beyond what you were willing to commit to. After a lifechanging injury it would be a rash move to then risk your life savings in pursuit of a remedy.
The verdict in this case was $3.8M. There’s a playlist about this trial on my channel.
The main costs were experts, travel, depositions, trial graphics and presentations, were the big ones. One of the experts was the guy who will Smith played in the movie Concussion. His testimony is on my page.
And, the lawsuit by our client against the business that hurt her caused the business’ insurance company to sue the business. The insurance company didn’t want to provide insurance to the business for hurting our client. So, we had to be involved in that case as well-we needed to help the business that hurt our client make sure it had insurance coverage (crazy right?). So that was a large cost too.
The question shouldn't be 'why', but how. Also: just three years of studying and one exam? Which allows you to call yourself lawyer and defend or represent and sue individuals and companies at court all over the u.s.?
That's ridiculous.
The fact that insurance companies are so commonly trying to not pay policy holders, while understandable as a business, is bonkers from all other points of view. In what other business do companies sue customers to avoid doing the most basic role of their industry? It's like a surgeon suing a person with a badly broken bone and saying "sorry, that's a complicated injury and isn't it really your fault? I shouldn't have to fix that." After you already paid for the surgery.
@@mbm8690That's three years AFTER normal university courses and such. Also the bar is typically extremely difficult, often requiring multiple attempts.
I'mma hire YOU, that's a good resume right there!
Oh you meant the trial you had nothing to do with?
It's actually quite hilarious that you post these videos about cases you had nothing to with, and post a "primer" comment so you get the praise for the work of others.
Classic lawyer. You're the reason lawyers get a bad rap.
Incedentally, it naturally aligns the interests of the lawyer with the cluent they are representing. Now they are both incentivized to go after the best deal possible.
Usually, anyway. The urgency of the money may be different to the two parties, which changes the "settle now" vs. "more money later" balance.
Good point
The issue, which freakanomics goes into, let's you have a 5% cut. Lets say you have 2 options, where you have a 1m sale/settlement, or a 1.1m sale/settlement, but you need to wait for 6 months to make them come up to your price. The person is making 5k on 6months work. You are getting 95k. They are not incentivised to get you that 95k. So if you had a 1m dollar house, they might just push you to close it with the person who walks in with a 900k deal tomorrow instead of waiting sometime for a better opinion
@@gwop827 Counterpoint: By getting that 1m dollar earlier, you can invest that money. There's also 6 months of sunk expenses. If I'm even understanding your example correctly.
which is the opposite with realtors if you're buying a house. Why would they try to negotiate the price down if it means less commission for them?
Paying a lawyer through winnings sounds actually very helpful for everyone involved. The lawyer has even more incentive to do their best, the client doesn't burn a whole in their empty wallet, and companies can't just win because they got more money.
The main advantage is the shift of risk. The lawyer does like 3-4 lawsuits a year, right? So if one of them goes bust, it's not the end of the world, they can still feed their family.
A person with $20k in hospital bills that just lost the ability to do their job for a year or two does not have that same opportunity. If access to lawyers was behind fees, it would be unattainable.
And if they lost, well, now they'd have the hospital bills, loss of income, AND legal bills.
The alternative to this is capping the fees, and having insurance, I guess.
The bad thing is if your case is for too little, or too risky(even just a small chance you could lose) most lawyers won't take the case.
Amen
@@gregspecht3706oh they’ll take it, you’ll just be retaining them hourly instead of on contingency. So you better hope the court awards you costs afterwards or all that litigation will generally mean nothing.
For real! I had no idea about that till after my car crash and needed to get a lawyer. It’s a really good deal. Also if you’re able to, patience will help you get a better settlement.
Probably the most straightforward explanation. Also a very good explanation of why many people can't get a decent criminal defence. It simply costs too much.
this is absolutely true for criminal defense, especially if you're using a public defender. the state can spend a lot of money paying for experts and testing, but the public defenders office will outright decline to pursue any of those avenues because their budget is so small. even though they're supposed to provide the best defense they can. the states don't like spending all the money either, so usually they just convince the defendants to take a deal and plead to lesser charges. only instances I can think of where this isn't true is in high-profile cases. it really is a shame because offenders who are 100% guilty can walk away because they could afford a great defense, whereas someone who may be innocent ends up serving time and ruining their record forever... simply cause they're poor.
