A dialogue with our readers

I don’t have any consumer problems, I just read this blog as an educational measure. I’m interested in protecting myself from credit card companies, landlords, identity theft and other potential problems. I think it’s important to be aware of the shady ways many “legitimate” companies do business.

Foreclosure is the latest real estate issue in our market which may be why St. Paul’s proposed registered vacant building ordinance change has really caught my eye. How can it be legal for the city to prevent transfer of title until a condemned house is brought up to code? How can they also bulldoze someone else’s home away if it’s abandoned? Supposedly they are razing close to 20 homes a month now.

Finally, it came to my attention recently that the city, or its extended agents like the water department, think they have the right to remove a home’s window air conditioner, enter the premises, remove a propane heater from the home, and then tag the home as condemned after their illegal entry. The water in the home had been off for years but the exterior of the home was being maintained and it was properly secured according to city ordinance. St. Paul has placed their inspections department under the fire department which supposedly gives them more right to enter, etc., because of “public” safety. Regardless of the condition of the home (garbage house), I find it disconcerting to know the city has the right to break into any home (mine could be next) just because they think they have an excuse. It feels like my rights to privacy and personal property are slowly being eroded away by increased government power.

As regards your question about why people won’t talk to an attorney, I think it is because many people are afraid to interact with an attorney for any reason short of a major issue, because they fear that the attorney will be the one to rip them off - either by charging them far more than they can afford for minimal work done (such as charging several hundred dollars to essentially print out forms or letters stored in a computer database) or by taking a disproportionate amount of any settlement they might receive. Just about everyone has had, or knows someone who has had a bad experience with a lawyer (particularly true with the divorce rate these days). Consumers will sometimes turn to the state Attorney General’s office because that least they know that public agency isn’t going to rip them off or take advantage of them, but they have no similar guarantees when it comes to private attorneys.

Now, if you are talking about attorneys doing pro-bono work on behalf of consumers, there’s an even simpler answer: People either don’t know they exist or where to find them, or the have the conception (sometimes right, sometimes not) that they wouldn’t “qualify” for help. Sometimes this is also based on past experience. Fo example in a (thankfully long past) marriage I was physically and mentally abused by my past wife, and had no money because all the income coming into the house was hers and she made it clear that’s how she liked it. So I could not hire a lawyer, and when I tried to find out where a man might find help for physical abuse, I was basically laughed at - the few local agencies felt that their job was to protect abused women, and that it was either not possible for a man to be physically abused, or not worth their time to even talk to me for 15 minutes. So I lived in pretty much a state of near terror until my ex-wife had an affair, then decided to dump me and remarry. But I will never forget the way the “legal aid” types chuckled when I called, as if it was totally ridiculous that a man should be seeking their services, and I would probably never try to seek consumer help from any such agency for fear they would consider my complaint too trivial and find great amusement in that, or something to that effect.

Thank you for your comments so far. J, you may be right about people’s experiences. Unfortunately, the attorney general rarely has the ability to help individuals, and pro bono attorneys rarely have the time.

That is why most consumer attorneys take cases on full contingency. In other words, the client pays nothing unless the attorney settles or wins the case.

I think you are probably right that many clients believe their cases are too trivial. This is also unfortunate, because from what I see on ripoffreport.com, bbb.com, and other websites, many people who never call an attorney could be entitled to many thousands of dollars if they did hire a consumer lawyer.

I would echo Sam’s comments about contacting a consumer attorney (from NACA) when you have a problem. These attorney’s generally work on a contingency so they won’t take a case unless they think they can recover. I also think the problem of people not believing that their problem is significant enough is a problem that have to be over come. The best scams are the ones that rip off a lot of people for a small amount because those they are less likely to be pursued.

I also want to thank you for telling us what your interested in, we will try to add some more tips on protecting yourself.

I must agree with J on this, usually if I have an issue with some corporation I don’t contact an attorney because of the anticipated costs of about $100-$150 an hour. Throw in that usually you are just looking at getting a few questions answered for a total of about 5 minutes work, and it doesn’t seem like it would be a good way to spend the movey.

[...] by Sam Glover on March 13, 2008 | Permalink In response to Nick’s post in which he asked why people do not call a lawyer, several responded that the cost of hiring an attorney was [...]

If there was something to add to the site I’d say more ‘how to’ guides. Theory and news is all very well and sometimes enlightening but in the end it would be nice to have an easily searched, well documented set of ‘how do I deal with this consumer problem’ guides.