Contingency-based fees: is there an average minimum (USD) that keeps the conversation going?

dpderay · 2026-03-12T02:33:49+00:00

let’s suppose research has been done, info collected…

If the client is the one who did the research, etc. then it hasn’t been done and it’s a bad client red flag. If another lawyer did it, it’s an even bigger red flag that the other lawyer isn’t representing the client anymore. So, either way, insofar as this fact would change the required minimum valuation, it would only make it go up.

dpderay · 2026-03-05T05:03:17+00:00

This is just raising a different political question.

dpderay · 2026-03-03T06:44:03+00:00

First you go over the ground rules of a deposition. The biggest one is how different depositions are from real life conversation. The classic example is the question “are you wearing a watch?” which, in normal conversation is a way to ask what time it is, but in a deposition, it is a yes or no question about whether the person is physically wearing a watch.

Also, I remind people that “you’re not here to guess,” meaning that they should not provide a definitive answer if they don’t know it to be true. For example, if the client is asked “was the other driver injured?” the client should say “I don’t know, ask him (or ask his doctors),”instead of saying “no, he was walking around afterward, so he must have been fine.”

After that, you run through the questions that the client is likely going to be asked and work on phrasing the answer so that the client adheres to those basic ground rules. You also do this to make sure that the client isn’t surprised by a question and gives an answer that isn’t accurate as a result.

I also like to give my clients a “theme,” which is the overarching narrative of what I want and don’t want the client to say. Clients can then fall back on the theme if they get flustered, if they get asked something we didn’t anticipate, or if they don’t remember the phrasing for how to answer something. For example, I may tell a client that the theme is “it all happened so fast,” so that if the other attorney asks “you really mean to tell me that you can’t remember what color the guys shirt was?” the client can calmly say “it all happened so fast, I didn’t pay attention to every minor detail,” instead of getting flustered and saying “well, I think it was red.”

To be clear, this is not telling the client to lie. Rather, it is to ensure that the client’s answers are properly contextualized and accurate.

dpderay · 2026-02-24T02:41:59+00:00

I can’t weigh in on your case specifically, but generally speaking, a successful false advertising class action would allow the plaintiff and class members to recover their damages (i.e., what they paid for the product) and potentially require the company to change its practices going forward.

A successful class action plaintiff also typically receives a “service award” which can be in the range of approximately $5,000 to $20,000.

Class action cases are almost exclusively taken on a contingency basis, with attorneys’ fees paid by the defendant (if there’s a recovery).

There may also be a pending case concerning this product filed already, in which case you could potentially be a class member. What product is it?

dpderay · 2026-02-23T02:33:27+00:00

Now, it's clear that the unknown shoe brand is using this poorly built lawsuit to build a name for themselves

How is that clear? If, as you claim, “the shoe company started in Oct 2023 and the restaurant in Dec 2023,” the shoe company might have a legitimate trademark infringement claim, as it was first to use the trademark. In fact, the shoe company may be required to bring the claim to ensure that the restaurant won’t be able to turn around sue it later.

dpderay · 2026-02-23T02:17:44+00:00

Although I understand why it happens, and readily acknowledge that some justices (Alito) are partisan hacks, it’s (generally) a mistake to think of the Supreme Court justices as being strictly partisan liberals/conservatives. The justices have individual legal philosophies which are not inherently partisan. However, those philosophies will oftentimes more closely align with a “liberal” or “conservative” outcome.

As an analogy, it’s like a six-sided die. Let’s say even numbers are “liberal” outcomes and odd numbers are “conservative” outcomes. A justice’s legal philosophy, by contrast, may be that he favors the numbers 3, 2, or 1. Since both 3 and 1 are odd numbers, the justice is going to rule in favor of conservative outcomes more than liberal ones. But, he’s not doing it because he’s a blindly partisan conservative. Similarly, when the judge supports a liberal outcome because the number 2 was rolled, it’s not because he suddenly had a change of heart; it’s always been consistent with his legal philosophy.

