Quick question for Lawyers on OT, do lawyers "have to" represent a client?

AFAIK, unless they work for municipality or the state, they aren't required to take any cases. It's up to the attorney whether they want to be retained.

Disclaimer, not a lawyer, just married to one.

Save for a very few circumstances, attorneys are free to represent whom they choose.

Unless you are ordered by a court to represent someone, who are under no obligation to represent a potential client.

I'm not an attorney in LA, but the rules are generally the same everywhere. If you are a private attorney, then you can take (or not take) any case you want. If you work for the State/Fed then you take the cases assigned to you unless there is a conflict or other legal grounds to reject the case.

However, once you accept a case and enter an appearance, then you are stuck with it unless a judge lets you off. So if someone comes in, professes their innocence and you take the case only later to find out he's guilty as shite when you get discovery, then you're stuck. If the client stops paying, then you (depending on the judge) are not guaranteed to be able to get off. You can always sue the client for breach of contract, but attorneys don't stay in business long when they start suing their clients.

The worst is when you have someone come in and after talking about their circumstances you figure it's a simple case. You agree to represent them for X amount. Later, once you get into the case, it becomes apparent that the case is much more complex than you initially thought and you end up having to do it for half of what it's worth (if you charge a one time, up front fee like most attorneys do where I'm from).

Depends on how much they like money

quote:

---

You should probably ask those that have their Esq's

---

This

quote:

---

This seems like a bad business decision. How would it be advantageous to you, as someone who is stuck representing a client, to charge a 1 time fee? Seems like clients could and would take advantage of that.

---

Short answer: I'd rather get paid half up front, then nothing at the end.

Depending on the area of law you practice and where you practice it is always better to get paid up front rather than after your services are rendered. Otherwise you spend as much time chasing down people who owe you money and won't pay as you do actually being able to do your job. Most of the times you get a pretty good idea of what a case is worth based on the initial interview, especially in the criminal world. You can judge that just by the crime they're accused of. White collar crimes are expensive as shite to defend because you have to get forensic accountants and other experts. It's not often you get shafted on a case, but I'll take that chance and get paid prior to doing work, then counting on people accused of crimes or going through divorce (and splitting assets) to pay their bills on time, if at all.

Another Perry Mason/matlock thread. Great way to close out a Monday.

Foster III was not forced to represent the COA.

quote:

---

Who the hell does that?

---

i do

AMA

quote:

---

All the non-contingency lawyers I know take a retainer and start invoicing again once depleted.

---

if i relied primarily on billing i'd starve. i work too fast and it just doesn't work with what i'm going for right now