Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

Here is a report about a New York lawyer who is helping a victim of horrific abuse. HT to Above the Law.

"Amy" was victimized by an uncle who used her as the star of child pornography. She has hired an attorney, James L. Marsh, who has had her evaluated, and has obtained expert reports showing the effects of the abuse on her, and documenting how much it has cost her in counseling, diminished wages, and lawyer fees. The total is about 3.4 million dollars.

Mr. Marsh has taken the position that every person convicted of posessing one of the images of Amy is jointly and severally liable for her damages. He has made hundreds of court filings seeking restitution on this basis. Many judges have agreed, although some have criticized this approach, arguing that the link between posessing a single image and the damages claimed is too tenuous.

Although many of these perverts are incarcerated and have little or no assets, others are comparatively well off. In the first year of this strategy, Mr. Marsh has collected over $170,000 for Amy. He is pledging 10% of his attorney's fees to the Children's Law Center.

Mr. Marsh's website states that he is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now the American Association for Justice), a group I am proud to be a member of. We are the greedy trial lawyers everyone is telling you are ruining America. What this lawyer is doing is in the best tradition of advocating for justice on behalf of an innocent victim.

Mr. Marsh, I salute you.

Connecticut has outlawed the practice of using "runners"- when crooked lawyers pay third parties to solicit injury plaintiffs either in person at hospitals or by going through police reports. These injured folks are then steered to crooked doctors, and the crooked lawyer helps them recover on the trumped-up claim.

Of course, I am sure that there are also genuinely injured people who are ensnared by these "runners" as well. The problem there is that they end up with the lawyer who uses runners, rather than with the most competent lawyer for their kind of case.

This is one of the few things that reputable personal injury lawyers, insurance companies, judges and legislators all agree on. This is a practice that is a harm to society, and brings the legal system into disrepute. Thankfully, this practice has been illegal in Maryland for many years.

Thanks to Walter Olson at Point of Law for the link.

We are always hearing about these evil, un-American frivolous lawsuits that threaten the very fabric of our society. OK, I get it. I dislike frivolous lawsuits as much as anybody. They devalue the claims of the truly injured, diminish the reputation of the plaintiff's bar, and waste time and money.

But what about meritless defenses that are made against non-frivolous lawsuits? Two great examples today.

First, Eric Turkewitz writes about a New York defense attorney making the argument that pain is not a "personal injury." Riiiiiight.

Next, Walter Olson at Overlawyered blogs about attorneys defending a hotel against a negligent security case. The plaintiff alleged that the hotel's negligent security led to her violent rape. The geniuses defending the case withdrew the defenses that the woman was contributorily negligent, careless, and that she failed to mitigate her damages. Good call guys. Blaming the victim may not be the best defense strategy in a rape case. Last time I checked, women were 50% of the population, and most likely the jury pool. As an aside, I like Walter's blog because he calls out stupidity where he perceives it, on both sides.

So, tort reformers, take note. Beware of frivolous defenses that do nothing but burden the judicial system, cost everyone money, and set up unfair roadblocks to justice for innocent victims.

The Baltimore Sun and The Daily Record report a new lawsuit involving a high level staffer of the City Solicitor’s Office.

There are three government employees involved in a 5 million dollar lawsuit against a Domino’s pizza franchise in Ocean City, Maryland. DeMaune Millard, Mayor Dixon’s chief of staff, Jonathan Carpenter, a state Department of Transportation executive, and Donald R. Huskey, an assistant city solicitor, are the plaintiffs.

These three folks are suing the pizza place because they were denied service, and because it took the restaurant’s staff approximately ten minutes to let them back out of the restaurant after the decision not to serve them. These plaintiffs were in O.C. for the annual Maryland Association of Counties conference in August, 2008. They left an official event that ended at 10:30 p.m. at about 1:30 a.m., and were shortly thereafter buzzed into nearby pizza place. They say they weren’t drunk, and were denied service for no reason. Unsurprisingly, the pizza place says the opposite- that they were intoxicated, loud and uncooperative, and that they made a threat. Specifically, that they said the manager was “a punk, and that if he was in the city, things would be handled differently.”

There are no allegations of race discrimination in the suit, although it notes the three plaintiffs are African-American and that the store employees are “Middle Eastern”, Asian, or white.

The three are being represented by an attorney in the city solicitor’s office who is moonlighting on his own time. City Solicitor George Nilson was unaware of this until asked by the media.

I have a few thoughts about this. I doubt I would gotten involved in this case if these plaintiffs had contacted me.

Continue reading "More Legal Shenanigans Involving Baltimore Officials" »

Today’s Daily Record reports that some resident agents are upset at being named as defendants in lead paint cases. The article mentions the use of Md. Rule 1-341 as a way to seek redress for the filing of frivolous lawsuits.