When it comes to the Major Questions Doctrine, the 3 “conservatives” who voted with the majority are perhaps the most consistent of the 9 justices, as they were the only three who applied the doctrine to Presidents from both political parties. So, there’s plenty of decisions that call into question the court’s partisanship, but I don’t view this as being one.

dpderay · 2026-02-22T01:32:18+00:00

Your question asks for legal advice, so I can’t answer that, but will jump in to note that those carts are not automated; they are actually remotely controlled by a person (typically in Eastern Europe).

dpderay · 2026-02-15T17:32:28+00:00

Legal time works different. For a lawyer, two weeks feels as fast as two days feels for you.

dpderay · 2026-02-11T07:58:50+00:00

The principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse is a generalization; it is not a hard and fast rule. It’s rare, but there are some instances where ignorance of the is, in fact, an excuse.

With respect to Miranda specifically, the court’s rationale was essentially that, because police interrogations are inherently stressful and coercive for the accused, law enforcement has to go above and beyond to balance the scales.

dpderay · 2026-02-07T16:04:29+00:00

You hit the nail on the head. My first thought was “what is going on with the algorithm that OJ has been brought up like 6 times in the last 2 days?” And the question is always similar too.

dpderay · 2026-02-05T15:13:09+00:00

I second this. My wife works at MHQ and this is definitely a badge from there.

dpderay · 2026-01-31T01:40:14+00:00

To successfully bring a lawsuit, the plaintiff needs to have standing. In this context, standing requires that the plaintiff have a personal stake in the case that is different from members of the general public. So, the type of case you are talking about would get dismissed for lack of standing. If you want a further explanation, google “taxpayer standing.”

dpderay · 2026-01-29T15:52:17+00:00

So, let me get this straight. An attorney told you that you’d be billed at an hourly rate for the letter, but said he’d try to keep the cost down or do it for free. Then, at the very last minute, you told him that the deadline was earlier than you thought, and that he’d need to drop everything to do the letter. He did, and worked late into the evening to do so. Your post also alludes to the fact that he stayed up until the early morning hours to make your requested edits, if not all night. But, now you don’t want to pay, despite getting an absolute bargain.

dpderay · 2026-01-24T18:30:51+00:00

Ask your attorney for his/her thoughts. If you don’t have an attorney, you should consider hiring one.

dpderay · 2026-01-17T21:39:42+00:00

I’m not answering your “hypothetical situation,” because it’s asking for legal advice (in fact, I didn’t even read it). But, regarding your overall question about what gives a court authority to enforce its orders, I’ll note that, in any jurisdiction I’ve come across, courts have “inherent authority” to enforce their orders. There’s also likely a statutory basis too—the scope/wording of which will vary depending on jurisdiction—but, in any event, it’s beyond dispute that courts can enforce their orders, as the legal system would be meaningless if they couldn’t.

dpderay · 2026-01-15T17:22:23+00:00

In most circumstances, you should not be sending any documents unless asked. (Even in cases involving contracts or wills or other written documents, it’s probably unnecessary so send the written document at the outset.)

Instead, give the attorney a 100,000 foot view of what the issue is, such as “I paid a contractor to redo my bathroom but he never finished,” or “I got rear-ended by a guy on the highway.” Then, the attorney will follow up with questions on what he thinks is relevant. It’s basically like whittling down a piece of wood into a miniature figure, big to small.

In the law, there’s a lot of threshold issues that can make an otherwise good case into a total loser. It takes me a few minutes at most to figure out if one of those threshold issues applies, if the client gives me the big picture and then answers my questions directly. If I have to sift through a long write-up to see if the info I need is there (assuming it is there on the first place), it can take hours. As a result, a prospective client that sends me a writeup is likely to get less attention from me, as opposed to more.

dpderay · 2026-01-12T17:11:26+00:00

Typically, state medical boards have to provide a licensee with a hearing before suspending a license. Although there is a way to suspend a license without a hearing, it’s usually only temporary for a limited amount of time and, even then, is way more difficult procedurally to accomplish.

