Question about Legal Fees

We have a member of our community that retained a lawyer over parking issues. He had a couple of pick ups, which are not allowed in the comminuty. He was given a hearing, and was advised to not park the trucks on the property or he would be fined. He stopped bringing in pick up trucks, but then brought on another banned vehicle-a van. The board knew about the van at the truck hearing, and he was told no trucks and he said the van would not be parked on property.

He was then fined for the van, and took legal action against the community, fighting the community rules. Now, he doesn't want to pay for the lawyers fees that the association got as part of the suit. From what I know, there were calls between the attorneys and there were research costs. Is the unit owner responsible for the fees the association had or is it just a cost of doing business. As a unit owner, it doens't make me happy to think there is no way to get that money back!

I will have to look through my documents and see.

There wasn't a lawsuit. He hired a lawyer, and the lawyers went back and forth. I guess he was trying to protect himself from being wronged. Nothing ever went to court.

Okay, then what was the amount of the settlement, and on what terms?

No there, was no court case or judgement. He had his attorney communicate with the board and send letters, and the board used the board attorney to communicate to his attorney by sending letters. there was no filing or case. his attorney called the board attorney to ask for advice and to talk about his client. really kind of strange to not just talk about it among each other, but i guess he decided an attorney was the best route.

the issue with everything went on for over a year, and the legal fees were a few thousand from what i have been told. there were multiple calls, letters and research that the attorney did. i wish it was just a few hundred, but it is not

Banned pick up trucks? vans? LOL, I've never heard of that before.

At some point an HOA is going to ban ugly people and issue fines accordingly.

Mary writes:

>>>This is usually the case with all litigation. Generally speaking, the main concern of all attorneys' is how much $$$ they can make on the deal!!<<<

I'll disagree with that. Setting aside well-heeled Ps and Ds who engage in protracted pissing matches to prove who's got a bigger package, economics and logistics dictate settlement is usually more beneficial to both the parties' legal representatives. Also, great litgators often take on pro bono assignments just because it's the right thing to do. Here in Philadelphia recently, a top-notch guy from a top-notch firm (Cozen O'Connor) wrapped up a suit involving a woman with AIDS and cancer who'd "sold" her life insurance policy to an investment outfit in return for having her health premiums paid. Outfit was betting she'd be dead in two years. But a decade later, she wasn't, so Outfit tried to wiggle out of the deal. Top-notch Guy prevailed, after doing 500+ hours of work for free.

But getting back to Cathy, I haven't much of a clue about the facts and status of her issues, though remain curious.

Mary,

I know of no official requirement for attorneys to work pro bono. Many medium-large firms "encourage" the practice for various reasons - Good PR, pet projects of management, it's a good thing, they can afford it (as in, it's built into their fee schedules), etc., which in turn gets the message to partners and associates to pitch in. And others do it just because they want to contribute to society.

On the flip side, I agree with you that some litigators will milk their clients (be they private citizens or corps) for every cent they can, though that practice will hurt the milkers in the long run, esp. as to repeat business, which is what pays the nut each month in most instances.