I want to fire my attorney but my parents think that would be a bad idea

[Tiffanie_20]

Hello everyone.  I’ve been arguing with my parents and would like to get some opinions as to who is right.

So my problem is I am currently suing a former employer for sexual harassment but I want to fire the law firm that is representing me and get a better one.  They are a small firm that my parents found for me and I just don’t think they are up to par.  I think bigger is better.  But my parents say that would be a bad idea.  They say it could delay any settlement, it could lead to legal issues because the old firm could sue me, and no other firm could probably get much more.

I disagree.  I don’t see why you can’t fire your attorney if they suck.  You should not have to pay them anything if they don’t really do anything.  And I have done my research and a bigger law firm could definitely get better results.  I had a previous case with a big firm and they got me like almost triple what this current firm is saying is the best they can get, and the circumstances were fairly similar.  But they could not represent me in this case because of a conflict of interest.  So my parents found this smaller firm that obviously sucks and now I feel like I’m between a rock and a hard place.

Does anyone know anything about this?  I think my parents just want me to stick with this attorney because a friend of theirs knows him.  ☹️

[basil67]

Yes, you can fire your attorney, but your parents are right that if you don't pay for hours already worked, you're likely to end up fighting them in court.   And if you end up fighting them in court, you'd better have a reason which is more eloquent than "they suck"

[Taramere]

6 hours ago, Tiffanie_20 said:

Hello everyone.  I’ve been arguing with my parents and would like to get some opinions as to who is right.

So my problem is I am currently suing a former employer for sexual harassment but I want to fire the law firm that is representing me and get a better one.  They are a small firm that my parents found for me and I just don’t think they are up to par.  I think bigger is better.  But my parents say that would be a bad idea.  They say it could delay any settlement, it could lead to legal issues because the old firm could sue me, and no other firm could probably get much more.

I disagree.  I don’t see why you can’t fire your attorney if they suck.  You should not have to pay them anything if they don’t really do anything.  And I have done my research and a bigger law firm could definitely get better results.  I had a previous case with a big firm and they got me like almost triple what this current firm is saying is the best they can get, and the circumstances were fairly similar.  But they could not represent me in this case because of a conflict of interest.  So my parents found this smaller firm that obviously sucks and now I feel like I’m between a rock and a hard place.

Does anyone know anything about this?  I think my parents just want me to stick with this attorney because a friend of theirs knows him.  ☹️

It's certainly your right to switch to a different firm if you're not happy with the current one.  I would say it depends on the complexity of your case.  If it's a relatively straightforward one, then a Jack of All Trades firm is probably good enough - but if there are complexities and/or it's a high value case then you probably would be better off switching firms.  Though bear in mind that the fees a bigger, better firm charge might come as a shock.

I don't know how things work in the US, but where I live it's always open for a small firm to instruct specialist counsel for an opinion - or else refer the case on to a larger firm and get a commission of the larger firm's fee.  If either of those routes are options where you live, it might be worth considering.  Refusing to pay a law firm's fees because you don't think they've given you a good enough service almost certainly will get you sued unless the fee is very small and the firm admits having acted incompetently.  It's a mistake to think that because a large specialist firm would do a better job, that means the smaller firm has handled your case incompetently. 

If you imagine a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is "completely incompetent" and 10 is "number one firm, better than all the rest"....maybe the firm you're with just now would fall 3 or 4 on the scale but still be considered within the range of "competent".  A professional doesn't necessarily have to be all that good to avoid the "incompetent" label...and if a professional body adjudicated your current attorney to be competent or good enough, despite your negative opinion of the attorney, then you'd not only find yourself slapped with an order to pay their fees but you might incur all sorts of other expenses in the process.  Not to mention stress.  So unless you've got evidence of your current firm having really screwed up, I think you'd be best paying up for the work already undertaken.  You're perfectly entitled to ask for a breakdown of fees, though.

[Wiseman2]

7 hours ago, Tiffanie_20 said:

.  I had a previous case with a big firm and they got me like almost triple what this current firm is saying is the best they can get, and the circumstances were fairly similar.  But they could not represent me in this case   ☹️

What was the previous case about?  You seem quite litigious. That often works against you.

It doesn't matter the size of the firm. You may just not have that good of a case and there are parameters as far as what can be rewarded.

