Assaulted and Drugged by Casino Security

[aardvarc]

I've tried contacting many lawyers in pittsburgh and they all represent the casino...

That's their way of telling you they're not interested in taking your case, and don't want to have to explain why. Much easier to chalk it up to a conflict of interest, get you out of their officers, and on to cases they can actually win (and get paid for). Casinos typically have attorneys on STAFF, they don't NEED to go out to the local community attorneys for representation.

[popeye33]

I see, so basically I have no case because attorneys typically do not file lawsuits with casinos over issues like this because they are not likely to win. Which allows casino security to get away with assault and using excessive force. This is what I initially suspected and partially the reason why I've waited a year to pursue this.

Thanks

[Mr. Knowitall]

Either your story is true or it is not. If it is true, everything is on video and your lawyer would have an easy case.

You only need to whine about "attorneys typically do not file lawsuits with casinos over issues like this because they are not likely to win" if you aren't telling the truth.

[aardvarc]

Correct. Despite popular movies to the contrary, attorneys work in order to collect fees - either dollars by the hour from the client, or a percentage of winnings of the case, or both. Those who can afford to pay an attorney a hefty retainer up front, and keep the money for the fees flowing, can have armies of attorneys working on their behalf even for cases where there is little chance of winning. If the client is willing to pay for the attorney to fight, the attorney fights. If the client looses, it doesn't really hurt the attorney (unless they do this too often in which case their reputation can suffer, costing them new clients). But for personal injury cases in particular, clients are suing one or more defendants for damages, and expecting the attorney to take a portion of the winnings. In these cases, when the attorney doesn't feel the case can be won, they have no interest in taking on such a case, and spending their time and money on it - whether it's against a casino, or an uninsured driver, or any number of other potential defendants against whom they either can't reasonably bring a good fight to the table, or who, even if the argument is won, can't or won't pay any judgment the attorney might win for the client.

[popeye33]

@Mr. knowitall: I understand how you can be skeptical; however, I assure you my story is true... Hopefully you are right about my case being easy to prove...

@aardvarc: Thank you for your explanation, this is kind of how I figured things worked.

So to sum everything up, I should try to find a lawyer that practices in pa that is willing to fight "pro bono". If I can't find a confident lawyer this route, then I need to pay a willing attorney a retainer fee and legal fees.

Does anyone know of time constraints for such a lawsuit in PA? Specifically, what sort of lawyer should I seek and by what means? Calling up a number of lawyers in the yellow pages while being distressed about the whole ordeal from the PA psych ward's payphone probably didn't help my chances of finding a lawyer.

Now that some time has passed and I'm not as traumatized, I'm willing to handle this the appropriate way. I even have some financial supporters to help me if need be.

Thanks

[LawResearcherMissy]

So to sum everything up, I should try to find a lawyer that practices in pa that is willing to fight "pro bono".

That's not going to happen. Attorneys who work pro bono are typically working for indigent clients to help keep them out of jail, or to help them deal with divorce, custody, or other legal matters. You don't appear to be indigent - people who are indigent don't have money to waste being "class act" poker players.

What you're looking for is someone who would take it on contingency. If the attorneys you already spoke to shooed you out of their offices with a line about conflict of interests, you aren't going to find an attorney willing to work on contingency, either. Those attorneys either felt you had no case at all, or that it was so weak as to not stand a chance in court.

If I can't find a confident lawyer this route I need to pay a willing attorney a retainer fee and legal fees.

How much are you willing to spend? That's going to be the deciding factor.

[popeye33]

If attorneys, who have experience with cases, are not confident that my case stands a chance then why should I spend a penny? Also. i did not go in anyones office.. I looked up some lawyers I found in the yellow pages and called them etc.

Thanks

[LawResearcherMissy]

If attorneys, who have experience with cases, are not confident that my case stands a chance then why should I spend a penny?

Are you implying that the attorneys should work for free?

That's not how it works. When you avail yourself of someone's services, you pay for it. Wave enough money at enough attorneys, and some shark will be bound to bite eventually.

How committed are you to filing suit? If you're super committed, you're going to have to put out money up front unless you can convince an attorney to take it on contingency. As already noted, that's incredibly unlikely to happen.

[popeye33]

I am super committed to filing a suit and will remain persistent. I am trying to say based on the decision of a lawyer to not want to fight my case on contingency, why would I not trust their judgement and decide to fork over money to a shark attorney that would eagerly take my money just for financial sake. In no way do I expect a lawyer to work for free; however, I'm not necessarily trying to throw money away.

[LawResearcherMissy]

Well, then, good luck.