It's Getting Rough Out There

Question:  How many lawyer jokes are there?
Answer:    Three.  The rest are true stories.

The New York Law Journal on August 23, 2012 gives a little bit of credibility to a lot of the jokes we hear about lawyers.  Clients going through the legal system for do, in fact, have a lot of things to justly criticize.  However, without sounding too much like a cheerleader for the profession of law, for the most part attorneys are pretty great people. They get the job done in workman-like manner; are professional and caring people and quite often are intensely involved in community organizations. But there is that handful of jerks out there that make the rest of all attorneys cringe and become frustrated at how just one idiot attorney can wreck the reputation of the entire profession.

So, here's a brief summary of why I SHOULD NOT have picked up the law journal on August 23rd:

First story:  "A Family Court judge who abruptly resigned in April should be prohibited from holding judicial office again in New York after he acknowledged having sexual contact 40 years ago with his 5 year old deaf niece, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended in a determination released yesterday."  It actually is a bizarre story if you get to read it.  Apparently this sexual contact is alleged to have happened in 1972.  The girl is now 45.  Apparently, the mother of the girl is the sister of the Judge's wife.  The mother of the girl was wired by the DA in Onandoga County, (NY) but recorded in Boulder, Colorado where the mother of the 45 year old victim lives. 

Second Story:  "A State Judge who says he was assaulted by a police officer is accusing the Queens district attorney of orchestrating a cover-up after the prosecutor announced yesterday he will not file criminal charges against the officer who allegedly hit the judge and assaulted a homeless man.  'Everything they say is a lie," Queens Supreme Court Justice Thomas Raffaele said...".

Third Story:  "Employment attorney Matthew Bilt has filed a defamation suit against an adversary who claimed in open court that Bilt files frivolous suits against high-profile figures to extract money from them in a 'shakedown'. "

I am glad that I practice law in St. Lawrence County, Franklin County and Clinton County.  The population of jerks per attorneys is, for some reason, quite lower than downstate.  We do, however, have our share, and you know who you are, but for the most part the attorneys that we deal with, by and large, want to get a great job done for their clients and conclude the matter with the least trauma to the client.

Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and honest lawyer, and an old drunk were walking along when they simultaneously spotted a hundred-dollar bill laying in the street. Who gets it?
        The old drunk, of course, the other three are mythological creatures!

See...  I love lawyer jokes.

AND

Pedestrians and Cell Phones

There is little question that texting or speaking on a cell phone while driving a car is a hazard.  But the August 2012 Consumer Reports issue speaks to an issue I had not thought about a lot. 

"In a new survey, Consumer Reports found that 85% of Americans had in the past six months seen someone use a mobile device to talk, text, e-mail, or use apps while walking in public.  Of those who had witnesses such behavior, 52% felt that the pedestrians endangered themselves or others."

The article goes on to say that over 1,500 "nonmotorized people", (I guess there are motorized people...), were hurt nationwide in 2010 while distracted by cell phone usage.

According to researches at Stony Brook University of the SUNY system, cell phone using walkers had "significant reductions in gait velocity and an increase in lateral deviation."  In other words, they walk goofily slow and zigzagged distractedly toward whatever destination.   The Consumer Reports article noted that the SUNY Stony Brook study, "...was announced in January -- a few months before a California man nearly walked and texted his way into the arms of a black bear."

As reported by the Daily Mail:

"TV helicopter crews managed to capture an oblivious phone user walking into the path of a 250kg black bear. The video shows the homeowner calmly walking towards the giant animal, engrossed in his mobile.
However, just feet before he reaches it, he notices the huge bear - and turns and runs in the nick of time.
Residents of La Crescenta, California, were warned to be on the lookout for the bear, which was only finally contained in a back garden hours later. Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies received a call of a bear sighting yesterday, KTLA-TV reported.
La Crescenta station sheriff's deputies and the Glendale Police Department responded, according to sheriff's Sgt Mark Slater.  "We did locate about a 500, 600-pound bear in this immediate area,"Sgt Slater said.
"He's been wandering through the residential area for the last several hours."  "Department of Fish and Game is en route," Mr Slater said.
"They have ultimate responsibility over it. Our role right now is if the bear is docile and just hunkering down, we'll let him continue that until Fish and Game gets here."
A police helicopter has been tracking the bear, which is believed to be the same animal that broke into a garage and pried open a refrigerator to snack on some frozen meatballs last month."

The video, which is a riot, is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bjhjk2hHZU 

Car Accidents and Medical Bills

New York State, many, many years ago, adopted a plan to provide for mandatory medical insurance for people who are occupants of a motor vehicle or pedestrians struck by a motor vehicle.  It is called "No-Fault" Insurance.