[d0nnivain]

Bigger isn't always better.   But if you are unhappy & don't feel comfortable with your present representation you can change lawyers. It's very rare that your 1st attorney will sue you; rather that lawyer will work out a deal with the 2nd lawyer to split the fee.  You can complain about the split but the 1st lawyers are entitled to be paid for the work they have done in accordance with the retainer agreement you signed.  Changing lawyers will delay things a little bit because the new lawyers will need some time to get up to speed but that shouldn't take long.  

[Blind-Sided]

Real simple.... fire them.  But you WILL get a bill in the mail for the work they did. And, it could be a lot if they took the job on contingency, and were hoping to get a big settlement for you.  

 

[d0nnivain]

@Tiffanie_20 -- read the retainer agreement you signed when you hired them.  It should tell you how to fire them & the consequences of doing so.  

[JRabbit]

Are you suing for money only?  Or is this to actually have some reprimanded that did sexually harass you?

[Pumpernickel]

6 hours ago, Blind-Sided said:

But you WILL get a bill in the mail

Yes. For sure. I needed an atty once in my life, and she was worthless. Got nothing resolved, because she was always in court. She did schedule meetings with me that could've been handled over the phone. Nothing was resoveld, and no further procedure was decided on during those meetings, either. Just a massive waste of my time. My case was pretty straightforward (issues with a tenant), so I told her to speed it up by handing it over to her paralegal. She refused (probably because billable hours would have been lower). I eventually found a better lawyer, got the case settled swiftly, but yes, all the worthless meetings we had were billed to me. In half hour intervals. Ridiculous. So if you want to change lawyers, do it yetserday.   

Edited August 31, 2021 by Pumpernickel

[poppyfields]

10 hours ago, d0nnivain said:

Bigger isn't always better.   But if you are unhappy & don't feel comfortable with your present representation you can change lawyers. It's very rare that your 1st attorney will sue you; rather that lawyer will work out a deal with the 2nd lawyer to split the fee.  You can complain about the split but the 1st lawyers are entitled to be paid for the work they have done in accordance with the retainer agreement you signed.  Changing lawyers will delay things a little bit because the new lawyers will need some time to get up to speed but that shouldn't take long.  

No that's not how it works.  Not in my years of experience working in legal anyway.

OP, you have every right to terminate your retention agreement with the smaller firm.  Let them know who your new attorneys are and they will file a document called "Substitution of Attorney" with the court.  That document is signed by you, your old firm and your new firm.

You will have to pay any outstanding balance on your account with your old firm but you may be able to negotiate something less than what you owe.  The law firms I have worked for did that all the time, this type of thing is VERY common.

If you don't pay any monies owed to your old firm for attorneys fees and costs, they won't sue you, they will most likely want to take you to arbitration.  It can be a big hassle so just pay them their fees and be done with it.  Perhaps you can even work out some sort of a payment plan.

If you can afford the higher rates and legal fees of the large firm, I would recommend the larger firm.  They have LOTS more resources at their disposal.  But frankly, if you can't afford to pay the balance on your account to your old firm, not sure how you will be able to afford the MUCH higher rates of the larger firm.  They will also ask for a retainer fee which can be as high as $10,000-$20,000.  Can you afford that?

By the way, I am a certified paralegal who has worked on many employment cases involving sexual harassment.

If you want to PM me, and tell me your story, I can tell you whether or not you have a good case or not.

Sex harassment is very difficult to prove in a court of law, unless the sexual harassment was blatant and obvious so be prepared for an ugly fight.

Good luck!

Edited August 31, 2021 by poppyfields

[d0nnivain]

@poppyfields While you are correct about arbitration the rest of it depends on whether the original agreement was hourly or contingent.  @Tiffanie_20 MUST review the retainer agreement.  

[poppyfields]

15 minutes ago, d0nnivain said:

@poppyfields While you are correct about arbitration the rest of it depends on whether the original agreement was hourly or contingent.  @Tiffanie_20 MUST review the retainer agreement.  

Good point!  If it was a contingency agreement, then Tiffanie20 owes NOTHING, but it's rare when a law firm will agree to contingency for a sex harassment case.

It's too iffy, too great a risk, but again fair point d0nnivain.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by poppyfields

[poppyfields]

19 hours ago, Tiffanie_20 said:

I disagree.  I don’t see why you can’t fire your attorney if they suck.  You should not have to pay them anything if they don’t really do anything. 