I think people forget this, but lawyers aren't just lawyers anymore. They're practically private detectives and investigators too
depends on the "tier" of service
Most of the time it's the insurance company hiring P.I.s😅
Law is a complicated job lol it requires lots of thinking
One has to be. Perry Mason wasn't shit until Paul Drake came running into the room.
@@mamaobama7132Yet you can look up any with a Google search and it will tell you everything you need to know.
"realestagen" You said it that way three times
Estrogen? 😂🙋🏼♀️
@@alli3219I want some too!!
We only got 60 seconds in the short gotta get it out fast!
@@Maybe_Tom_Cruise funny thing is they increased it to 3 minutes on shorts recently lol
I honestly never knew much about lawyers until I started watching your videos. And now I have so much better respect and understanding than I ever did before. Thank you.
You can sell your house yourself and get close to max value if you put in a little work. You will never get close to what a PI attorney will get you for your injuries. That’s the difference.
This is 100% truth! A realtor is a convenience, a lawyer is an advantage. Every time I see self-representation cases, I can't help but think of the adage "he who represents himself has a fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer."
Honestly comparing the two is kinda stupid. It's like comparing a Radio shack employee that gets paid on commission for every tv sold, to a government military contractor. The literal only similarity in this instance is that they both get paid commission lol
@@variant0177 Yeah, exactly. The comparison is bafflingly stupid.
It's entirely situational. If it's a car accident for instance, and the person doesn't have anything to take, the best PI lawyer in the world isn't getting you jack shit.
Thank you for proving how corrupt the system is.
What are you trying to insinuate that I'm fucking poor or something? Because you're goddamn right I am
The cards are stacked against the little guy. CONSTANTLY
Just stop being the little guy then
@@TryPuttingItInRice
Such a naive comment! 🙄
@TryPuttingItInRice same energy as "how you tried not being poor"
That's why divine justice is so important. Delayed Prosecution is a thing 😊
@@TryPuttingItInRice Spoken like the littlest of people.
Like most people I know, I can't afford the dentist. There's no way I can afford a lawyer.
He just explained why you can. You just need a case. Look up contingency fee arrangements.
Why does having a few dozen highly-skilled lawyers make such a big difference so often? That's the real issue and may explain why we can't afford fair trials.
The law is very complex, multiple lawyers can cover multiple subjects more easily
Because without a lawyer, you have to do all the work. If you are filing a lawsuit, you have to go out and file the complaint, hire the process servers (legal requirement). You then have to do discovery, set up depositions which require people to type up everything said and to swear people in. You have to write filings based on the facts and evidence and respond to the other side's filings. You have to know the rules of the court. You have to make sure all filings are prompt and acceptable to the court's standards. Not only that, you have to answer the other side's requests for discovery on a timely manner, appear for their depositions. You need to understand all the legal jargon they're going to throw at you. There is hiring private investigators, experts and all the stuff that comes with that. But mainly, it's a massive time investment you may not have the time to do, because you have a job you need to do to pay the bills.
He said that's $212,000 of expenses. Process Server(s), hiring investigators, experts, depositions.
You gotta hire specialists to prove points, people won't work for free, you gotta pay for tests on many cases where you need to prove liability, you gotta pay for people to handle all sort of things, and they all have families and need to get paid, so it will cost sometimes tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to start depending on the case.
@@TheOmegaRiddlerKeep in mind that the vast majority of cases are settled rather than going through a trial.
That's one of the benefits of competent legal representation.
What may seem complex to us, is something a lawyer has done literally 100's of times.
Insurance companies would rather settle than go to court, but if you are representing yourself, they will likely go to court instead.
We should simply ban lawyers and level the playing field. If you've seen the end of a law book you're not allowed in the courtroom except to defend yourself.
I like this way to be honest
Don't the California realtors have to take an exam too?
And yes, I knew this through Modern Family
Top tier series, Phil the real estate agent "IM NOT A REALTOR"
Most states require a test but it’s not anywhere close to the difficulty of the bar exam
@@D3NYVOLTAGEdon't expect a real estate agent to understand real estate.
