How to Select a Divorce Lawyer

Written by Scott Morgan

Continued from page 1


When you make your initial appointment withrepparttar divorce attorney, you should inquire about a consultation fee. Some lawyers do brief initial consultations for free, although most experienced divorce lawyers will charge between $100.00 and $200.00 as a consultation fee, or will charge their normal hourly rate.

For example, I charge a flat $100.00 consultation fee with no additional hourly charges, regardless ofrepparttar 119240 length ofrepparttar 119241 meeting. Essentially,repparttar 119242 consultation fee is to "weed out" those people who are not serious aboutrepparttar 119243 possibility of hiring me. Given that my normal hourly rate is $200.00/hour andrepparttar 119244 usual typical consultation takes about 90 minutes,repparttar 119245 charge for my consultation is significantly discounted. Therefore, you shouldn't let a consultation fee scare you away from interviewing a particular lawyer.

Duringrepparttar 119246 consultation it is vitally important that you have a candid discussion withrepparttar 119247 prospective divorce lawyer about fees and what you can expect. Typically, an experienced divorce lawyer will requirerepparttar 119248 payment of a substantial retainer up front, against which that lawyer's hourly rate and expenses will be charged. You should find out what that lawyer's hourly rate is, whatrepparttar 119249 up front retainer will be, whether any portion ofrepparttar 119250 retainer is refundable if it is not exhausted, and how often you can expect to receive invoices that detail their hourly charges and expenses. You also will want to know how detailedrepparttar 119251 invoices are. Once again, this is another area where you can get excellent information from those people who have been clients of that divorce lawyer.


While allrepparttar 119252 above issues are important, there is one final question you should ask yourself before hiring a divorce lawyer. Are you comfortable with that lawyer and are you confident in his or her abilities? Ifrepparttar 119253 answer is anything other than a resounding "yes," you should keep looking. Your case is too important to entrust to someone who does not inspire your confidence.

Scott Morgan is a Houston attorney who practices exclusively in the field of divorce and family law. He has practiced family law in Texas since 1994. For more information see his website:

Timeline of Merck's failure to act on removing Vioxx from the market

Written by Michael Monheit, Esquire, Monheit Law, PC

Continued from page 1
2001: "Dr. Deepak L. Bhatt, a cardiologist atrepparttar Cleveland Clinic, proposed to Merck a study of Vioxx in patients with severe chest pain. Merck declined, sayingrepparttar 119239 patients proposed forrepparttar 119240 study did not reflect typical Vioxx users." September 2001: FDA sent Merck a warning letter stating that Merck's promotional campaign for Vioxx "minimizesrepparttar 119241 potentially serious cardiovascular findings" in Vigor. Septmeber 2001: Merck required byrepparttar 119242 FDA to send letters to physicians acrossrepparttar 119243 country "to correct false or misleading impressions and information." 2001: Merck achieves $2.5 billion dollars of sales of Vioxx. 2001: Study critical of Vioxx appears in The Journal ofrepparttar 119244 American Medical Association. Data from several clinical trials of Vioxx showed that Vioxx may increaserepparttar 119245 risk of heart attack and stroke, and thatrepparttar 119246 danger from Vioxx appeared higher than other Cox-2 drugs. October 2002: Study by an epidemiologist at Vanderbilt University, found that high doses of Vioxx caused significantly more heart attacks and strokes than similar patients who were not taking high doses. 2002: Elucida Research examined Vioxx and found that Vioxx damagedrepparttar 119247 lipids and caused an increase in blood clots. Late 2002: Merck faces initial lawsuits from individuals suffering from strokes and heart attacks April 2004: Harvard Medical School found that Vioxx raisedrepparttar 119248 risk of heart attacks relative to Celebrex. June 2004: Researcher showed that Vioxx increasedrepparttar 119249 risk of hypertension. August 2004: Epidemiological study F.D.A. researcher based on Kaiser Permanente health care system data showed an increase cardiovascular risk for Vioxx. Study showed increasedrepparttar 119250 risk of heart disease 3.7 times Septmeber 2004: Merck withdraws Vioxx fromrepparttar 119251 market. October 2004: Thousands of people come forward with claims that their heart attacks and strokes had been caused by Merck's Vioxx. October 2004: "Dr. David Graham, estimates Vioxx had been associated with more than 27,000 heart attacks or deaths linked to cardiac problems." November 2004: SEC announces an investigation into Merck's misrepresentations to its investors. November 2004: Congress announces hearings into Merck's failures andrepparttar 119252 failures ofrepparttar 119253 FDA to regulate Merck. November 2004: The Justice Department launches investigations into what Merck knew and whether there was corporate/criminal malfeasance. Merck now claims that it took "prompt and decisive action" once it knew Vioxx was dangerous.

This original of this article can be found at: Monheit Law

Michael Monheit, Esquire is the managing attorney for Monheit Law, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monheit Law, P.C. concentrates its practice in the field of plaintiff personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis. They can be found at Monheit Law - Vioxx lawyer

    <Back to Page 1 © 2005
Terms of Use