Working on contingence means the lawyer takes the case for some specified part of the settlement. That only happens when there is some possibility of a cash settlement to be made. Based on the following quote In Summary, Terri has received an aggregate sum of $1,590,000.00. Nonetheless, in June of 1993, the asset balance in Terri’s account was reduced to $761, 507.50, as reported by Michael Schiavo. Schiavo's attorney, however, has sealed the accounting, which would disclose how Terri's account was depleted by approximately $828,492.50, (52%) in only 1 year and 6 months.
the settlement was already in the account before Jume of '93, so all of the legal bills shown and itemized were incurred after the settlement had been won and paid. Any bills paid for the malpractice suit, whether on contingency or not, are not shown in the breakdown given. Presumably, they account for some part of the account depletion mentioned.That later bills amounted to only 25% of the total settlement is irrelevant and misleading, since they have no relation at all to the actual settlement except that it is where the money to pay the bills is being drawn from. FWIW: I know a few lawyers. Most are good people, several of whom enjoy and collect lawyer jokes. A couple are less amenible, and one is a plain rat fink. I know the stereotypes, and I know they don't always/usually fit. 99% of lawyers make the other 1% look bad. That is somethinhg called a joke. If you insist on taking it seriously, you will only make your own life miserable by choosing to be a lawyer. And I reiterate that my intent wasn't to imply that the lawyers were crooked, just that they are very expensive. Given the new twists the case is taking, the remaining $210,000 Will likely end up paying lawyers. |