The reason it is called "No-Fault" insurance is because, we are told, the fault of the person in causing the accident does not, in most cases, prevent the driver, occupant or pedestrian from having his medical bills paid by the insurance company that insured the vehicle that everyone is riding in.  You don't have to chase down the person who caused the accident and find him and sue him and win a judgement against him.  No-Fault insurance was designed to simplify the process.  If I am in an accident, the car that I was driving or in which I was a passenger, (or if a pedestrian, the car that hit me), must be insured.  Part of the insurance MINIMALLY must provide up to $50,000 coverage to pay, among other things, my medical bills, lost wages, and other necessary and reasonable out of pocket expenses.

However, insurance companies are in business to make money.  It is hard to convey this to a lot of people that insurance companies are in a business to make money because usually you are dealing with a kind person called an insurance agent or an insurance broker.  And the insurance agents and brokers are for the most part very fine and friendly people who are accesible and answer questions the best they can.  But, at the end of the day, they are agents FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY and they are NOT AGENTS FOR YOU.

So, because Insurance Companies, including your own insurance company, is out to make money they have stacked the rules against you -- they really, really have -- so that you have to work and do things in order to get coverage after an accident in order to cover your medical bills and lost wages.  THERE ARE FOUR THINGS THAT YOU MUST, MUST DO WHEN YOU ARE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT IN ORDER TO SECURE THIS "NO-FAULT" COVERAGE.  IF YOU DO NOT DO THESE FOUR THINGS - AND YOU NEED THE COOPERATION OF YOUR MEDICAL CARE PROVIDER -- YOU WILL NOT GET COVERAGE.

Here are the Four Things that you have to do to get insurance coverage.

1.  You must provide written notice of the accident to the insurer within 30 days after the accident.  This form must be asked for from the insurance company or agent for the company that insured the car that you were driving, or in which you were a passenger, or the car that hit you if you are a pedestrian.  If you donot provide this "No-Fault Claim Form" within the 30 days you may be out of luck.

2.  Your doctor, or the hospital, the radiologists -- anyone who bills you for services related to the car accident -- must submit the bill for medical services to the insurer within 45 days after the services are rendered to you.  This is important.  This rule means that you must tell your doctor or medical care provider or the hospital the name and address and claim number, when you get it, for the No Fault Insurance Company.  Even if you have personal insurance, it is better for you, particularly if you are contemplating suing the wrong-doer that caused the accident, to demand that they bill the No-Fault carrier and not your personal insurance company.

3.  From time to time, depending upon the nature of the injury, the No-Fault insurance company can demand that you see a doctor to be examined so that the insurance company can determine if you really are hurt and the extent of the injury.  This is where the insurance companies really screw the injured person.  The insurance companies that we have dealt with for our clients use "stable" doctors who, with the rare exception, know that they will continue to get business from the insurance company for these "insurance company examinations" if they minimize the injured persons injuries.

4.  The injured person AND the medical provider, if requested, must submit to a question and answer session, where your testimony is taken under oath, as the insurer may "reasonably require." 

If you fail to do 1 or 2, above, on a timely basis, the medical care claim will not be paid by the No-Fault Insurance Company.

If you refuse to do 3 or 4, if and when asked, the medical care claim will not be paid by the No-Fault Insurance Company.

If you have any questions, make sure you call us at 1800-924-3529

Inmates vs. Pigs

How did an image of a pig — the infamous ’60s-era epithet by protesters for police officers — wind up on a decal used on as many as 30 Vermont State Police cruisers?

Keith Flynn, Vermont's public safety commissioner had to explain how an alteration of decals which are affixed to the Vermont State Police Cars ended up on thirty Vermont State Police Cars.  There was, it appears, an artistically talented inmate who reshaped a spot on a cow -- an animal featured in the Vermont state seal -- in the shape of a pig.  Versions of the altered decal were placed on as many as 30 state police cruisers.

"It is fair to say the quality control will be improved at the Corrections Department and the Vermont State Police," said the executive officer of the State Police.

If you look at the cow's shoulder there is the pig!

“This is not as offensive as it would have been years ago. We can see the humor,” said Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn, a former state trooper and state prosecutor who was named commissioner a year ago. “If the person had used some of that creativeness [more positively], he or she would not have ended up inside.”

“We used to play in the Pig Bowl,” said Senator Campbell, the Vermont State Senate leader, and former State Police Officer. “It was the state versus the county and municipal police. While it was derogatory in the ’60s, we used it as a fundraisers for charities.”

