I'm in a weird situation. I need to pay someone for damage I did to their property. We discussed a reasonable amount I need to pay but the person I'm paying wants this under contract. Furthermore, if I hire a lawyer to have it done, he wants me to pay for his lawyer as well. I can't afford two so I was thinking about paying his lawyer to write up the contract. Does that mean he represents both of us? That doesn't seem possible.
The way I imagine it, if I pay for his lawyer, I'm not only paying for him to draft a contract but to do so without needing to represent me. It seems a little humiliating to pay someone to write a contract that benefits someone else at my expense.
Is it legal for me to pay for the other guy's lawyer? Is this normal or should I be embarrassed?
Law student here. Lawyers can represent two clients in the same matter, and often do. This normally does involve both of you signing informed consent about this, including acknowledging that you have or have declined to get independent legal advice. There are some matters where it goes against the profession's code for a lawyer to represent two people in the same matter though, where they won't be able to fulfil their obligations and loyalty to both clients. From what you've said, if the matter is merely drafting up the contract then it should be fine, but it does sound like a bit of a grey area and the lawyer may decline to represent you as well to protect themselves.
>>16833831
The person I'm paying wants me to hire a lawyer for him specifically. He was pretty clear. This is because he wants the contract reviewed in his interest because things got complicated.
>>16833851
You can't hire a lawyer for him, he'd have to approach the lawyer and retain them himself. If he wants you to pay his fees for his lawyer then that's something he's going to have to discuss with his lawyer. Between the two lawyers, they'd draft a contract, but this does seem to be the sort of thing that would be best done by one lawyer, at least practically speaking. The other guy certainly is entitled to independent legal advice once a draft contract is drawn up. If you don't want to pay his lawyer, then that's something you'd have to discuss with your own lawyer. Does that answer your question?
>>16833894
No, lol. I'm more confused. But don't worry about it. I'll figure it out. I think he has a lawyer, he just wants me to pay for him. He's fine with me hiring my own but I have to pay for that myself. He's also happy to have me pay for his lawyer to draft the contract. So his lawyer would represent him, draft the contract, and bill me for the whole thing. Because I can't really afford a lawyer, I'm just paying for his.
>>16833914
Lets start again and see if I can get this straight:
He's represented by a lawyer, you're not
His lawyer is going to draw up the contract
He wants you to pay his legal fees
You can't afford your own lawyer, so you want his lawyer to represent you in the same matter
You want to know
>can a lawyer represent two people in the same matter?
>can you retain his lawyer?
>if you can, will the lawyer's advice to you be compromised because they're also representing the other guy?
Is that right? Is there anything I've missed?
>>16833924
It's all correct up until the part where I want his lawyer to represent me. He specifically wants me to get my own lawyer or have no lawyer at all. So he would have a lawyer, that lawyer would draft the contract, I don't get a lawyer but I pay the bill.
Holy shit, anon, how hard are you gonna let this guy rail you?
"Pay for my lawyer!"
"O-okay..."
The point of getting legal counsel is to MINIMIZE your obligation to pay, so Fuck no, you shouldn't be letting HIS lawyer, whom YOU'RE paying draft the contract. Holy shit.
>>16833932
But technically, it can happen this way and still be legal?
what'd you do, OP
>>16833937
Why in the Fuck would you want it this way?
What property did you damage? Why are you being such a beta?
>>16833939
>>16833940
I needed extra cash and offered to do some work on touching up vehicle paint. I didn't really know what I was doing and I messed up the paint job on a very expensive vehicle, did more damage trying to fix it.
>>16833931
Unfortunately for him, it's not 100% up to him whether or not you have the same lawyer. You have a right to choose your lawyer, and your lawyer has an obligation to accept any client which asks for help, unless the lawyer would be conflicted in his loyalties towards each client. A caveat to this is that if the lawyer does work for both of you, then they will probably need to get informed consent, which the other guy doesn't seem to be willing to give. On the flipside, this might be a situation where it wouldn't make sense to
What I can suggest you do in this situation is to talk to his lawyer first and see what they say about this situation. If the other lawyer is can't or won't work for you, then I would advise you to retain your own lawyer, and get your lawyer to negotiate with his lawyer so that you don't have to pay his lawyer's fees. I don't see why you should have to pay for your own lawyer and his if he's refusing to allow you to have the same lawyer in what seems to be a pretty routine matter.
>>16833932
This is actually a pretty standard way of doing things. However, normally, the other guy isn't so anal about having separate lawyers.
It sounds like you're trying to be a good guy in paying to fix the damage you caused.
However, you can't let yourself get taken advantage of. You're obligated to pay for the repairs. Nothing else. Don't be a cuck.
>>16833955
>On the flipside, this might be a situation where it wouldn't make sense to
Forgot to finish this sentence. What I meant to say is that this might be a situation where it wouldn't make sense to have independent lawyers.
>>16833960
It would cost more to have him represent both of us wouldn't it?
>>16833946
try and talk him out of this contract business it sounds a little extreme
>>16833971
It might cost a little more, but definitely not the price of two lawyers.
>>16833808
it's a grey area, and if your contract ever went under scrutiny, it could be viewed as a conflict of interests on behalf of the lawyer
>>16833988
Lawyers know how to protect themselves in these situations. Lawyers can, and do, often represent two clients in the same matter
>>16833991
are those clients deez nuts?
>We discussed a reasonable amount I need to pay but the person I'm paying wants this under contract.
Lawyer here, and this is probably bad advice but I think this situation calls for you telling this guy to fuck off. Unless the damage you did was really serious or there's some sort of other context to this (like, were you committing a crime?) you don't need to pay for this asshole's power trip just because you accidentally caused some damage. You don't owe him attorney's fees and you almost certainly won't. You don't technically owe him shit unless you're held responsible in a court of law or you agree to pay for it, and there's a cost associated with going through the courts so you are already doing him a favor by agreeing to pay without a fight. And now he wants you to not only do it formally with an attorney (which is utterly unnecessary for a simple IOU), but he wants you to pay for it TWICE? Fuck that. Tell him you've decided you're going to spend that double attorney money and just lawyer up so you won't have to pay a damn cent.
At least that's what I'd tell the fucker. What'd you do, anyways?
>>16833946
>I needed extra cash and offered to do some work on touching up vehicle paint. I didn't really know what I was doing and I messed up the paint job on a very expensive vehicle, did more damage trying to fix it.
Yeah he's just an asshole driving the screws on you. At worst you just owe him the cost of a repaint and whatever damage you did. Did you put yourself out as an expert painter? How come you came to be an amateur car painter working on an expensive car?
