Lanny v. Kirstie McLellan Day

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

A reporters interpretation of what these people say is not even close to evidence...

I disagree on a couple of points.

First off, this is a "reporter's interpretation" in the same sense that any reporting is an interpretation of events. This reporter has summarized the facts and arguments of the case from documents in her possession, from which I think it is safe to presume that she is treating charitably and abridging accurately enough for a news item.

Second, a report such as this is evidence of a type. You may disagree about the quality or robustness of the evidence, but a summary provided from a reading of the relevant documents is most certainly better than nothing, which is the difference here between what Corral has asserted, and what GioforPM has countered.

But then again, I am not a $700/hr attorney.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

A reporters interpretation of what these people say is not even close to evidence.

You didn’t use the term loosely, you used it incorrectly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well I’ve used plenty of news articles as evidence, thanks. Usually in cross, but also as an indirect source. But more on point, there are direct quotes, both from the story and from the pleadings. For example, the actual contractual provisions are in the statement of claim.

Now, until they are sworn, they aren’t evidence in court. But they are certainly evidence before us. As we aren’t in court, the lay definition of evidence applies, which is the body of facts we have available.

[Traditional_Ale]

TIL lawyers make seven hundred effing dollars an hour!?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

TIL lawyers make seven hundred effing dollars an hour!?

Actually, the top partners in the large downtown law firms would be billing out at quite a bit more than that. At least those doing the more challenging corporate/commercial work.

But you also have to remember the expenses, that’s not take home pay.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

TIL lawyers make seven hundred effing dollars an hour!?

Depends on what you do, as was said above. I’m not that close to the upper end for a partner in a big shop doing M&A work, though what I do is specialized enough, and is more on par with an experienced litigator.

But insurance defence lawyers, say, charge quite a bit less. Criminal, real estate and some divorce lawyers often charge flat fees that would work out to even less per hour if you calculated it.

Befus and Holowachuk, the lawyers in this case, are experienced litigators and I suspect they’d come in pretty steep.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

A reporters interpretation of what these people say is not even close to evidence.

You didn’t use the term loosely, you used it incorrectly.

We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

Hearsay anyway. Conjecture - it depends who it comes from.

[troutman]

^^ Some lawyers that charge flat fees might collect more per hour than hourly rate lawyers, as the paralegals do much of the work, or an experienced and efficient lawyer can do the work very quickly.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by troutman

^^ Some lawyers that charge flat fees might collect more per hour than hourly rate lawyers, as the paralegals do much of the work, or an experienced and efficient lawyer can do the work very quickly.

Well, that usually means residential real estate, and no one makes a fortune doing that. Certainly quite a bit less than the downtown lawyers at big firms with a huge hourly rate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Well, that usually means residential real estate, and no one makes a fortune doing that. Certainly quite a bit less than the downtown lawyers at big firms with a huge hourly rate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes. You need a high volume. See also: foreclosure, criminal defence, small business incorporation.

Then there are personal injury guys who live on making settlements on contingency. That's also a volume business. Their opponents, insurance defence lawyers, are often on some sort of tariff imposed by the insurance company, so they also need volume.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes. You need a high volume. See also: foreclosure, criminal defence, small business incorporation.

Then there are personal injury guys who live on making settlements on contingency. That's also a volume business. Their opponents, insurance defence lawyers, are often on some sort of tariff imposed by the insurance company, so they also need volume.

That's why you can hear me in those fantastic ads on 660 and, I believe, 960 now.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

great Lionel Hutz reference!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

TIL lawyers make seven hundred effing dollars an hour!?

I wish I “made” my hourly rate. That’s just the rate clients pay per chargeable hour, it’s not what the lawyer actually takes home, sadly.

[Ashartus]

Yeah I don't know the typical numbers for lawyers, but in my field hourly charge out rates are 2.5 to 3 times what someone makes. The rest has to cover non-billable hours, vacation, benefits, building lease, computers and other equipment, insurance, taxes, legal/accounting fees, and non-billable staff (HR, receptionist, finance,, IT, etc.), as well as hopefully a bit of profit. Of course 1/3 of $700/hour would still be a lot, but maybe their ratio is higher.

[VladtheImpaler]

The traditional framework is the 1/3 rule. 1/3 of billing goes to the pay of the lawyer in question, 1/3 to overhead, and 1/3 to profit.

[Strange Brew]

The big money isn’t in your own billing rate. It’s in having people work for you and making money off their billing rates.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The big money isn’t in your own billing rate. It’s in having people work for you and making money off their billing rates.

You have to own the means of production.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Yeah I don't know the typical numbers for lawyers, but in my field hourly charge out rates are 2.5 to 3 times what someone makes. The rest has to cover non-billable hours, vacation, benefits, building lease, computers and other equipment, insurance, taxes, legal/accounting fees, and non-billable staff (HR, receptionist, finance,, IT, etc.), as well as hopefully a bit of profit. Of course 1/3 of $700/hour would still be a lot, but maybe their ratio is higher.

That’s the same in law. Wages is the biggest chunk, followed by lease.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The traditional framework is the 1/3 rule. 1/3 of billing goes to the pay of the lawyer in question, 1/3 to overhead, and 1/3 to profit.

But the profit goes to the partners, so if you are a partner, you would expect to take home about 2/3 of your gross billings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The traditional framework is the 1/3 rule. 1/3 of billing goes to the pay of the lawyer in question, 1/3 to overhead, and 1/3 to profit.

1/3 profit? Our clients seem to think our target of around 5-6% is excessive. Maybe I should've been a lawyer (or I need to find less cheap clients).