Missouri too
But not three years of school
"No offense to the real estate agents"... Offense to States and the Fed for underfunding the DOJ and overloading public defenders
Are there people against this paying method? Not paying anything unless you win? Sounds great
Having someone who knows the law and how to get the information needed is incredibly nice and a huge relief when you are hurting and tired.
And knowledge. That’s a difference too.
Obviously a lawyer has to know *more* than a realtor, but a good realtor should now a bit about property law, mortgages, and specifics about the area like water and sewage ordinances.
Though like Mike said, they don't *have* to, which is a shame. (Although in a lot of places to be a realtor or agent you need to pass a licensing exam at least.)
@@thefabooeven if they pass a test, many still don’t know what you mentioned since it’s not necessarily tested
@@VitoD226 Oh for sure. I'm pretty sure those licensing exams are to keep you from defrauding people (and if you do, let authorities stick a "knowingly" on your charge *and* take that license away 😉).
Wow, never got one that short after upload :D
I can't get over the way you say "Real estagent" 😂
The only difference between lawyers and real estate agents are the amount of lies they tell you.
Awesome explanation! When someone says "I got into a car accident and I can't afford a lawyer", I tell them "you can't afford NOT to have a lawyer". Any lawyer like you will tell them straight up if their case is worth defending and investing in.
Defense gets paid either way, so they'll take any old case.
Sometimes with this the only one that wins is the lawyers.
There was a wrongful death case for a relative. They claimed they wouldn’t get paid unless we got paid. In the end they settled for an amount that only covered their expenses and claimed it wasn’t “profit” so it was in alignment with the agreement.
So yea, we got a settlement and received 0 dollars and a bunch of stress.
Why does it take a lawyer to do important things at all? The law should be written in plain and simple language so the "Average Person" can understand it. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.
Legalese is designed to be as precise as it can be to be interpreted in as few ways possible. As many loop holes and interpretation gray areas as there currently are in current written law, there would be many more loop holes and interpretation gray areas if the law was written in plain English.
Dude, no one hides the law from you. You can read it all you want.
It’s like saying “why do I need restaurants, when I can google all those recipes myself?!”
You can do it, but unlike cooking, you get 1 (one) chance at presenting your case to the court. If you are THAT confident in your abilities-go for it, but it’s simply not worth it for most people.
It’s essentially the same concept for us real estate professionals. I’ve worked with buyer clients for 2 years consistently before a closing. By working from the proceeds of sale, no one has to come out of pocket until they close on a home. It also gives clients the freedom to change service providers or simply fire us without being forced to pay unless they achieve their goal and close on the purchase of a home.
“So you can get really good quality (real estate representation) for FREE until you win”
@@Wontreplyeverdontbother so pay less for an agent that does just those things. All commissions are negotiable and consumers should only pay what they think is fair.
@@DFR.Realtywait what? You don’t get butthurt and lash out at this person?
Damnit there’s some hope left yet.
you are a leech
@@Wontreplyeverdontbotherit’s such easy money that you don’t do it lol. I’m sure there’s nothing you could do with the extra eay cash
Yeah but the problem is the percentage amount. The 212k isn’t coming out of his cut. I know he doesn’t get that back if he loses but rest assure he isn’t putting 212k in if there is even a small chance of losing they will simply just pass on the case.
Let’s just say he settled this case for 600k
he take 200k as his share
takes the 212k for expenses
Injured party walks away with 188k nope injured party has to still pay his or her medical bills and probably walks away with 150k it’s highway robbery.
Your shares are valuable information 🧐 THANK YOU‼️🤗
So true. Well said. The other reason you wouldn't want to use any attorney for your real estate transactions (regular residential) is that they don't know the market like successful realtors. However, lawyers do have the right to represent anyone in a real estate transaction because, well, they know how to read.
Thank you for posting this
I'm working as a real estate agent to get through law school, so this is a funny video that RUclips randomly recommended to me lol
The best thing I’ve ever done after injury in a collision is hire a lawyer, good to have someone advocate for you, especially if your injuries have potential it affect you the rest of your life
Yes, I totally agree that it's beneficial to hire an attorney. You're able to maximize your award. However, the same goes for realtors. Is it as involved as going to law school? No but the realtor exam is not that easy, licensing is regulated by the state, you have recourse through the state, and you'll maximize your profits and they don't get paid until you sell.