I have often written about the mostly imaginary problem of frivolous lawsuits. I say “mostly imaginary” because although I am sure meritless filings are made, I believe existing law and the rules of court provide ample mechanisms to discourage the filing of meritless claims.

Md. Rule 1-341, which is titled: “Bad faith- Unjustified proceedings”, is one of these mechanisms. Basically, this rule says that if any party brings or defends a pleading in bad faith or without substantial justification, the court may order that party or its counsel to pay the costs of the other party, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

Just one more way the law protects against frivolous lawsuits. I wonder why we never hear the “tort reform” people talk about these kinds of existing protections? Maybe they have an agenda outside the actual facts of the “lawsuit abuse” problem they claim exists?

As regular readers will know, this blog is open to comments. I generally publish all legitimate comments because I think part of the deal with writing this blog is that I should be willing to stand by what I write.

Saturday night at 11:53 p.m., I received the following comment to a post I wrote on the "tort reform" movement and the issue of frivolous lawsuits:
..............................................................................................................................
IP Address: 67.122.211.65
Name: Bob
Email Address: bob@gmail.com
URL:
Comments:

"Apparently these are a huge problem."

Duh. Are you for or against our legal system?

Frivolous lawsuits DO hurt the economy. Your article is two-faced and you sound like a greedy attorney. Go get a life you scumbag.
.........................................................................................................................

OK. This is me again. I hereby issue an open invitation to "Bob" to contact me if he is seeking a real opportunity to discuss frivolous suits and tort reform. I am FOR our legal system, and I believe it has sufficient systemic controls to address meritless lawsuits. For example, the summary judgment procedure is designed to weed out meritless claims. After you get past that hurdle, then you have to convince six jurors who would rather be doing anything else.

Since I'm part of the system, I admit I am biased. But I do not believe my post can be described as two-faced, since I think it is clear about my beliefs and which side of the discussion I am on. Also, I think "greedy" is an unfair characterization, although I am committed to helping my clients seek the maximum compensation permitted under the law. My name and phone number are right on the website, and I stand behind my views.

So, "Bob", if you want to step out from behind the cloak of anonymity the internet affords you, I invite you to email me and tell me why I'm wrong. I will be happy to address any points you raise.

P.S.: Perhaps I do need to "get a life", but I'm not the guy responding to blog posts on tort reform at 11:53 p.m. on a Saturday night. I can only conclude that "Bob" lacks formal legal training in the "pot-kettle doctrine."

I see and hear a lot in the media about frivolous lawsuits. Apparently these are a huge problem. It has even led to the creation of a wildly popular and wholly fictional forwarded e-mail describing the facts of these ridiculous, frivolous lawsuits. It is called the "Stella Awards", and circulates every few months to make to public aware of what a danger these stupid lawsuits are. They are called the "Stella Awards" because Stella was the first name of the Plaintiff in the infamous McDonalds "hot coffee" case.

It turns out, however that the lawsuts profiled in the "Stellas" are pretty much completely false. So that doesn't help me much in my quest to find out about these frivolous lawsuits that are such a problem. I continued searching on the web.

It turns out that there are entire groups devoted to ending frivolous lawsuits. One of these groups is right here in Maryland. Surely Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse will be able to tell me what a frivolous lawsuit is. They are "a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots watchdog organization dedicated to educating the public about the costs and consequences of lawsuit abuse and ensuring that our legal system is used for justice, not greed." They go on to tell us why this is so: "[l]awsuit abuse hurts the economy, threatens our access to affordable, quality healthcare and delays justice for the truly injured. MDCALA’s goal is to help restore balance, fairness and common sense to our civil justice system by shining a light on frivolous lawsuits and abusive personal injury lawyer tactics."

Well, I am not in favor of frivolous lawsuits or lawuist abuse. At least I think I'm not, if I could find them defined anywhere. The MDCALA website shows some stories of abusive lawsuits. Only two of them appear to have happened in Maryland, and neither of those is a personal injury case. In fact, I read MDCALA's entire website, and I could not find "frivolous lawsuit" or "lawsuit abuse" defined anywhere on the site. How can you have an entire "grassroots watchdog organization" dedicated to stopping something that you can't (or won't) define? I also think it's a little weird that a group opposing "abusive personal inury lawyer tactics" wasn't able to find a single example of a "frivolous" or "abusive" Maryland personal injury case to post on its website. I don't believe I file frivolous or abusive lawsuits. Maybe Maryland personal injury lawyers are just more ethical and professional than those in the rest of the country?

