Negligence Law and Lawyers

Legal News & Updates

• When You Settle Your Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Do You Get a DIPLOMA or a Certificate of Completion?

  The answer is no, you don't. Even though you've lived through two or three years of hard-fought litigation, you don't get a certificate. You don't get a medal. You don't get a diploma. You don't get a pat on the back for a job well done. You don't get a congratulatory letter from the doctor you sued. You don't get a certificate of completion saying you've now graduated and can move on with your life. You don't get credit for going the distance in your lawsuit and then settling before trial. Nobody will give you a framed certificate thanking you for your contribution to the legal community. What the heck do you get when you settle your lawsuit? I'll tell you what you get... You get piece of mind. You get a guaranteed amount of money in your pocket. You get to wipe out the uncertainty of going to trial and rolling the dice. You get comfort knowing that the defense paid you money to compensate you for all the harms, losses and damages you suffered because of your doctors' carelessness. You get the satisfaction knowing that you won't have to appear and testify in court during a trial. You get the satisfaction knowing that you were right all along. But you knew that. You knew that your doctor violated the basic standards of good medical care. You knew that your doctors' carelessness caused you harm. You also knew that your injuries were significant and permanent. You don't need a diploma saying that you 'graduated' from your lawsuit and the court system. You don't need a 'certificate of completion' saying you've lived with this lawsuit for almost three years. You don't need any of that! Why not? Because you're getting something much better. You're getting a check from the doctors' insurance company to pay you for your injuries. That check is your 'certificate of completion'. That check is your 'diploma'. That check is evidence of all your hard work and sacrifice which confirms you were right all along. Do you really need more than that? I'd argue that you don't. Sure your lawyer will give you a big hug and wish you luck when you pick up your settlement check. Sure he'll tell you that it was the right choice to settle. He'll make you feel as if it was all worth it. It was. Because you achieved the result you were looking for. It took you a few years to do it, but you did. Really smart lawyers will send you a letter thanking you for allowing them to participate with getting you get justice. Really smart lawyers will confirm you did the right thing and wishing you the best in the future. Really smart lawyers will also explain the tax implications of your settlement money and recommend you speak with financial advisors immediately. You'll want to protect that money so it lasts you for many years to come. As for a 'diploma' or a 'certificate of completion' when you finish your lawsuit? Face it...you don't need another piece of paper to remind you what you had to go through in order to obtain your settlement. To learn more about this topic, I invite you to watch the quick video below...

  5 May 2019, 3:23 am
• Doctor Called My Client a WIMP During His Pretrial Deposition!

  The doctor came right out and said it. I'd never heard a doctor say anything like this during a pretrial deposition. This was sworn testimony. This was an answer to a question I asked him. The doctor seemed almost ashamed he was saying this. But when he said it, it was if he just had a burden lifted off his shoulders. He looked glad that he said it. I think the shock registered on my face. I mean who goes around calling someone a WIMP? Especially your doctor. As he said it, I was wondering how this would look in front of a jury. If I was shocked, I could imagine a jury being shocked as well. The problem for me was that the doctor explained WHY he felt my client was a wimp. He explained that he came to him months after he suffered his injury. The damage had already occurred. There was little the doctor could do to fix the problem. But he was going to try. He gave the patient two options. Surgery or no surgery. That was it. Either live with the problem or try to fix it. He explained the patient was wishy-washy. He kept going back and forth about what to do. He wasn't sure. Finally, the patient made a decision... To have the surgery. Ok, that was somewhat decisive. But then, after the surgery, the patient wasn't complying with the doctors' post-operative instructions. The doctor told him specifically what he wanted the patient to do. Follow up with therapy. Have them do the following exercises and here's why. Follow up with these other physicians and here's why. At first the patient did what he was told to do. Months into it, he slacked off. No explanation was given. The doctor told him why it was so important to follow through with his instructions. The patient didn't listen. Didn't give the doctor a reason either. That was bad. Now the patient complained of more problems than he went in with. The doctor reminded him he needed to follow his instructions. That's why he has more problems now. "Your client was a wimp!" the doctor exclaimed. "He couldn't make a decision." "He didn't do what I told him to do." "I feel bad saying this but he really was a WIMP!" I almost wanted to tell the doctor "It's Ok, I understand." But I didn't. The more I listened to the physician's explanation about WHY he was calling my client a wimp, the more I understood that this doctor did nothing wrong. A few weeks later when I received the transcript back from the court reporter who was recording all of my questions and all of the doctors' answers, I sent it on to my expert to read. I knew what my expert was going to say. I knew this case never should have been started. But I wasn't the one who started this case. I inherited this case from another attorney. I suspected that I'd soon be withdrawing from this case. All because the doctor called my client a wimp...sort of. The reality is that the doctor had no liability here. Because we could not show that the doctor violated the basic standards of medical care, I could not proceed forward with his case. I had no choice but to withdraw as his attorney. The fact that the doctor called my client a wimp simply confirmed that this case had no merit. To learn how an attorney in NY evaluates a medical malpractice case, I invite you to click below...

