Lawyers who work on contingency (no win - no fee) have a lot of caveats.
They usually work on easy, open and shut cases. The more likely they are to win the more likely they are to get paid.
They usually take a much bigger chunk of the plaintiff’s winnings if they do win, so even a win is much less of a win than otherwise.
Even if they work for a larger firm, most lawyers who work on contingency don’t have the resources, or can’t justify using firm resources, on a risky case that entails a lot of work. This might result in incomplete discovery, or the other side buying a one-person operation in paper.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, and this is a generalization, but most lawyers choose not to work on contingency if they have other work. This often means (and of course there are exceptions) that contingency lawyers are not the cream of the crop, especially compared to whatever big firm lawyers a company can retain.
Lawyers who work on contingency (no win - no fee) have a lot of caveats.
They usually work on easy, open and shut cases. The more likely they are to win the more likely they are to get paid.
They usually take a much bigger chunk of the plaintiff’s winnings if they do win, so even a win is much less of a win than otherwise.
Even if they work for a larger firm, most lawyers who work on contingency don’t have the resources, or can’t justify using firm resources, on a risky case that entails a lot of work. This might result in incomplete discovery, or the other side buying a one-person operation in paper.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, and this is a generalization, but most lawyers choose not to work on contingency if they have other work. This often means (and of course there are exceptions) that contingency lawyers are not the cream of the crop, especially compared to whatever big firm lawyers a company can retain.
Removed by mod
tldr review the posting policy bulletin