Posted on 07/26/2005 6:38:49 PM PDT by mfreddy
In February '04 my wife gave birth to a son who suffered a massive brain injury 12 hours after birth. After much counseling and consideration we have decided to consult with a leading med/mal attorney who has been consulting with experts regarding the merits of a possible case against a number of providers that were involved prior to as well as after delivery.
My question is regarding fees. I believe there are general standards regarding fees and I'd like to know what is appropriate and reasonable. Is this something that can be negotiated? The attorney reviewing this matter is a leader and well recognized in the med/mal world and I don't want to offend him. I feel I need to obtain advice in this matter before meeting with him later this week. My wife and I have not entered into any agreements to date and want to be prepared as we approach this subject. His research so far has been extensive and he has agreed to provide this service without charge due to the possible merits of our case.
Thanks to all that can help.
I guess our messages crossed "in the mail."
I'm pleased to read above that you have a thick skin....
Best of luck to you.
This whole thread started out by Mfreddy asking how to split the $$ with a lawyer. Read it again. He did not ask aobut consulting with a lawyer but how to split the pot.
Verdict first, trial later.
And it makes me sick too.
Not one word in over a hundred posts about any, ANY negligence by the doctor.
I read it already. You didn't understand the question. He said he wants to see a lawyer but doesn't want to sign a CFA until he knows what the going rate is, so he doesn't get ripped off.
Free consultation or not, the CFA is going to be signed at that first meeting. He's asking for advice on that point.
He's not asking for your precious opinion on whether his doctor did anything wrong.
The thread is not about the doctor, it's not about negligence or liability. It's a question about what paperwork is appropriate and what is not.
Verdict first, trial later.
What verdict? WTF? There's no verdict here. There's a question about a contract negotiation with a lawyer.
You've obviously been sued blind and are projecting your situation on this guy's misfortunate circumstances.
Mfreddy - any doctors your attorney gets an opinion from are going to be paid to tell him what he wants to hear. This is a whole cottage industry, mostly from retired MD's looking for some cash. It is a joke. Look at depositions and testimony from paid MD witnesses and tell me how many of them testify in a way which weakens the case of the side which is paying them (plaintiff OR defense). Zero. A coincidence? Sure. Your lawyer will try to make the strongrest case for malpractice, not to discover the truth.
And the doctor's lawyer is as pure as the driven snow....the doctor is represented by the Archangel Gabriel himself!
People who are on SSD get better medical care than a lot of average people.
If it was nobody's fault, it is not right to sue. A lot of lawyers will take the case regardless.
If it was somebody's fault, I suppose they are liable and wil have to pay damages.
Not knowing the extent of his injury, all is not necessarily hopeless. I worked for an attorney who was born with CP. He had the gift of being able to see the pages of the textbooks flash through his mind when he took his exams; it's photographic or eidetic memory. He married and had a lovely wife and a beautiful little daughter.
My neighbors across the alley had a pair of twins who both had CP. They adapted, and the girls got social security. They weren't rich, but they weren't poor either.
Thanks but I don't need your consideration. I've received thoughtful advice and many kind words of support.
A good medical malpractice attorney will know case law particular to your case, and has established a good rapport with local Judges. In the long run, a specialist will not need to create expenses with needless activity, they have to maintain standards set by their specialist peers.
If you go for the least expensive attorney, or one who has limited practice in medical malpractice, even if the less experienced cheaper attorney is a friend of a friend or seems eager to help, you run a huge risk of him or her making procedural errors and wasting time and money on billable hours and needless paper chasing.
A certified medical malpractice attorney will save you needless stress, time and money.
Never been sued.
Know six doctors who quit after suits.
Know many, many OB's who no longer deliver babies because of suits and threats of suits.
Know many, many doctors who limit practice to non high risk cases and/or take no ER call leaving those with bad problems out cold - no coverage for those problems in our ER
Know of doctors in our state who have lost houses and livelihood due to frivilous suits.
If you trust malpractice lawyers over doctors, so be it. If you think they are interested in the truth over $$, just say it.
That was pretty bad.
You should apologize.
You continue to presume that doctors speak in perfect constant candor and are not limited by the instructions of their insurance company or lawyer.
When you are in a car wreck lying in the ER saturday at 3 am,the doctor will look like the Arch Angel to you. and guess what - he is thinking about how to save your life, not if he is getting paid or how not to get sued. If you feel the malpracitce lawyers live by the same code of ethics, then you really have detached yourself from reality.
Oh goodie, the same silly strawman.
You have FREEPmail.
If the injury was purposeful, I'd want him to rot in jail
If it was incompetence, I'd want him driven from the profession.
If it was an accident, it would be better to forgive than to encourage a doctor to stop practicing.
I don't know what it is in this case, but hopefully these things are being considered.
I don't consider the entire context of my situation suitable for a public forum--it's personal. At the time we spoke with the attorney we knew of no other way to consult non involved medical professionals without going to substantial expense. I resent your assumption of my intentions.
You're correct, I haven't mentioned the word negligence until this post. You obviously have some exposure in this area. You sound like you've had a bad experience. If it's pure cynicism, then you're a sad person.
I try to approach people I've never met by giving them the benefit of the doubt. You should try that.
Said no such thing. I just asked if you are suggesting that the malpractice lawyer is looking for facts or $$$. Honestly. If you trust the malpractice lawyers to over the doctors, just say it - if that is your position then justr defend it. Would you trust that group to determine facts in your business dealing with clients if they would get a HUGE payday by finding you at fault?
Strawman? Just asking - who would help you in the middle of night for free. If you think the lawyer, defend it. Answering questions, taking positions and defending them is amuch better intellectual exercise. I know you are a smart guy - try debating instead of calling names.
salbam:This whole thread started out by Mfreddy asking how to split the $$ with a lawyer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.