  13 Jan 2019, 2:41 pm
• The REAL TRUTH About Lawyer & Client Testimonials Used in Marketing and Advertising a Law Firm

  "He did a great job for me. You should hire him. J.S. from Florida" "The paralegal I dealt with was so nice..." "He got me so much money! If you have a legal problem, you should call him too!" Do these 'testimonials' sound familiar? They should. It's because so many lawyers use them to market their law firm. So many attorneys simply accept any comment they get and put it on their website and their marketing materials. 9 things you NEED to know about testimonials plastered all over an attorney's website and videos: Is this from a REAL person or is it just made up? Is this from a former client who had a REAL problem? Is this from an existing client? How does their story relate to your legal problem? Where is this person from? When was this testimonial given? Do they talk about how much the lawyer got them or simply talk about a good result? Why don't any lawyers talk about the cases they lost? How come there are NO testimonials from clients where the outcome was NOT good, but the client still liked the attorney? First, what exactly is a 'testimonial'? It's really someone 'testifying' or giving testimony about their experience with their attorney. It's not just for attorneys. It's for every product and service you buy today. When you go online to Amazon and are considering making a purchase, you can read hundreds and thousands of reviews from people who actually bought the same product and read what they thought about the company and the product. Many people make their buying decisions based on what other people have said about a particular product. It's often helpful to know whether the product was crap or a high quality item that performed as advertised. Getting good reviews are crucial when a consumer is considering hiring you or buying your product. But with attorneys, there is no one website that gives honest reviews about particular attorneys and the clients who hired them. Sure there are review sites out there like Yelp and Google reviews and some clients take advantage of using them. Some clients use Yelp as their way to post negative reviews of doctors, lawyers and other professionals knowing that people will read them and hopefully make their decisions to use or not use them based on their review. When a lawyer uses a testimonial to promote his legal ability and experience, he will ONLY use a favorable review. Makes sense right? The common thinking is that if you're considering hiring this legal wizard, you obviously only want to go to someone who is experienced and has handled cases just like yours. It would certainly help you decide whether to hire this lawyer if other clients had great things to say about their experiences with this attorney. The attorney knows this. He's going to post ONLY glowing, positive reviews on his website and in his marketing materials. That's ok. It might even help you decide if this attorney is right for you. But before making that big decision, you need to look at that testimonial carefully. WHO is making that testimonial? Does it list their full name? Does the attorney list the town and state they live in? Is there a way for you to reach out to this satisfied client to talk to them about their experience? In most cases, the attorney does NOT include contact information for you to reach out to this client. Ask yourself, 'why not'? Some testimonials include only a first name. No last name. No address. No town. No state. How do you know if this is real? How do you know if this person really was a client? What information does the lawyer give you about his satisfied client? I understand that some clients are reluctant to share their name, address or details about their case. But don't you want to know that information in order to decide if this person giving a testimonial is reliable and trustworthy? You don't know this person. You don't know anything about them at all. Why should you believe anything they say if they don't disclose certain information that gives you a good sense this person is real and truly went through a similar problem. How in the world can you tell if this is simply an actor who is hired to promote the lawyer in an ad, in an article or on a website? The problem is that you don't know. You don't know anything about this person giving the testimonial. In order to satisfy your natural curiosity and overcome your natural skepticism, you want more details about who is giving this to you. NOT EVERY LAWYER GETS A GOOD RESULT. EVEN GOOD LAWYERS SOMETIMES GET BAD RESULTS. WHY DON'T YOU SEE TESTIMONIALS FROM CLIENTS WHO GOT BAD RESULTS? Let's face it. It's impossible for all these attorneys to ONLY get good results. It just is. That's a fact of practicing law. One side wins. The other side loses. There may be many reasons why an attorney loses a case. It may be a 'bad' case. It may be there's no liability. It may be there's no causation. It may be that the damages just aren't there. The attorney may have done the best job he could with the facts that he had, but for some reason, the jury just didn't buy your argument. There are instances where the client is grateful for the chance to work with this lawyer. There are instances where the client is happy they had their day in court. Certainly there are times when the client loses but is still satisfied with the work his lawyer has done. Why don't you see testimonials from lawyers about this scenario? I'll tell you why... It's because lawyers are TERRIFIED to post less than stellar reviews from clients. Lawyers are AFRAID to post reviews that don't show good results. The FEAR is that if a potential new client thinks that he didn't do a good job or got a bad outcome, that means there's a likelihood he'll get the same result for them. He's going to scare off a potential new client. Think about that logic. If every attorney ONLY posts positive reviews about the great experience and great result the attorney achieved, then it gives the potential new client the impression that this lawyer ONLY gets great results. The person looking to hire an attorney may get the sense that this lawyer can do no wrong and he can pretty much guarantee that he can get a great result for them too. That would be impossible. No lawyer can ever guarantee a result. Ever. I have yet to see a single lawyer post a review or a testimonial saying something like this... "I went to attorney John because I'd heard great things about him. He had gotten great results for so many other people in my situation. Unfortunately after trial, the jury didn't see it our way. I hated the result but I still loved attorney John. He made me feel good about myself and my case. He helped me understand what I was going through and my legal options. He told me straight out what the likelihood of success was and I believed him every step of the way. I didn't like the result, but I liked the hard work, dedication and perseverance of this lawyer..." Even though the client didn't get a great result, he still had nice things to say about the attorney. Why don't you EVER see testimonials like this? It's because lawyers are TERRIFIED to use something like this in their marketing and advertising. They don't want to be seen as having lost a case. They don't want to be seen as getting a bad result. They're worried that it will SCARE off potential new clients. If you're considering hiring an attorney to help you with your accident case, your medical malpractice case or wrongful death case, ask to speak to some of the attorney's clients who didn't get the results they were hoping for. See what the attorney says when you ask "Have you ever lost a case before?" "Why did you lose that case?" "Can I speak to the clients in cases that you lost?" The answers to those questions will tell you a lot about the attorney you're considering hiring. Before you decide to hire a medical malpractice attorney in New York, ask yourself what type of client you are and watch the quick video below...

