> The guy only got $4K. Retaining a lawyer for just that amount wouldn't be worth it, would it? I have no clue how small claims works and how likely it is to have attorney fees be included if you win like you mentioned. The guy had to fly back to Boston again for the second time around. He'd also likely have spent some money in Boston like getting around. None of that was included in the final amount either. I'm not sure if a lawyer or someone more in the know how of how small claims/courts work would have been able to get it. And even if you can, how easy is it to get it.

It can be worth it, especially if - as OP mentioned - part of his goal was to prove his case to Uber, not so much to specifically recover the money. He didn't necessarily need an incredible A++ 10/10 lawyer, just somebody decent who could devote a couple hours to advising him and act as a go-between for settlement negotiations.

Having a lawyer levels you up in the eyes of court systems and corporations both. Is it perfectly worth it? Not necessarily. Is it very good advice for people considering any kind of legal action? I think so.

I agree that representation would be better, but in reality, a D- 4/10 lawyer would still be too expensive to be worth it here.

A lawyer could probably get him the:

-compensation for valuables in the bag

-compensation for software/files/etc

-compensation for time wasted

-compensation for di-stress caused

-compensation for tickets & hotel (if I get this right, the "victim" had to fly in for the court)

The Uber may had to cough-up 6-8-10k, the lawyer would get 2-4k for 2 hours worth of work and all would be happy

Unfortunately, there is a limit to the damages that can be claimed in small claims court. It differs from state to state. In Massachusetts, it is $7000 (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-ho...) .

He could go to regular court to claim a larger amount, but that's a more involved and lengthy process.

If you hire a lawyer, your going to regular court. As far as I know, most states if not all, don't allow attorneys in small claims.

For representation, no. But no small claims court would prohibit the plaintiff to take an advice from a lawyer - i.e. what documents to get, what to say, how to behave, how to formulate one's claims correctly etc. It may help, though not always worth it.

As I've mentioned in other replies on this chain, that's not true. Most states allow attorneys, and Massachusetts definitely does. It's just not usually considered necessary.

In California, it (being represented by a lawyer in small claims court) is explicitly not allowed. I guess each state is different.

Small claim process is really simple - you fill out the form, where you can detail your claims, supply the documentation and then present it to the judge. You can have a lawyer advising you, but not represent you, and you can include the expenses into the full sum of the claim, but there are limits on how much you can get - $10K in California right now - and you are not guaranteed to be awarded the full sum. Given the outcome - $4k payment - I'd say not retaining the lawyer was the right thing to do. Maybe talking to the lawyer for an hour or so to get advice may be better, but I kinda doubt it would have resulted in substantially more payoff. Or maybe a letter from a lawyer on official letterhead (that is usually not very expensive) may have made the process a bit faster as Uber would realize the plaintiff is not going to be scared off easily.

Can you adjust the amount? First he undervalued the backpack content. Then he had to trave back a second time because Uber lied to the police. If he can't adjust the amount, that's pretty lame and what I was wondering.