MGoLaw question - Anderson settlement

True, but you are generally responsible for costs even if it is on contingency, though they may be deferred or waived.

You're right -- my apologies.  Sorry for what you went through and I hope you obtain good representation and are treated fairly.  As sad as it is to say, it certainly seems like people at the university were or should have been on notice of what Anderson was doing. 

It seems like from your top post you are talking to one attorney. I highly recommend speaking to multiple attorneys before deciding who to retain. 

Ultimately, choosing an attorney is sort of like choosing a doctor: a layperson has little-to-no ability to evaluate them, beyond tossing out the most obviously bad attorneys. 

The tools you might use to choose an attorney on your own, unfortunately, aren't worth much. Yelp, etc, reviews are obviously not representative and people are often unhappy with outstanding representation if they feel the $ on the table is insufficient, even if they got an amazing settlement. (Reviews are outcome-based, not process-based, from what I have seen.) Attorney rating websites are hit-and-miss at best, and rumors of improprieties abound. They are also often simply incomplete: the fact that someone isn't AV on Martindale Hubbell, to me, isn't a sign of much one way or the other. Similarly, good firms have bad lawyers and (though much less often) bad firms have good lawyers. In the plaintiffs' world, quality and volume of advertising has no relationship to the quality of the firm: just because they're on TV or have billboards doesn't mean they're a bad  (or good!) firm. Finally, your local bar association's referral service (if it is anything like mine) will simply connect you to a firm that has told the bar association it is interested in your kind of case--not a reflection of quality. 

Instead, you should check their experience:

1.) Do they have >5 years of experience with this kind of work in SE MI? (Suing large institutions, suing for abuse, etc?) Practical experience is key; knowing how local judges rule, how defense counsel is likely to act, etc, is just as valuable as broader experience.

2.) Does that kind of work occupy at least 33% of their time? (This is to see how specialized they are.)

I would not hire an attorney who did not match either of these qualifications. Note that at many plaintiff firms there is a partner who is on TV, has their name on the firm, probably will be meeting with you, etc -- but there is an associate who is doing the vast majority of the work on your case. You want to ask these questions about the associate(s) handling your case.

After that, it is about trust and compatibility. Will you feel okay having hired this person? You will have to take them at their word on their valuation of your claim (this is a big part of why you should shop around: if someone gives you a wildly off-consensus valuation, think twice about them), if a particular settlement offer is good/bad, your negotiating strategy, etc. Choosing someone you trust who you think will care about your case and you as a human being will substantially improve your experience. (Contingency agreements greatly help to reduce the conflict of interest between you and your attorney.) 

The attitude of your attorney is also important. Some attorneys are very touchy-feely, others are not. Which do you want? Do you want someone who wants your input on everything or do you want someone who makes all the decisions and tells you how it's going to go? Do you want someone who will resolve this quickly, completely, quietly, and with minimal fuss? Do you want a bulldog who will get you the absolute biggest check possible, even if it takes time and gets ugly? Do you want something else from M (an apology? official recognition? paid-for counseling? a new program to protect M athletes? something else altogether?) in addition to or in lieu of cash? Some attorneys are very much into crafting "bespoke" dispute resolutions, others are not. A mismatch in attitudes often ends poorly. 

Finally, some percent of lawyers are just assholes. Don't hire an asshole. Being an asshole does not make you a better litigator. If they treat you like shit, it's not a good sign.

Your best bet, in all honesty, is consulting a lawyer friend and asking them to get some recommendations for you. Note that if your buddy is a tax / corporate / regulatory lawyer, it's likely they won't know anyone particularly involved in plaintiffs' work, but it never hurts to ask and they would be the most likely person to be connected with someone who could give good recommendations. If you don't have one, ask friends to ask their friends. 

Best of luck to you.

Will echo that many lawyers suck and you shouldn't hire someone who treats you like dogshit.

@OW: are you generally plaintiff-side or is this specific work your joint? thoughts on these 20-year actions? I have to imagine that the problems with statutes of limitations are substantial-to-insurmountable, are they? (let alone discovery, depos, etc -- the complexities of vicarious liability litigation when the employee is dead seem substantial)