Quick question about retainer agreements/amounts

That doesn't sound familiar at all.

Justan--

How do you define "retainer"?

I would assume it's the agreement that an attorney makes with a client that assures they will be represented by that particular attorney.

I'm still drawing a blank on it.

The retainer amount is to be negotiated by an attorney and his client and is never a set amount.

It's possible that there are a few concepts being jumbled together and confused.

A retainer agreement is, like CJ said, a personal matter between attorney and client. A state may offer guidelines and perhaps suggested prices but anything more invasive than that would have every lawyer crying foul. Also, consider that, if that were the law, then indigents would not be able to instigate civil cases. This would be a Constitutional issue and such a provision would be struck down, most likely by a 9-0 Supreme Court with nary a slip opinion.

Threshold in civil cases does not (at least not in NY and Mass.) refer to retainer agreements. Rather, in the case of personal injury (automotive) matters, in no-fault insurance states, it refers to a no-fault requirement whereby a plaintiff cannot sue and must accept only insurance if he does not get a serious enough injury. In NY, the rules are pretty complicated but a fracture is enough to tip an injury into the serious column, even if it's just a broken toe. There is also a monetary threshold, for medical bills of at least a certain amount in case the injury is not serious enough, but lawmakers are mindful of the fact that there are a lot of unscrupulous folks out there who will go to expensive doctors and undergo scarcely necessary treatments so as to meet the monetary amount. I can't recall what it is in NY but I do know it's at least $1,000.

Another possibility is that the $300 refers to a monetary requirement for jurisdiction in Superior Court, as opposed to Small Claims. This would be the case regardless of type of matter, e. g. no-fault would not be at issue to determine jurisdiction, although, of course, it would still potentially be at issue for other reasons, but not for jurisdictional ones.

Hence it might be a matter where the threshold refers to a certain amount of treatment for an injury so as to go above a no-fault threshold. Or, it could be a jurisdictional threshold for a particular court.

Do you have any other information that might be of help in understanding this matter, such as the state and/or the nature of the civil claim?

Thanks jespah!

I don't have more information, as it was just a passing conversation and the topic piqued my interest. But you did clear up a few things for me. I appreciate your

No prob.