My wife was rear-ended over a year ago, the other insurance co. accepted responsibility but was very abrasive and uncoperative from the start about settling claims for rental, loss of wages bodily injury etc. so we decided to get a lawyer the 33 1/3 agreement, he took our case ultimitely asked for 21,000 dollars they came back with a redicilous offer, they have supposedly been going back and forth, this has been going on for months.I'm beginning to wonder if this guy is conning us, at first he said he does not want to go to court but now said we may have to and told us we had to give him 500 dollars to represent us in court, any help or advice. Thanks.

If the other driver's company continues to be evasive and refuses to settle, then going to court may in fact be your only option. But I admit it sounds irregular for a personal injury attorney working on a contingency basis to demand a retainer fee (even though $500 is actually very reasonable as far as a retainer fee is concerned.) Did you question your attorney about this? Maybe you should contact your local bar association and discuss your concerns with them.

Is there a written contingent fee agreement? Does it have terms about going to court?

The other question I would ask is whether the attorney has offered you an agreement concerning the retainer he is requesting. It would be reasonable to ask for this noney to cover costs, and not his fee. That might be what he is thinking, but if so he should specify that in writing.

If the other driver's company continues to be evasive and refuses to settle, then going to court may in fact be your only option. But I admit it sounds irregular for a personal injury attorney working on a contingency basis to demand a retainer fee (even though $500 is actually very reasonable as far as a retainer fee is concerned.) Did you question your attorney about this? Maybe you should contact your local bar association and discuss your concerns with them.



Evasive? What is the insurance company doing that is evasive? I see the insurance company attempting to settle for less while the Attorney attempts to settle for more. That's caleld doing business.

Irregular? If it's a contingency agreement a request for $500 is against the canon of ethics.

BUT - if the Attorney is asking for $500 for disbursements or out of pocket expenses it's undoubtedly covered in the retainer agreement and totally "normal."

Recommending that someone report an Attorney to the Bar Association without any understanding of how contingency works (which, by the way, I've explained to you before) is totally unreasonable, to say nothing about reporting that Attorney without knowing what's in the agreement. The local Bar Association is not going to "discuss" this with the OP - OP can either file a complaint or not. I see this as bad advice, indeed.

And as far as the Attorney - ask what the case is worth; ask what the company offered. I usually hear complaints that the Attorney is pressing for settlement and the client doesn't want to settle.

Also - check the contingency/retainer agreement. I am seeing more and more agreements were the out-of-Court percentage for the Attorney is 33-1/3%. If it goes to trial, it's 40%.

The original aggrement said 33 1/3 for him plus expensess (stamps, phone etc. etc.) and if we had to go to court with it, it would be more 40 percent. The lawyer asked my wife for 500 the one time I was not with her. The reason we went this route is because we have NO MONEY! We do not have 500. This is the first time this has happened to us, I wonder what about insurance laws? We pay for liability,bodily injury uninsured motorist etc. this seems like a pretty clear case for a lawyer I just don't get it!

As for an accounting for what expenses the 500 is for. There will be a filing fee ( varies, I just paid 88 for filing a case last week) there will be office work, the filing I did required everything to be filed with at least 3 copies of each filing. The attorney would have travel costs to the court house and the such.

Normally most expect filing is incluided in the percent. And even the 40 is a little high normally the 33 would include going to court if needed.

It is not uncommon to have to file, and then they settle the day of court. My last one settled in the back row about 10 min before the case was called

The original aggrement said 33 1/3 for him plus expensess (stamps, phone etc. etc.) and if we had to go to court with it, it would be more 40 percent. The lawyer asked my wife for 500 the one time I was not with her. The reason we went this route is because we have NO MONEY!! We do not have 500. This is the first time this has happened to us, I wonder what about insurance laws? We pay for liability,bodily injury uninsured motorist etc. , this seems like a pretty clear case for a lawyer I just don't get it!


This is pretty much what I said - you are being asked for disbursement money.

Whether it's a clear case or not there are still out-of-pocket expenses such as copies, filing fees, postage and the like.

I have never seen anyone who consulted with an Attorney get LESS than the insurance company's direct offer - and I work in the industry. Has the insurance company made an offer?

Why did you consult with an Attorney and not attempt to settle yourself (which I personally don't ever think is a good idea) - or did you?

Of couse I guess part of it, how much extra over the actual costs are you asking for.

Has the actual cost of car repair, car rental and medical bills already been paid. If this settlement merely the extra over actual expenses.

Does the attorney get a percent of the actual expenses already paid also?

We tried to settle directly with their insurance co. like I said we could not get anywhere with this guy, he did not want to pay car rental fee, could not agree on loss of wages, bodily injury, pain and suffering, and this being all new to us, they accepted responsibility for the accident, my wife and I just want the claim paid. So we went to the lawyer, we just want a fair settlement without going to court which the lawyer said would take another couple of years!

We tried to settle directly with their insurance co., like I said we could not get anywhere with this guy, he did not want to pay car rental fee, could not agree on loss of wages, bodily injury, pain and suffering, and this being all new to us, they accepted responsibilty for the accident, my wife and I just want the claim paid. So we went to the lawyer, we just want a fair settlement without going to court which the lawyer said would take another couple of years!


Obviously what you think is fair and what the insurance company thinks is fair is two different things.

If you don't want to go to Court you'll have to have your Attorney get the best out-of-Court settlement he/she can get and then take it.

Otherwise, Court if the only option.

Just out of curiosity - is the company arguing who is liable, what the bills are, how much the injury is worth?

They accept liability, yes their arguing what the injury is worth, but that's why we buy insurance, my wife had loss of wages, extra expense due car rental, bodily injury (thankfully not life threatining). What's the law, can they drag this on for infinity, We don't want to drag this on two more years.

They accept liability, yes their arguing what the injury is worth, but thats why we buy insurance, my wife had loss of wages, extra expense due car rental, bodily injury (thankfully not life threatining). Whats the law, can they drag this on for infinity, We don't want to drag this on two more years.


Once the case is filed, an Index Number is assigned, then it goes on the trial calendar and works its way to the top of that calendar.

Loss of wages - I don't see the argument if you have proof.

Car rental - I don't see the argument if it's reasonable.

Bodily injury - that's undoubtedly the argument. What you think it's worth is NOT what the insurance company thinks it's worth.

And, yes, this could drag on for two more years, easily, in NY - I don't know where you are.

They don't have to ever just settle, you may have to be in court to let a judge decide.