George Hopkins Charged with two Counts Sexual Assault

[JimF-LowBari]

20 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

  Although one can argue how much they should get paid, I don't have problems with the basic concept.  Lawyers have bills to pay too, as well as needing to put groceries on the table. And if the accused is destitute, the State will pick up the tab.

If an accused individual doesn't want to pay counsel (vs is unable to pay), then they do have the right to represent themselves (although it usually doesn't end well). 

Guy had his own business so wasn’t destitute. But he fed 5 people with that business and it badly cut into the family budget. His complaint which I agree with, is he had to be in court even if he wasn’t appealing anything. And his lawyer had to be there too so he was paying hourly and neither him or the lawyer spoke (many times). That was the ka-Ching and even the state thought it got out of hand as the two big fish appealed every other week or so before trial. State was the one who suggested a plea deal of probation before the small fry went broke.

not complaint about what the lawyer charged just the number of times he had to use the lawyer for no reason except to hear the big guys appeal

Edited December 4, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[IllianaLancerContra]

1 minute ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Guy had his own business so wasn’t destitute. But he fed 5 people with that business and it badly cut into the family budget. His complaint which I agree with, is he had to be in court even if he wasn’t appealing anything. And his lawyer had to be there too so he was paying hourly and neither him or the lawyer spoke (many times). That was the ka-Ching and even the state thought it got out of hand as the two big fish appealed every other week or so before trial. State was the one who suggested a plea deal of probation before the small fry went broke.

Understand - this also took work of the prosecutor's plate as well, so as much of a compromise as one could hope for.

W/r/t the PA vs Hopkins case - I think the key will be how much evidence the State provides at Discovery, as well as what the Judge will allow, and how much the Defendant (GH) wants to dig in his heels (right foot first, of course)

[JimF-LowBari]

12 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Understand - this also took work of the prosecutor's plate as well, so as much of a compromise as one could hope for.

W/r/t the PA vs Hopkins case - I think the key will be how much evidence the State provides at Discovery, as well as what the Judge will allow, and how much the Defendant (GH) wants to dig in his heels (right foot first, of course)

Never got the whole (iow real) story but think the case against the small fry was weak compared to the two the state really wanted to nail. Involved a small time crook setting up the illegal deals (I think). Can see defending lawyers pointing to the weaker cases as a defense. With only 2 being tried with stronger cases it was probably easier to find them guilty (which they were). Some kind of sting involving prescription meds.

as for GH interesting to see how much the state uses. Thinking of Sandusky where some of the accusations were used which were the ones the state thought would get a guilty verdict and long sentence. Less charges and-less amount of information as evidence so less possible confusion for the jury.

Edited December 4, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

 Lawyers have bills to pay too, as well as needing to put groceries on the table. 

You forgot to mention the expensive cars for attorney and spouse, second home, better vacations, possibly private schools for children, club sports teams , WC top 12 corps, and more zeroe’s on the political donation checks.

[MikeD]

43 minutes ago, Ghost said:

You forgot to mention the expensive cars for attorney and spouse, second home, better vacations, possibly private schools for children, club sports teams , WC top 12 corps, and more zeroe’s on the political donation checks.

Oh, you mean the basic necessities.   😎 

[garfield]

I think it's reasonable to expect the judge to give an early indication to the parties that they would be well-served to settle the case before discovery (aka "publication of facts") begins.

[camel lips]

On 12/4/2018 at 8:30 PM, garfield said:

I think it's reasonable to expect the judge to give an early indication to the parties that they would be well-served to settle the case before discovery (aka "publication of facts") begins.

There will be lots of continuations and reschedules on the docket before its over.  

[N.E. Brigand]

On 12/4/2018 at 4:38 PM, IllianaLancerContra said:

Although one can argue how much they should get paid, I don't have problems with the basic concept.  Lawyers have bills to pay too, as well as needing to put groceries on the table. And if the accused is destitute, the State will pick up the tab.

If an accused individual doesn't want to pay counsel (vs is unable to pay), then they do have the right to represent themselves (although it usually doesn't end well). 

In a recent case that got some national publicity, defense attorneys filed an anti-SLAPP motion against a plaintiff whose lawsuit, a defamation claim, was dismissed pretty quickly. (SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation", which is to say: lawsuits meant to shut people up.) That means the defense gets to have the lawyers' fees paid by the defense (plus some further sanctions). The plaintiff gets an opportunity to dispute the figures, though, and in this case, the plaintiff argued that both the hourly rate and the number of hours charged by the defense's attorneys were too high. The judge seems inclined to agree with the latter (It was a relatively easy case that is very unlikely to have required anywhere near 581 hours of work) but felt the hourly rate was entirely reasonable--and many legal observers had previously said it was, if anything, surprisingly low. (In fact, the plaintiff's lawyers normally charge more.)

So how much is on the *low* end for a good lawyer?

In this case, $671 per hour.

[BigW]

22 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

In a recent case that got some national publicity, defense attorneys filed an anti-SLAPP motion against a plaintiff whose lawsuit, a defamation claim, was dismissed pretty quickly. (SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation", which is to say: lawsuits meant to shut people up.) That means the defense gets to have the lawyers' fees paid by the defense (plus some further sanctions). The plaintiff gets an opportunity to dispute the figures, though, and in this case, the plaintiff argued that both the hourly rate and the number of hours charged by the defense's attorneys were too high. The judge seems inclined to agree with the latter (It was a relatively easy case that is very unlikely to have required anywhere near 581 hours of work) but felt the hourly rate was entirely reasonable--and many legal observers had previously said it was, if anything, surprisingly low. (In fact, the plaintiff's lawyers normally charge more.)

So how much is on the *low* end for a good lawyer?

In this case, $671 per hour.

Hmm, I could work 2 hours a week. got into the wrong business.

Edited December 9, 2018 by BigW

[IllianaLancerContra]

58 minutes ago, BigW said:

Hmm, I could work 2 hours a week. got into the wrong business.

Keep in mind that they have to pay their employees, rent on office, etc from their hourly charge.

Yes, the top criminal defense lawyers charge a lot (example - those qualified for death penalty cases), but the vast majority are cheaper.  The real big money is being a corporate attorney