  20 Oct 2018, 1:13 pm
• "Judge, my opponent is a Whining Nasty B*&ch!" Your Lawyer Yells Out During Trial- Is That a Proper Legal Objection?

  Ha! That would be awesome if that were a proper legal objection. "Judge, the defense attorney is a whining little b*&ch and everyone in the courtroom knows it," your lawyer screams out. Well, if EVERYONE in the courtroom already knows it, what benefit can come from the lawyer jumping up out of his seat and now yelling it out loud to everyone in the courtroom? What's the judge going to do? Tell you yes, even I realize that this lawyer is a whiner and complainer? Ah, no. That would be a big no. First, an attorney making this motion is likely frustrated. He's frustrated that the opposing lawyer is whining. He's annoyed and has clearly reached his breaking point. But here he makes a tactical mistake. If he knows the defense attorney is whining and he sees that the jury knows he's whining and even the judge knows it, why divert everyone's attention from it just to interrupt it? What will he accomplish by yelling out "OBJECTION JUDGE! HE'S WHINING!" The answer is very little if anything. Believe me, there are plenty of lawyers who fit in this category. There are plenty of attorneys who are annoying during trial. Whether it's intentional or not is another story. The point is that when you stand up and make an objection, it's supposed to be because the lawyer is doing something that's causing you concern. "Judge, that's an improperly worded question." "Judge, that's irrelevant." "Judge, he's badgering the witness." "Judge, he's asking leading questions." Those are proper legal objections. Not "Judge he's being a whiny little baby." By the way, what's the purpose of an objection during trial? It's really to let the judge know that something's wrong. It's to alert the judge that there's a problem and he needs to decide whether to allow the question or evidence in. It preserves an attorneys' right to appeal if he makes the objection at the time its' happening. Otherwise, if he loses the case and appeals, claiming that the judge shouldn't have allowed certain testimony, the higher court will look to see if he objected during trial. If he didn't they'll say he waived his right to appeal that issue and can't do it now. "Judge, we were never notified that they were bringing in this medical expert!" "Judge, I move to preclude this witness since they never exchanged his medical report as they're required to do." "Judge, I ask you to strike this witness' testimony as he's not qualified to testify on this subject." Now the judge has to rule on each objection. If the judge agrees with the attorney making the objection, he'll say "Objection sustained." That means that the question cannot be asked or the evidence will not be allowed in. It means he agrees with the attorney who raised the objection. If the judge does not agree with the lawyer making the objection, he'll say "Objection overruled." That basically means that he knows the attorney has a problem with a question or a witness or evidence and he doesn't agree that it's a problem. He's overruling him. The judge can do that. That's one of his main functions during trial. To learn more about trial objections, I invite you to watch the video series below...

  26 June 2018, 1:49 pm

Articles syndicated from external legal news sources. Links open in a new tab.