Comments on: why do lawyers lie (about contingency fees)?

By: betty johnson

betty johnson — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:44:08 +0000

r_______ h__________ of t_______ texas also lies to her clients

[Editor's Note: Sorry, Betty, but I blanked out the name of the lawyer you mentioned, because I can't allow particular lawyers to be attacked in situations where I do not know and cannot verify the facts.]

By: Gus McCrae

Gus McCrae — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:06:56 +0000

I am a former client of the Perlmutter law practice. I hired them to sue a large Chicago bank, now Chase, for wantonly and unlawfully destroying my credit rating by denying a chargeback and insisting I should pay. (now, of course, one cannot do that because the banks and credit card companies, in consort with their lawyers, deny us our constitutional right to legal redress and force us to agree to arbitration, which is usually a rigged proposition).
My lawyer, Brad Reagan, was in partnership at the time with Perlmutter. Schuelke was also counsel. Reagan performed brilliantly and had the bank’s pathetically arrogant and effete lawyer on his knees begging for settlement before the first day of trial ended.
Reagan cajoled me to settle for far less than I could have gotten and then wrote up a settlement agreement whose terms included that I could never discuss the settlement or its existence with anyone; likewise for the bank. And the alleged debt was deleted forever, according to the agreement. When I asked Reagan what would happen if the bank violated the agreement, as I had a hunch they would, he stated unequivocally that he would be overjoyed to sue them again on my behalf. At least 3 times since that settlement, the bank has violated the agreement and sent collection agents after me for disguised and egregiously bloated amounts. When it happened the first time, I contacted Brad Reagan and reminded him of his agreement to sue. He would not. He went back on his word. Brad Reagan, and, by partnership, Perlmutter, lied to me and maybe more. Because Perlmutter & Reagan & Schuelke mysteriously did not utilize their foresight to install a penalty clause in the settlement, no other lawyer would touch the case.
The first edition of the Liar book was out at that time. I regarded it then as a hypocritical, cheap publicity stunt and do so now more than ever. Perlmutter & Co. lied to me (and the lie was more than semantics) and I suspect they have lied about fees and other stuff to many other clients, adversaries, juries, etc.
The Liar book is, in Texan parlance, BULLSHIT!
Caveat emptor.

By: Alfred Finkle

Alfred Finkle — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:56:36 +0000

I suppose many lawyers find the ability to hide behind the complexity of their trade beneficial for business, hiding, their costs in relation to their competitors.

It is puzzling why they can often mislead as to their costs as today’s consumer is more than prepared to pay for a service that is beneficial to them. If they run an honest law establishment why need to hide anything?

By: Welcome, and Thank You : Texas Appellate Law Blog

Welcome, and Thank You : Texas Appellate Law Blog — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:52:22 +0000

[...] Antitrust Review Chicago IP Litigation Blog Build a Solo Practice, LLC California Blog of Appeal f/k/a idealawg Infamy or Praise Law.com Legal Blog Watch Lawgarithms Likelihood of Confusion New York [...]

By: D. Todd Smith

D. Todd Smith — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:40:52 +0000

Thanks for mentioning my Blawg Review post. I have one small request: Would you mind correcting my name? (It's Smith, not Moore.) [Editor's Note: Todd, I apologize for the "misnomer." I have no idea how "Moore" found it's way into your name and, of course, I have just fixed my mistake. My brain often does not know what my fingers are doing on this keyboard.]