Georgia Lord

678-271-0305

Frank Talk About Fees

During the years she worked inside a family court Georgia Lord frequently witnessed cases in which litigants spent far more than they could afford on their attorney fees. Often clients would run out of funds part way through the litigation and end up without any counsel during some of the most critical stages of the process.

Georgia bills for the time she spends on her clients’ cases, but also helps her clients be prudent about what they spend:

  • She helps her clients make an early and realistic assessment of how much various portions of the process may cost so that they can decide whether they can afford her fees for the full course of the litigation.
  • She tells her clients ways that they can get the most value from the funds they spend.
  • She helps clients assess whether a particular course of action is likely to yield sufficient benefit to justify the costs involved.

Georgia’s extensive litigation experience includes many cases in which she handled claims against large institutions represented by groups of experienced counsel from sizable or well-established law firms.

In the case of A.M. Alexander v. Fulton County, Georgia Lord and one other attorney represented eighteen individuals who brought employment discrimination claims against their employer. Trial lasted six weeks and other parts of the litigation were extensive as well. The employer not only used expensive trial consultants but also four attorneys and two paralegals, half of whom were from a premiere Atlanta law firm. Even though the employer’s legal team was much larger and far better funded, the jury entered verdicts in favor of all eighteen of Georgia’s clients on some their claims and awarded them a total of more than $800,000.00.

Such experience litigating against well-funded, amply represented institutions has caused Georgia to become both efficient and creative in her litigation.

“I am friendly and cooperative with opposing counsel and parties when possible, but fiercely protective of clients when necessary. It is far more cost effective to save aggressive tactics for the times when they are truly needed, rather than just fighting for the sake of fighting all the time.”