I had to give a third of what Social Security owed me to my lawyer. It was worth every penny. They had denied my disability claim when I became unable to work. The lawyer got me before a judge and the judge overturned their decision. The cherry on top was that my lawyer himself was in a wheelchair. It gave me confidence that he understood my struggle.
Whenever my lawyer called me I made sure it was quick. I knew I was being charged for every minute he spoke to me. It all adds up !
thanks for teaching me about realestagens
It’s actually nice to know it works this way, because as someone who is very poor, my thought tends to be even if I had a very good case, it wouldn’t be worth trying because I couldn’t even afford a lawyer. It’s nice to know that if I ever need to sue someone I might still be able to. I mean not a thing I plan to do, but if I ever get injured by someone else’s fault, or since I’m a writer, if my work ever gets stolen, it’s nice to know I would in fact still have recourse if the case was solid enough for a lawyer to be willing to front the work.
People get mad at lawyer pay out like they didn't just win you the case.
He’s absolutely right. I’m a patent attorney so for the majority of my clients I would say I work with them on average between 1-3 weeks to draft their application. I’m not going to hide it I get paid very well for those few weeks of work. But I am very hands on in that time frame.
But injury lawyers are completely different. The thing a lot of people don’t understand is how much work injury lawyers are doing behind the scene we’re talking about hundreds if not thousands of hours behind the scene. If they billed hourly only the top 1% would be able to avoid injury lawyers.
He’s completely right I’m a real estate agent and being a lawyer is something I will never be qualified for, and the expenses are tenfold of my own
All of that is well and good, but let's be honest. Personal injury lawyers get somewhere between 25% and 45% of the recovery, with the average being about 33%. Real Estate agents get something between 1.5% to 3% if they cooperate with another agent and an absolute max of 6.5% or 7% if they source the buyer AND the seller. So let's not pretend that anyone is making the argument that they are the same.
This is the reason that legislation needs to be simplified, and legal expenses insurance is essential.
People have to go to school to become real estate agents, they also have to pass a licencing exam...!
Percentage makes sense but is that after you deduct expenses or are the expenses covered for by the percentage
The expense is paid from their percentage. That is why a good lawyer will always try to get their clients the most money possible.
@KingChocobo usually it's not. Expenses come out of settlement and then it is split.
@@trentwickenheiser8661 you may be right, but in the few experiences I've had with my lawyers, in the contracts I signed the lawyer would get a percentage of the settlement and of that percentage they would pay off their expenses and the rest was their pay.
@@KingChocobo no it’s not he even says in another video. He takes his percentage then he charges you his expenses, so like another person put in a response. If you win $1m he takes his 1/3 so $333k then say he spent $217k in expenses you then pay him that so you are left with $450k I don’t know if that is taxed like the other person commented as I’m not in the us but basically they double dip on your payout.
@@trentwickenheiser8661 nope please see my other reply.
As one of my law school profs put it: 'discovery is where you discover you can't afford it.'
"No offense to real estate agents"
Then proceeds to throw more shade than a nuclear winter
I've never heard anybody compare a real estate agent and a lawyer in a serious way.
This is different to the Australian system, contingency fees are banned here, and there are multiple cases of lawyers loosing their license for only that.
I have nothing but respect for real estate agents. it must be hard, counting all those bathrooms.
In England, you pay lawyers and estate agents about the same percentage.
If your lawyer makes a mistake, they are liable for the cost of putting that mistake right.
If your real estate agent flat out lies to you, there's no penalty for that.
Example: I worked with a guy who was selling his house. Buyer's lawyer finds out the extension on the house didn't have planning permission. My friend went back to the lawyer he used when he bought the house and asks why HE didn't spot that. I think it ended up costing the lawyer's insurers almost £80K because for some reason they couldn't get retrospective planning permission so the extension had to be demolished, the hole in the house fixed and the house was worth less than it would have been with the extension.
Pointing out that megacorps and billionaires (neither of which have a morally coherent justification to exist) overpay lawyers to whale / pay2win the justice system, and therefore the common man should be required to also, is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
That doesnt make it less true
I mean it’s a bandaid solution obviously that doesn’t help everyone but what else are we a supposed to do? You want him top dress up as Robin Hood and disappear billionaires into the night? I mean it would be amazing but he would be caught the first go round. They don’t play with their own safety the same way they play with ours.
