Related Posts
Hi, Is it good to join Salesforce for Technical Consultant role (YOE - 3.2 years) ?
I checked with few of my connections, they saying I will be mostly allocated to Salesforce industries (Vlocity) project. Please suggest about the team structure and work life balance for this role.
and also in future, is it possible to apply for IJP in Salesforce ?
Please provide your thoughts on this.
Thanks
Salesforce
Hi how is HSBC client in LTI ?
More Posts
Thoughts on the new Chase Freedom Flex?
I knew I had seen the name before somewhere...
Enthusiast
Ever downloaded PNG from Google images? 🥲
Hi folks, I hope y'all are well.
I am looking for a job referral for the SDE role.
YOE-2.3
Skills- Java, Springboot , Microservices, Rest APIs, DS and Algo.
Kindly reply or DM. It would be so appreciated 😊
OLA Razorpay software private limited Navis India technologies Cisco Groww Airtel Payments Bank Paytm Visa Intuit
Additional Posts in Personal Injury Lawyers
Conversation Starter
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
If you think it’s a problem that they are being unreasonable, don’t be unreasonable on your end and make it worse. I would make a fair offer, regardless of the amount of the demand. If they don’t accept than prepare for trial, but it doesn’t help your client to hold back. As someone who has done both PI def and Plft side, it pays to make a reasonable offer. Also, don’t assume the Pltf attorney didn’t know the value of the case, if he/she is asking for an offer maybe they are trying to use the offer to have a discussion with the client about the case.
Clients are not always reasonable(both plaintiffs and defendants). I often use the 1st offer as a way to explain to case value. Again, don’t worry about the amount of the demand. Do your evaluation and make an offer that is reasonable in light of the exposure. Don’t assume you know how to do the job better than your OC, just do your part and let them do theirs.
I agree with the above, I'm on the Plaintiffs side of PI and regularly use an initial reasonable offer from opposing counsel to help manage my clients expectations. It is very possible his client saw a commercial claiming a million dollar verdict and thinks they are entitled to that as well. The Plaintiffs attorney may very well know what is reasonable and just needs a little help to get his client on the same page.
Plaintiff's attorney here. If you give him a reasonable offer, sounds like he may accept and everyone can be done. If you don't, Plaintiff's attorney may feel forced to litigate, where he'll likely ask the jury for $3 million even if he actually only expects they'll likely give him $10,000. Juries are unpredictable. They may give the amount you expect or a much larger amount. Sounds like you're running a bigger risk than plaintiff in that scenario, especially if plaintiff already knows and is prepared for the possibility of a small verdict. Do you want to run that risk? Still, Plaintiff's attorney could be bluffing and could not have plans to sue at all.
Nope. He was sold a bill of good a long time ago. Make the offer you think the case is valued at and prepare for trial.
Sometimes the considerations on Plaintiff's side are more complicated than you might expect. I have a very similar scenario to yours but on the other side. I have a case that I think there is a reasonable possibility that we could get $1 million or something close to it if we litigate. It's not a slam dunk case, there are some difficulties in it, so there's also a real possibility that we'll get little or nothing. Still, the potential upside is enough that I'd be happy to roll the dice and see what happens in litigation. The problem is, my client doesn't live in the country anymore, and I don't feel like I can litigate with him living out of the country. So I made a pre- suit demand for $1 million. The adjuster came back with an offer for a few thousand dollars. Problem is, in working up the case, I already have costs that exceed that. Accepting the offer would get the client $0 in pocket. From his perspective, he'd be better off if I just don't do anything on his case at all, still leaving open the possibility that he could revive his claim later, then that I accept that offer. So I'm negotiating more aggressively than I normally would (normally I would have filed suit by now). The adjuster has only been coming up nominally and is as baffled as you at my tactics. I can't tell him that I don't want to litigate because my client is out of the country, because then he has no incentive to offer anything. I generally don't like making small offers when my case has the potential of getting a lot more, because it signals to the other side that I don't fully believe in the merits of my own claim (sometimes that's true, but I don't want the defense to know that). Also, I'm often willing to accept less pre suit than after I begin litigation (due to costs, increased attorney fees, and the additional time and effort invested in the case). If I make a low offer pre- litigation, defense often assumes that's the starting point for additional negotiations in litigation, which makes it much harder for me to negotiate, and may not give me room to come down any further. Defense gets annoyed if I raise the amount of my offer after litigation begins. Anyway, on this specific case I recently found out my client may be returning to the country after all. So it makes sense for me to wait until he does and then sue for $1 million, whereas before I would have accepted $20,000. But I wouldn't want to tell the defense basically any of the above that I just said. So maybe some attorneys would make up a fake excuse ("my client is being unreasonable and I need to convince them"). That's not the approach I took, but I could see others doing it. Or maybe that is the real reason for your case and the $10,000 offer would help. Regardless, my point is, sometimes the considerations for plaintiff are more complicated or different than they appear to you on the surface
P attorney says his client has unreasonable expectations and an offer, even if it’s low, will help him get those expectations under control. My question for you is...do you agree? If so, how will a 10k offer on a $3M demand help the plaintiff come to terms with the actual value of his case?
I’m aware of the risks and I’m not the one who doesn’t want to make an offer it’s my client. I was hoping someone on the p side can explain how a reasonable offer helps a p with unreasonable expectations. It seems like if p expects 3M, what I think is reasonable would just tick him off. How does the conversation go on the p side that will this p get his expectations under control?
As a P attorney I can tell you that every now and then there are some clients who you cannot manage expectations. Best bet is to wait it out until mediation/trial. Hopefully you and opposing counsel can find a mediator that is experienced with plaintiffs like this.
Make what is called a nuisance offer a couple thousand dollars.