= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Open thread, Nov. 23 - Nov. 29, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (257)
Imagine the following situation: we are having a lawsuit against each other. Let's say it is already obvious for both of our lawyers which side is going to win, but it is not so obvious for us.
The lawyers have an option to do it quickly and relatively cheaply. But they also have an option to charge each of us for extra hours of work, if they tell us it is necessary. Neither option will change the outcome of the lawsuit. But it will change how much money the lawyers get from us.
In such case, it would be rational for the lawyers to cooperate with each other, against our interests.
That's been my experience, and any questions about "How much more is this going to cost me?" are not received well.
Almost every lawyer I've hired or dealt with gave me almost nothing for my money. And good luck trying to get a bad lawyer disbarred.
What I should probably do is solicit bids for a particular legal problem.
In this example the obvious culprit is the practice of charging by the hour, which I've always found a terrible idea.