Tiffanie, this is not true.   They are a business like any other.  They advocate on your behalf, you are still obligated to pay their legal fees.  Regardless of whether you are happy with their work or not.

OR you can dispute their fees if you don't think they did the work.  

Did you sign an engagement agreement?

I would assume so, no law firm will take on a client without one, it's to protect them from clients not paying.

Read your agreement.  My guess is it's hourly (versus contingency).

If it's hourly, then you will need to work something out re your bill, or they may take you to arbitration which will cost you more money.

But again I ask how you think you can afford the much higher rates of the larger firm if you struggle to pay your old firm.

But that's your business, again good luck.

Edited August 31, 2021 by poppyfields

[basil67]

Or, in the case of a douche-bag I know, he got to the end of the court case, believed his legal team gave bad advice (despite the judge congratulating the two parties on working out a reasonable outcome) and refused to pay the bill.    He now has a caveat sitting on his investment property. 

[Tiffanie_20]

Thanks for all the replies.  I really appreciate it.  After doing some more research, I found that most of the advice here was basically correct.  But the good news, which I forgot to mention in my OP, is that this case was taken on contingency. I guess because my case is so strong and there was obvious and blatant retaliation involved.  But apparently the contract I signed does say I have to pay some legal fees to them if I switch attorneys, but I don't think the amount would be enough to make me not switch to a better law firm, so I guess that is what I'm going to do.  Assuming I find one I think is good enough of course.  I already have a meeting planned with one of them this Thursday, so we'll see how it goes.

4 hours ago, JRabbit said:

Are you suing for money only?  Or is this to actually have some reprimanded that did sexually harass you?

No, it's not just about the money.  I just don't think it would be fair to let this company get away with what they did.  They tried to blame me for the harassment and basically tried to sweep it under the rug.  They even retaliated against me and it got so bad I felt like I had to quit.  But the money is an issue as well.  I see no reason to take an offer that as far as I can tell could be a few hundred thousand less than I could get with a better firm.  Like I said, their offer is barely more than half what I got in an earlier case, and since the circumstances seem to be somewhat similar, that does not seem fair to me.

11 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

What was the previous case about?  You seem quite litigious. That often works against you.

It doesn't matter the size of the firm. You may just not have that good of a case and there are parameters as far as what can be rewarded.

No, I know I have a good case.  The previous one actually seems tame in comparison now that I think about it.  I didn't even know it was harassment until my parents and a counselor got involved.  But I was only 14 at the time so I couldn't be expected to realize how inappropriate the situation really was. Still, when I think about it, what this teacher did wasn't quite as bad as what this guy at work did.  So it doesn't make sense to me that my current case is not worth as much money.

 My current attorney tried to explain this by saying that in my first case I was a minor and the defendant was a government entity, not a private corporation.  And also because a teacher is more of an authority figure than an senior work associate. Which does kinda make sense, but when you consider that the facts in my current case are actually worse imo, it just doesn't add up.  My school did not retaliate against me and the teacher got fired, but my employer did blatantly retaliate against me and they didn't fire this guy.  Plus, this attorney just doesn't seem as aggressive as my last one.

But again, thanks for all the advice. 😀     I will give an update if/when I choose another firm and also how it worked out.  

[Wiseman2]

2 minutes ago, Tiffanie_20 said:

They even retaliated against me and it got so bad I felt like I had to quit. 

Are you seeking a firm/attorney specializing in labor law?

[Tiffanie_20]

35 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

Are you seeking a firm/attorney specializing in labor law?

Yes, of course.  Or at least a firm that has a division specializing in that.

[d0nnivain]

12 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

Are you seeking a firm/attorney specializing in labor law?

What does the NLRB have to do with this?  She doesn't have a labor law problem.  She claims to have an employment discrimination problem.  They are two different areas of the law.  

[Taramere]

3 hours ago, d0nnivain said:

What does the NLRB have to do with this?  She doesn't have a labor law problem.  She claims to have an employment discrimination problem.  They are two different areas of the law.  

I was a bit confused when I read this, but my confusion probably stems from us (UK) having a specific system for hearing employment disputes (including ones that include discrimination claims). So for us, a case where there had been alleged discrimination in the workplace would definitely be classed as an employment law issue - and you'd want a specialist employment lawyer because they're familiar with all the procedural aspects involved in handling employment cases as well as the applicable law itself. 

