有没有人遇到过所有律师都不愿接案子

多金的大白鹅 发表于 2026-8-27 03:23
案子性价比不高的话是可能会碰到的。我病友找人打medical malpractice官司也很不容易，问了一圈就找到一家 ...

就是跟医疗沾边的。所以律师都不愿意接。你看澳洲那个撞人的中国女的，是不是因为给钱律师多，所以律师才愿意接的呢？

smallmikko 发表于 2026-8-27 17:52
让他们问问律师, 如果只要求代表他们去谈赔偿然后分成会不会更愿意接
赌的是对方看到你真的有律师代表就 ...

也请你给我出出主意吧。对方是安保人员太猖狂了，各种撒谎伪造证据

smallmikko 发表于 2026-8-27 17:51
谈分成的案子律师都要看赢面和利润的, 要不你改口说自己花钱按小时付费, 他们一定接

就是没有钱啊

谷歌用户 发表于 2026-08-28 04:50:23
就是没有钱啊

可以自己告然后用分配的免费律师吧，看过better call Saul的都懂

谷歌用户 发表于 2026-8-28 04:50
也请你给我出出主意吧。对方是安保人员太猖狂了，各种撒谎伪造证据

我不是律师, 只是碰到过类似的问题, 结果就是找到一个愿意帮忙的律师, 代表我们去谈判, 按比例分成. 律师要做的就是以我们代表的身份去发起谈判的对话而已
大部分律所一看金额那么小, 加上胜算未知, 都不接

nick.gr.2019 发表于 2026-8-28 13:53
可以自己告然后用分配的免费律师吧，看过better call Saul的都懂

谢谢你。还有什么办法。对方也有可能是故意往医疗上凑/沾边，所以律师见了都不想碰。

nick.gr.2019 发表于 2026-8-28 04:53
可以自己告然后用分配的免费律师吧，看过better call Saul的都懂

自己告文件没写明白法院都不一定受理, 不过可以考虑用AI tool试试吧

你要把心态调稳了再来处理这事，律师是一帮最没有什么道德和世界观的只认钱的货，你钱给到位，他们什么都能卖。这事就是他们觉得不挣钱，所以不接，不信你上来先拍下一万刀，买下他们几个小时的consultant时间，你看他们见不见你

smallmikko 发表于 2026-8-28 19:11
自己告文件没写明白法院都不一定受理, 不过可以考虑用AI tool试试吧

就是用了AI tools了。一直都在让AI帮助我给我参考意见，帮我整理内容。

smallmikko 发表于 2026-8-28 18:49
我不是律师, 只是碰到过类似的问题, 结果就是找到一个愿意帮忙的律师, 代表我们去谈判, 按比例分成. 律师 ...

拜托帮看一下：（我用Alice来代替我的名字）
On July 13, 2026, Alice filed a document captioned “Objections to the Record and
Requests to Supplement” in the matter of his/her pending appeal before the YYY Board of Regents.
The XXX filed a response on July 28, arguing that Alice’s requests
should be denied as each item is argumentative, irrelevant or immaterial to the final outcome, or
both. For the reasons stated below, Alice’s objections and requests to supplement are denied.
Regent Policy Manual
When considering an appeal filed in accordance with Regent Policy Manual (RPM) Chapter 1.7,
the Board does not customarily sit in the receipt of evidence. Rather, the Board’s review is based
on the record, written briefs, and oral argument (if granted). The record submitted on appeal to
the Board is that which was developed through each level of institutional review, and includes
those items listed in RPM section 1.7.3.C.
Board policy permits parties to file objections or requests to supplement the record. RPM section
1.7.3.F. The purpose of this provision is to assure that the record submitted to the Board
. Χaccurately reflects the institutional proceedings below and contains all information required in
RPM section 1.7.3.C. The record typically will not be supplemented with evidence that was
available but not considered at any stage of institutional review. Additionally, evidence that was
properly considered by an institutional decision-maker will not be excluded from the Record on
appeal merely because one party disputes the probative value or credibility of the evidence.
Ruling on Objections to the Record
Alice filed a list of items labeled as objections to the record. Alice does not argue the documents
should not be part of the official record because they were improperly included at the institutional
stage. Rather, she “objects” to the information within the documents. Alice’s objections to the
record are purely argumentative and improperly raised at this stage of the appeal and are
therefore denied.
Ruling on Request to Supplement
Docusign Envelope ID: 0483732D-FE63-84BC-8030-3D5BC832F8E9Alice further requests that the appeal record be supplemented with additional argument, clarifying
context, statements of fact and purported records that speak to her character or intent during the
period of time that is the subject of the disciplinary action. A party requesting to present additional
evidence on appeal to the Board must generally establish “that the evidence is material, that good
cause existed for the failure to present the evidence at the hearing, and that the party has not
waived the right to present the evidence.” IAC 681-20.27(4)1. Evidence is considered material if
it is “reasonably capable of influencing an agency’s decision.” Humboldt Community Schools v.
Fleming, 603 N.W.2d 759, 765 (YYY 1999) (citation omitted). A party may fail to establish good
cause where evidence is available to the party prior to hearing but is not presented during the
hearing. See e.g. … … Leasing, Inc. v. YYY Dept. of Revenue, 274 N.W.2d 357, 362
(YYY 1979); Hollensbe v. YYY Dept. of Job Service, 418 N.W.2d 77, 80 (YYY App. 1987).
Several of Alice’s requests to supplement are argumentative and denied as untimely given this
stage of the appeal. For any remaining requests to supplement the record, Alice has failed to
demonstrate that the evidence is newly discovered or that good cause exists for her failure to
present it during any stage of institutional review. Alice has further failed to demonstrate that any
of the requests to supplement are material to the final institutional decision and disciplinary action.
Briefing Schedule
Written Briefs. The deadline for filing written briefs in the matter is hereby extended. Alice’s written
brief shall be filed on or before Thursday, September 3, with a copy of the same provided to the
XXX. The XXX shall have twenty (20) days following receipt of Alice’s brief to file a
written response.