Until something changes this is one of the best solutions.
Bro, you played too much video games. Go outside.
Caveat is some attorneys knowingly assess forehand & use insurance like tactics of risk aversion for taking a case... Some just want the opportunity of low hanging fruit.
Yes, everyone wants to get paid for their work. If all you can offer is a percentage of settlement money, and the guy sees that your case is hopeless-you are asking him to work for free.
Throwing shade at the lack of school. Someones touchy 😂
You as a lawyer can’t also represent the insurance company you are suing. But the RE agent can represent both sides of a transaction
Bro basically just called me broke and I don’t even mind it
You know this guy is rich af. But he presents himself so well he seems to actually give a fuck about what he does and not a scum bag it looks like he isn't an elite ist I love
So based on what you're saying, without this kind of pay system, SLAPP suits would be even more effective than they are?
Literally a real life Michael Ross
Another benefit of hiring a lawyer vs real estate agent is that the lawyer can look up all kinds of facts that an agent won't.
That method of payment is not legal in Denmark. A personal injury compensation is creditor protected. But as a part of your content insurance you have coverage for legal aid which will cover legal fees up to (about) $ 35.000. In most cases that's amount is sufficient to cover most lawyers.
You say real estate agent so fast it sounds like realstate agent. 😱😅🤣😁😂
That’s a sweet tie
When I was a lawyer my immigrant wife decided she wanted to become a real estate agent. Basically everything she needed to know was covered in about 3 or 4 classes I had in law school on property law and I included trusts and estates. She passed the test with a score over 90%.
You just described the similarity between real estate agents and lawyers. We both get paid the same way because we both take the same risk. It just so happens that a lawyer's number is different than an agent's from an individual basis. However, if agents did not exist; meaning promulgated forms and the very minute legal aspect of which we practice didn't exist, lawyers would be on the hook for the majority of our transactions.
Thank you.
I want you to get paid, you want your client to get paid.
It's win-win... not always, but mostly
"In a lawsuit, Everybody loses except for the lawyers."
-Whoever
You the Man!
My divorce lawyer, the best in town -- but it's a small town -- costs $450/hr. She's had to raise her rates a couple of times over the course of the divorce due to changing circumstances and increased costs. Either way, if I had to pay her for more than a handful of hours per month, I'd have gone broke long ago. I'm perilously close to going broke at it is.
A lengthy, complicated lawsuit, requiring hours and hours and hours of depositions, discovery, witness interviews, motion preparation, and courtroom time? Forget it.
Mike, in East Asia like China or Japan. Personal injury lawyers rarely do percentage. They were either do a flat fee based on stage of litigation or like 10 or 15 percent with a cap. No Plaintiff will pay 50 percent...
From medical, to legal, to college, to housing, seems like everythings a giant money game continually getting a higher bar to entry
How can you honestly value your time so high...
I’d like to see him try to pass the Florida RE exam. It’s no cake walk.
I think it's a great deal, tbh: I get an amazing lawyer, increasing my chances of a payout exponentially, and because they're getting a percentage, they're incentivised to get me as much money as humanly possible; it's a win-win for us.
+ lawyers collude to make things much more complicated. More than they need to be.
Selling a $1million house vs winning a $1million dollar case. Do the math, one is harder than the other.
Genuine question. Then what happens if you lose? How does that work for you financially. Thanks!
Just as a small caveat to the people pointing out "Lawyers getting a percent makes them work harder for the bigger pay out", I will point to the comparison again and mention Freakonomics, where they studied various situations from an "econimics" standpoint, and one situation was "why would a real estate agent go for the smaller deal for their client?" And the reason was because they only got a percent, and so while you might get $10k more, they might have to spend a week fighting for that $10k, and they'll only see $1k but spent maybe $500 getting it for you and they could have spent that week chasing another $200k-500k sale somewhere else.
A percent does provide incentive to go big, but you can always find lowering results because of risk, time and effort. You can run into a sleaze that will encourage you to take the $100k settlement because while your case is worth $500k, they also know the company will drag out the case for nearly a year and maybe they don't have the money to chase that percent they'll get or they'd rather take the smaller percent for a couple weeks of work versus a year.