From your post I'm guessing that in the US, an employment dispute that includes allegations of discrimination would be treated as a civil rights case rather than being heard under any procedure specifically reserved for employment cases?

[d0nnivain]

26 minutes ago, Taramere said:

From your post I'm guessing that in the US, an employment dispute that includes allegations of discrimination would be treated as a civil rights case rather than being heard under any procedure specifically reserved for employment cases?

Sort of.   In the US we have labor law which involves unions & the issues that go along with those workers' rights, including but not limited to union organization & strikes.   Disputes in that arena go before a specific administrative agency -- the National Labor Relations Board.  

For workers who are discriminated against but who are not union members the procedure is different.  They can go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if they want to go to federal court.  They have the option of going straight to state court & bypassing the agencies in some states.  

Attorneys who specialize in labor law -- meaning unions, strikes, graduated discipline etc. -- often know nothing about employment issues involving discrimination.   So the OP needs to know who & what she's looking for.  These are highly specialized areas.  

[Taramere]

2 hours ago, d0nnivain said:

Attorneys who specialize in labor law -- meaning unions, strikes, graduated discipline etc. -- often know nothing about employment issues involving discrimination.   So the OP needs to know who & what she's looking for.  These are highly specialized areas.  

Ah okay.  There's a definite difference then.  Here,  somebody who didn't have good knowledge of the relevant legislation and case law wouldn't have any business describing themselves as an employment lawyer...but that's because these cases are heard within the Employment Tribunal system rather than the courts (unless they're in the final stages of the appeal process), so employment lawyers have to be able to deal with them or else they're just generalists dabbling in employment law.

I thought I'd better just clarify that in case anybody else from the UK weighed in (since there are quite a few of us).  Employment rights and how employment disputes are dealt with are one of those areas where I think there are massive differences between the US and European countries.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Taramere

[spiderowl]

4 hours ago, Taramere said:

Ah okay.  There's a definite difference then.  Here,  somebody who didn't have good knowledge of the relevant legislation and case law wouldn't have any business describing themselves as an employment lawyer...but that's because these cases are heard within the Employment Tribunal system rather than the courts (unless they're in the final stages of the appeal process), so employment lawyers have to be able to deal with them or else they're just generalists dabbling in employment law.

I thought I'd better just clarify that in case anybody else from the UK weighed in (since there are quite a few of us).  Employment rights and how employment disputes are dealt with are one of those areas where I think there are massive differences between the US and European countries.

Although the situation is different here in the UK, I don't think an Employment Tribunal would deal with a sexual harassment case would they?  Depending on what the harassment was, it might actually fall under normal statutory law not just employment law.  Just wondering.  I'm not a legal expert.

[Taramere]

10 minutes ago, spiderowl said:

Although the situation is different here in the UK, I don't think an Employment Tribunal would deal with a sexual harassment case would they?  Depending on what the harassment was, it might actually fall under normal statutory law not just employment law.  Just wondering.  I'm not a legal expert.

Yes, Employment Tribunals here deal with sexual harassment cases all the time.

[Tiffanie_20]

Well, at least in my area it seems that any firm that says they do 'employment law' will do anything related to representing employees, from wage disputes to harassment cases.  So far every firm I've called has been interested in my case and at least claim that they have at least one attorney who's an expert in that area.  Although after doing some research I've found that some of their 'experts' have very little trial experience and no big settlements.  

The good news though is that everyone I've spoke with has said that the retaliatory nature of my case makes it worth a lot more money.  😀

[d0nnivain]

15 hours ago, Tiffanie_20 said:

The good news though is that everyone I've spoke with has said that the retaliatory nature of my case makes it worth a lot more money.  😀

That makes no sense.  The value of your case is based on what losses you have suffered.  If you lost a $50,000 per year job, your damages are $50,000 per year after taxes until you find another job; then your damages are the difference between your new job & your old job assuming you make less at the new job.  You must also make a good faith effort to get a new job.  You can't sit home, eat bonbons & think the money will roll in for the rest of your life.   Whether you were harassed, retaliated against or both, the cause of action does not change how damages are calculated.  

Since you seem to be worried about how big the lawyer's previous settlements have been, perhaps you need to search local newspapers, find the headline that keeps the dollar signs in your eyes & hire that person.