"Hi, my name is John. Can you please call me back at number xxx"?
When the lawyer gets this message, he has no idea who John is, and what he wants. Is John a telemarketer? - The chances of a lawyer returning that call would be much higher if John said 'Hi. My name is John, I have issue x and I need help y. Please call me back at number z."
Quick reminder to everyone:
Saying that you were clearly discriminated or retaliated against doesn't advance that argument. In fact, lawyers and judges often assume that "clearly" is a filler word when there is no actual evidence to prove that allegation.
Similarly, saying "I was black / old / gay / disabled, and I was terminated due to one of those characteristics" because "what else could it be?" isn't evidence either. We all belong to some protected class, but that fact alone doesn't prove that we were mistreated because of belonging to that class. Otherwise, there would be an absurd situation where anyone can make a discrimination case.
When it comes to discrimination and wrongful termination cases, there is simply no way to know in advance whether any case will be "slam dunk." Even if you think you have all the evidence in the world to prove your case, including any type of "smoking gun", this doesn't mean that the employer will not be fighting your case tooth and nail, however unproductive this might look to you. The employer may choose to do this for all kinds of reasons, including setting a precedent that they fight every case, and also just delaying settling and paying out for their own financial reasons.
Having the most compelling evidence on your side doesn't mean that the employer isn't going to come up with every defense possible to put a different spin on your case.
Does the employer ever admit fault, and then asks the aggrieved employee for what they want, and then simply gives it to them right after the claim is filed? Not very often, to put it mildly.
No matter how strong you think your case is, you should not be referring to it as "slam dunk" in your initial conversation with EEOC investigator or any attorney. Most lawyers perceive it as a red flag from a client who either has unrealistic expectations regarding the outcome of the case, and who understimates the amount of work just about any employment case takes to win or settle.
Edit: sorry for mispelling the title of this post in a funny way.
In most employment cases, contingency representation is much preferred for several compelling reasons. The first obvious reason is that you will not be facing with unpredictable legal fees while having no guarantee of winning your case or settling your case. Also, if an attorney is willing to take your case on contingency, it's one sign that they believe your case is worth pursuing and that's why they are taking this contingency risk themselves.
Sadly, I have heard too many stories about attorneys picking up weak or even meritless cases to just take advantage of the hourly arrangement where they knew they could, run the meter and then drop the case months later or lose it on a motion to dismiss, which they probably knew they were going to lose all along. A contingency arrangement avoids this type of situation.
There is at least one notable exception where hourly arrangement may be in your best interest.
You can afford paying for hourly representation, and there is an indication that your employer is willing to settle early and for a significant amount, and you just need to give them that final push to get the matter resolved - perhaps at a pre-filing mediation or some other informal settlement effort. In this case, an hourly arrangement can be much more cost effective.
As an example- let's say you have an early mediation coming up and you have an indication that an employer is going to pay some respectable amount of money based on the facts of the case, your high rate of pay while working there, etc. In this case, you are probably better off paying an attorney for 10-15 hours of their work preparing for and attending mediation than paying 25% -30% contingency of that potentially large amount.
A hybrid arrangement is also a useful option in some situations (reduced contingency % fee + reduced hourly rate).
Unlikely in personal injury cases—especially straightforward car accidents—liability is usually not in dispute, and it's clear whose fault that collision was.
Employment and wrongful termination cases are fundamentally different. In these cases, liability is almost never a given. Instead, it is the central battleground. Employers and employees nearly always present competing narratives about what happened and why. An employee may believe they were terminated due to discrimination, retaliation, or another unlawful motive. The employer, on the other hand, will typically point to legitimate, lawful reasons — performance issues, misconduct, attitude, or even a restructuring and changes in business needs.
Direct evidence of unlawful intent required to prove a case —like an explicit admission of discrimination—is rare. More often, cases are built on circumstantial evidence: timing, inconsistencies in the employer’s explanation, comparator employees, patterns of conduct, witness statements, and credibility issues. This means that deciding whether to pursue a case means taking a hard look at the available evidence and realistically weighing your chances against the employer’s likely defenses. That's where your attorney with his experience of what it takes to prove a case and what makes a case a winner vs a loser comes in.
Do you have enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury that your version of events is more likely true than not? If your case feels like a coin flip—or worse—it may not be worth the time, cost, and emotional toll of litigation. But if you and your attorney believe your chances are at least 50/50 or better, and ideally stronger, then the case may be worth pursuing, especially if you do have "juicy" i.e. damning evidence againts the employer, and especially if you were a higher compensated employee who worked for that employer for a considerable period of time.
Hello, everyone.
Here is a quick guide on avoiding common mistakes when looking for a lawyer and working with a lawyer on your employment / wrongful termination case which I hope you find useful.