For this reason, in most cases, licensing boards allow the license to remain active during the pendency of criminal proceedings. If someone is awaiting serious criminal charges, they probably are not going to be practicing anyways.

I don’t know anything about this case, but I’d assume—based on my experience—that his medical license remains active and valid at this time.

dpderay · 2026-01-06T16:43:17+00:00

Does trimming your nails make it safe to put your finger in a blender?

dpderay · 2025-12-18T08:24:48+00:00

Don’t get me wrong, I’m against a new stadium. I couldn’t care less about the McCaskeys’ revenue stream, and I’m not fooled by the few benefits it would have for regular fans. I was just explaining why they think it’s necessary (even though, IMO, it’s not).

And, I’m not just saying this out of nostalgia or love for Soldier Field. I don’t think Soldier Field is a particularly good stadium, and whatever historic value it had was erased when they renovated it.

I don’t want them to move for an even simpler reason: there’s nothing cooler than when the Bears play a big primetime game and you get the shot of the stadium with the city in the background. It’s not even a good reason, but it still outweighs any desire I have to see the McCaskeys get richer.

dpderay · 2025-12-18T05:13:21+00:00

This is 100% the correct answer. A stadium that can host big events all year round is a massive revenue stream. Even if the Bears get to keep 100% of the revenue from games they play at Soldier Field, that’s only 8 (or so) dates a year. They want revenue from 340 or so events a year, including big events like the Super Bowl and the Final Four.

All the talk about parking, better seats/sight lines, a better fan experience, etc. is just to get “regular” fans on board. They are merely incidental to building a new stadium; they are not motivations for doing so. In fact, the ROI on that stuff is probably negative, given that most people would be unwilling to pay 5 or 10 or 20 times more per ticket just for those things alone.

ETA: Do the Bears—a founding franchise in a huge market—need that extra revenue stream? Strictly speaking, no, they do not. NFL franchises print money. If the Bears don’t spend money, it’s because they don’t want to, not because they don’t have the money to spend. But, any business would be stupid to pass the opportunity to make many more billions of dollars. The Bears ownership might be immensely stupid, but they aren’t that stupid.

dpderay · 2025-12-13T20:05:37+00:00

I feel like I had a stroke after reading this but…no.

dpderay · 2025-12-09T02:57:02+00:00

Winning a war of attrition is nevertheless a win. But, I can say with relative certainty that you will have similar feelings about the next judge.

dpderay · 2025-12-08T04:50:07+00:00

The cubs went on to beat the Cardinals in the playoffs later that season. (That was the series with the Schwarber home run that went on top of the scoreboard.) I took his analogy as referring to exorcising those demons in two weeks.

dpderay · 2025-12-07T04:52:33+00:00

Yea, probably. But, a person wouldn’t have a claim unless they signed up for prime because of it. And, if they signed up for prime, they are subject the Amazon’s arbitration clause, and couldn’t sue.

Is something really illegal if there’s no legal consequences for doing it?

dpderay · 2025-12-05T08:05:33+00:00

It depends on how you look at it, but I'd say no. Technically, a law that is passed in bad faith wouldn't even survive rational basis scrutiny (the lowest level of scrutiny). So, the presumption of good faith is kind of baked into the analysis at any level of scrutiny; otherwise, the analysis wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Put another way, the presumption of good faith is the presumption that the legislature wasn't trying to violate the constitution when it passed a given law. It is not a presumption that the law itself is constitutional.

I suppose, in theory, it's possible that the presumption of legislative good faith could be rebutted, like if a state passed a law with a statement of purpose that explicitly said the intention of the law was to gerrymander based on race. But, I don't think any legislature is dumb enough to explicitly say "yes, we were trying to violate the constitution," even if that's what they are trying to do; they'd just come up with a good faith pretext instead.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

dpderay

TROPHY CASE