My firm is getting more calls ofy a certain type from out of state law firms. The out of state firm tells us that they have a client in our area. The client did not move here. What happened is that the out of state firm attracted the claimant with advertising, sometimes television advertising, but more often internet advertising. There is now a hearing scheduled. The out of state firm does not want to send someone to North Carolina to actually represent the claimant at the hearing. They want us to do that and they will pay us a fee of around $750, which is not bad money if all you do is show up for the hearing to meet the claimant for the first time and do not bother to review the file in any detail or try to obtain additional medical evidence, which seems to be what is expected.
The out of state firm has not obtained medical evidence themselves or done any real lawyer work. All they have done is to sign up the client, accept the fee if the client gets approved without a hearing and take most of the fee if the claimant happens to win after a hearing. The out of state firm do es almost nothing to help the claimant win. Inevitably, claimants with this sort of representation have a lower chance of success than claimants with an attorney who gives them active representation, but what does the out of state firm really care? It's easy money for them.
My firm is not cooperating with this sort of thing. Is there anything that state bars or Social Security could do about this? One thing I can suggest is to allow claimants to switch attorneys freely. The fee agreement process impedes this. Claimants who wish to switch attorneys have a hard time finding anyone to represent them, since current rules mean that the case becomes a fee petition case once a claimant switches attorneys unless the first attorney waives a fee. Attorneys do not like to fool with fee petition cases, so they do not want to get involved with claimants who want to switch attorneys. Clients of these out of state firms are often unhappy and want to switch attorneys, but find it almost impossible to do so.
The out of state firm has not obtained medical evidence themselves or done any real lawyer work. All they have done is to sign up the client, accept the fee if the client gets approved without a hearing and take most of the fee if the claimant happens to win after a hearing. The out of state firm do es almost nothing to help the claimant win. Inevitably, claimants with this sort of representation have a lower chance of success than claimants with an attorney who gives them active representation, but what does the out of state firm really care? It's easy money for them.
My firm is not cooperating with this sort of thing. Is there anything that state bars or Social Security could do about this? One thing I can suggest is to allow claimants to switch attorneys freely. The fee agreement process impedes this. Claimants who wish to switch attorneys have a hard time finding anyone to represent them, since current rules mean that the case becomes a fee petition case once a claimant switches attorneys unless the first attorney waives a fee. Attorneys do not like to fool with fee petition cases, so they do not want to get involved with claimants who want to switch attorneys. Clients of these out of state firms are often unhappy and want to switch attorneys, but find it almost impossible to do so.
2 comments:
"Attorneys do not like to fool with fee petition cases"
Probably because they have to prove they really did something to justify the fee.
With the fee agreement they get the the 25% no matter how little they have done.
Sounds like an Allsup strategy. Good deal for them if they can get any sucker to bite.
Post a Comment