While I agree with the above answers, there are still many other possibly factors, that can vary with the indivifual attorney. Basically they can be summed up under the heading of "cost-benefit" anaylsis. Does the attorney believe that they will be able to recover enough money, (through lawsuit, arbitration or negotiation), to cover the value of the time and effort they put in. In other words, it's not just how much money, but how likely is the recovery of the money and how much work or trouble will it be. If it is an area of the law that you practice in every day and can do the preliminary steps in your sleep, even the investment of time is probably not that big a deal, versus the same number of hours burning the midnight oil at the law library researching an area of the law that is novel to you. Best example is Personal Injury lawyers. DISCLAIMER: I am not now, nor ever have been a P.I. lawyer. I don't care for that type of work nor for the type of attorney it typically tends to attract. (There are obviously always some exceptions). But the lawyers you see on late night tv saying, "If you've been in an accident, call me," typically reflect poorly on the entire legal profession. In addition, many of these attorneys are running "mills" for lack of a better word. And those are the successful ones. One, or a small number of attornies will hire many assistants, (secretaries or paralegals), and simply grind out the complaints by the hundreds. They make their money on volume, and yes, as their ads say, most of their cases do settle. (For a number of reasons, including the fact that most won't take a contingent fee case unless the liability is clear OR unless the damages are enormous. They may take the case but will insist on being paid a straight fee. Plus, they ensure that they willingly and gladly settle virtually all the cases they accept. Now some attorneys brag about that, and if you listen their ads even refer to "your settlement," not your lawsuit or your award, your "settlement." Because they settle. The cynical among us would say that may be because, they don't know another alternative. If you routine settle all of your cases and then meet with opposition in a particular case that won't play ball, what do you do if you have almost never or NEVER tried a case. You have no leverage. Also, if an attorney can get say 1/3 of $25,000 with almost no work, but would have to work very hard to increase the offer by 5 or $10,000, (of which they would get a third of as well), do you think that most would work very hard for $10,000 versus almost no work for $8,000? That is the fundamental problem with contigency fees. Proponents would have you believe that the attorney and the client have identical interests, since the more money recovered for the client, the more the attorney gets. BUT that overlooks the fact that those additional dollars may take a lot of work, (or even some work), whereas getting a first offer is usually incredibly simple and easy. That being said, please realize that there are exceptions to the above, and there are lawyers who work hard and do the best they can for their clients even with a contigency fee, also realize that not all P.I. lawyers bill that way, there is no requirement for them to do so, but the vast majority do. Lastly, realize there is no perfect system of billing, where contingency, hourly, or flat rate for a specific task. Under each of these there are people who will be happy and those that will be unhappy. There is no perfect system that I am aware of, unfortunately. So, research the attorney, asks lots of questions, ask for recommendations from friends and family and hopefully the method of compensation won't be an issue at all.