Good Lawyer/Bad Lawyer

There is a very entertaining blog "The Velvet Hammer".  It is written by a personal injury attorney who practices in Portland, Oregon.  Recently she posted ten reasons why she would prefers to have good lawyers on the other side of the dispute.  Her reasons:

"Here are the top 10 reasons I'd rather try a case against a good defense lawyer:
10.  Don't have to mute normal style and appear almost blase.
9.  Don't have to dumb down technique to avoid seeming too smooth.
8.  Jurors appreciate an evenly matched fight.
7.  Judge gets less exasperated.
6.  Easier to predict timing which helps with scheduling witnesses
5.  Don't get bogged down (bored) as much with foundation and procedural issues
4.  Hate waste of time and it can become difficult to hide impatience (eye rolling syndrome)
3.  The jury may decide it needs to do that lawyer's job.
2.  Makes the defense look like it doesn't have the resources to hire decent counsel (even though an insurance company is footing the bill); and most importantly
1.  It is way more fun to try a case against a really good lawyer."

Another related situation is the relatively common situation when I have had to represent a client against a party that has no lawyer.  About fifteen years ago I represented a very nice woman who married a nut.  They had a couple of children.  The wife, we will call her Mrs. Sane, was intelligent but did not like confrontation.  The husband, we will call Mr. Nut, was, well..., a nut.  He sent many letters to the Judge, Judge Demarest, accusing him and Mrs. Sane and me and the law guardian of being part of the "Lawyer-Lesbian Conspiracy".  This was troubling for two reasons.  First, Mrs. Sane was not a lesbian.  (Neither is Judge Demarest.  Neither am I.  Neither was the Law Guardian.)  Second, I was not aware that there was a Lawyer-Lesbian Conspiracy.

On the serious side, though, a three day trial could have been solved without trial had Mr. Nut not been acting like Mr. Nut.  The fun part of the trial was the look on Judge Demarest's face when I had Mr. Nut read the letter that he sent to Mrs. Sane about Judge Demarest being part of the Lawyer Lesbian Conspiracy.

By the way, if you are interested the Velvet Hammer blog, which is always funny and useful can be found at http://www.karenkoehlerblog.com/  I found the blog from an article in the ABA Magazine as one of the top ten blogs for lawyers.

Some Horses are Vicious and Some Horses are Sad

Lawyers in New York State, and the surrounding states, keep up to date on legal developments. I often find myself reading less than compelling, but important articles in the Law Journal entitled, "A Look Back At Runner v. New York Stock Exchange: What Did It Mean For Labor Law Section 240?" and similar fare. Recently, John Caher, a reporter for the New York Law Journal, told of the sad tale of "...a heartbroken horse named Whiskey." I am simply not used to reading about feelings of human beings in the law journal. It is usually an analysis of the results of cases determined by courts: the who, the what and the why from a cold, hard legal standpoint. Buth this? In the Law Journal??? "Whiskey and her longtime companion, Topper, had been inseparable for more than 20 years and became agitated whenever they were apart... But Topper took ill in early 2008 and within two months could no longer stand, so his owner...had him put down -- 'a task performed...in full view of Whiskey', the Court observed." After Topper was "put down", Whiskey becan "frantically pacing" and rearing her head. As she was rearing her head, a neighbor who was trying to calm her caught his finger in the halter of Whiskey and when Whiskey reared her head back, the neighbor received a terrible injury to his hand. The Court went on: "Regardless of whether Whiskey's demeanor on the day in question was the result of being separated from Topper, or, rather, having witnessed firsthand his demise and the ensuing preparations for his burial, there is no dispute that she was nervous and agitated, as evidenced by her whinnying and pacing inside the paddock." It is comforting to me, at least, that even though the Court sent the injured person home, dismissing any case he may have had, they did recognize the pain and suffering of Whiskey.

The Dog Ate My Homework

There is a case in Western New York's Federal District Court entitled "Ca-POW v. Town of Greece".  Attorney David J. Seeger was told by Federal District Court Judge Charles J. Siragusa to file papers by May 11, 2010.  He didn't do it.  On four previous times, Judge Siragusa had pointed out to Mr. Seeger that he violated local procedural rules.  The fifth time was too much and Mr. Seeger got socked by the Judge with a $14,000 sanction.  Why?  Mr. Seeger had 29 years of experience as an attorney.  Judge Siragusa said:  "The Court found that [Seeger]'s contention that he was unsure what to do, or that he was 'toying with the decision' to seek leave to amend, or that his father's death 11 years ago, affected his ability to file a memorandum of law in this case, did not contain the ring of truth."

He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else. Benjamin Franklin

Lawyers hear excuses all the time, particularly if the lawyer is representing someone charged with criminal behavior.  I can count on the fingers of one hand the times throughout my 29 years of practice that a criminal defendant came up to me and said, "Yup, I hit him because he ticked me off."  Note, that is an explanation -- not an excuse.  The excuse in that situation would be, "I don't remember hitting him.  I blacked out.  But if I did hit him, it is only because my mom and dad used to hit me and it caused emotional turmoil to the terrific extent that I blacked out."  That is an excuse.