Except a lawyer can’t do that because they could get disbarred. If you client says fight for a week longer, then you gotta do it or risk being sued for malpractice. That, and bad PR if they talk about their experience. Plus, if your client refuses to settle, then you have incentive to work hard so you don’t like your money.
@@AnnoyingMobileGames there's a similar case for the realtor, but they will tell you as many reasons as they can that you might screw yourself chasing the bigger pay out hoping you'll listen, cause "Why would they mislead you, it's in their best interests to get you as much as they can."
@@daxter8792 this is fair. You can still get a lawyer disbarred if you have evidence of the counsel he gave you and bring that before a judge. However, I know the case law a little and judges don’t like to disbar lawyers. The burden is high because what may seem like bad counsel is just the lawyer’s experience in their jurisdiction. MedMal on the other hand…
Btw, a fun way to think about this though is to further engage the economics. If the lawyer’s time is worth x, but the case can only go up by >x, then it’s better macroeconomically to have lawyers avoid wasting their time. Obviously we shouldn’t opt for that rule since ethics, but just more fun economics.
lawyers in some countries got both messed with regulation and over-supplied thus cheap
Would you consider working on an hourly basis for a rich client who is trying to "prove a point" with a case unlikely to result in a huge financial victory?
Depends if I agree on what the point is. If it’s a good enough point, I’d do it for free.
Lawyers get paid extremely inconsistentently, its why any good lawyer is also friends with a good accountant cuz they need one.
so wise , Thank you
It's a shame medical insurance isn't like this.
For a criminal case, i remember our lawyer charging $300 per hour and $300 per email aswell
Most states prohibit lawyers from working a criminal case on a contingency basis
I would love to see a breakdown of expenses from an example lawsuit to see how the costs pile up so quickly because to a non-lawyer, it's difficult (if not impossible) to understand how those expenses can reach those levels (especially when they get into the millions).
Litigation is super labor intensive. Lawyers taking on cases need to pay to gather evidence, identify witnesses, hire expert consultants, conduct legal research, pay court fees, and litigate several motions before opening statements even begin.
The real difference is lawyers aren’t useless.
But what happens when you lose?
Real estagent sounds like a fun way to say that.
As a Colorado real estate broker, I went to school for 3 weeks and I get to practice law in a limited scope by filling out contracts and write clauses. AND IT BURNS LAWYERS UP!
Is that tie a clip-on?
That's why lawyers shouldn't be private businesses.
In australia you have to pay for your lawyer, however if you win, the losing party pays. It's so people don't sue over absolutely nothing and waste peoples time.
Doesn’t explain why it’s percentage based. Does explain why they take from the winnings.
It only cost to much because lawyers charge that because they get paid from the settlement. If they charged a rate that was fair then people could actually pay it.
A little complex but extremely interesting. I read about a lawsuit, a small claim, where the house seller changed real estate companies. The first real estate company filed a small claim lawsuit against that seller & won for their out of pocket $1,000 spent on advertising that customers house. If i understand real estate state laws, that party won because the seller was still bound by a legally binding contract to use that first real estate company. It was simply breach of contract. I just explained legal agreements to my 14yr old twin. Also that small claims court *do not* allow Attorneys retained in any way nor be present at small C hearings. Small C cases are commonly cut & dry, either there's strong evidence A owes B or theres not
"They have expensive lawyers, therefore you need expensive lawyers as well" is sad, but true.
It's not the biggest deal until you get to class action suits. Those things are criminal. I suppose there's something to be said for a big company doing misdeeds worth only $4 per client but hundreds of millions overall due to the size of the class, but the idea that lawyers get a percentage of that is insane.
The system is fawked when, even if you right for justice for yourself, you'll only ever see half the money you deserve if you're fortunate enough to win at all.
What was the most expensive case you ever lost? How do you handle these costs as a business?
All the offense to real estate agents.
"My realtor says..." is a running joke among actual real estate professionals.
It's a risk transfer too. Percentage is valuable on cases that have uncertainty. Even if you can dedicate a lot of money to it, there's no guarantee you will end up winning or the costs will not grow beyond what you were willing to commit to. After a lifechanging injury it would be a rash move to then risk your life savings in pursuit of a remedy.
This feels like the best possible solution while working within the confines of a broken system. Have to work with what you're given I suppose.
Let’s go crazy Mike