Who are these people anyway? Usually grassroots organizations are built out of a wide-ranging groundswell of public support on issues relating to the common good. Like, for example, the NAACP.

I tried to figure out who exactly MDCALA is. I discovered a few names. Apparently Todd C. Lamb is MDCALA's Executive Director. I found this out because their website posts various newspaper op-ed pieces by Mr. Lamb that state his position with MDCALA. Another article lists Dr. Ron Elfenbein, an Annapolis physician, as a MDCALA board member. Other articles list Earnest Hines, M. Jerome Miller, Patricia A. "Trish" Miller, Jerome Leonard and Ron Vitkum as past or present MDCALA board members.

The MDCALA website does not contain a list of its members, officers, or board of directors. The names I found were gleaned by viewing several articles posted in various places on the site. I think that is very strange. Normally, individuals want to publicize their involvement with a cause they think is righteous.

For example, I am a member of the Maryland Association for Justice. It is easy to tell who we are. Our officers and board members are prominently featured on our website, with contact information and biographies because we are proud of the MAJ and what we stand for. What is MDCALA hiding?

I did a little digging to try and find out. Lets start at the top. Todd C. Lamb is a former political lobbyist. He has previously worked for Dutko Worldwide, a Washington, D.C lobbying and public relations firm, and before that, for Chesapeake Govermnent Relations. Dutko integrates "traditional bipartisan lobbying, with research, polling, message development/testing, grassroots.grasstops advocacy and new media strategies...."

Next: Ron Elfenbein, M.D. Dr. Elfenbein is an emergency room doctor at Harbor Hospital and a "physician activist" who lost an election to the Maryland General Assembly. According to Maryland court records, he was sued for medical malpractice in 2007. The outcome of the suit was not available.

Earnest Hines: Mr. Hines is the former CEO of the failed local insurance company American Skyline Insurance. Before that, he worked with USF&G and the St. Paul Companies. He is also a member of the Baltimore County Board of Education. When he was with American Skyline, he was quoted as saying "[w]e want to go wherever the money's green."

Patricia A. Miller: She is an attorney in Annapolis, Maryland. A search of Maryland court records reveals at least 50 cases where she has served as a mediator to resolve cases out of court. She is also a principal of the National Institute for Conflict Resolution, where she works "with business, government and industry on conflict resolution processes." Her official biography does not mention her affiliation with MDCALA.

Ron Vitkum: He owns "Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Camp-Resorts". He had a long career in the corporate world, and is now a member of the Hagerstown/Washington County Chamber of Commerce.

Jerome Leonard: He is the owner of the Taylor-Leonard Corporation. They offer "Risk Management Solutions for Your Business" and also shill for Pre-Paid Legal Services.

OK. Let's review. MDCALA is "a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots watchdog organization dedicated to educating the public about the costs and consequences of lawsuit abuse and ensuring that our legal system is used for justice, not greed." They don't tell you what lawsuit abuse is, and don't list their board of directors.

By digging I found out that at various times their board has consisted of a D.C. lobbyist who created grassroots campaigns, a doctor and "activist" who has been sued for malpractice, the CEO of a failed insurer who would "go wherever the money's green", an attorney who gets paid to work with business and industry on conflict resolution, and a guy who sells risk management and prepaid legal services.

Do you think these guys have an agenda? I don't see one single private citizen in that list without an axe to grind. I do see a list of folks with ties to business and insurance that are in one way or another acting out of economic self-interest. So why the cloak and dagger? MDCALA should admit who they are and stop claiming that it is a "grassroots organization."

I am a Maryland trial lawyer who earns a living by representing injury victims at Miller & Zois, LLC. You can read all about me and my firm here. Personally, I would be suspicious of any group that seems to conceal its leaders and true agenda. When you get your information about tort reform, make sure you know where that information is coming from.

I just read on CBS News' website that a New Jersey man has filed a lawsuit against the sandwich chain Subway. Apparently, this gentleman bought a sandwich, and it turned out to have a seven-inch serrated knife baked into it. He bit into the part containing the knife's handle, but didn't swallow any of it.

He says that he got a stomache ache for a few hours, and that the knife "could've slashed" the side of his mouth.

It's certainly possible for reasonable lawyers to reach different conclusions on any given set of facts. However, I don't think I would have agreed to get involved in this man's case. I believe that news stories like this do more to undermine the civil justice system than any amount of insurance industry lobbying or tort reform.

I support the right of individuals to seek redress when they are injured by another's carelessness. I agree that there is no reason a customer should be sold food with a dangerous item in it. I also think its ridiculous to file a lawsuit over a tummyache, and the possibility that you could have been injured and weren't. This doesn't sound like anything that couldn't be fixed by a refund of the purchase price and a bottle of Pepto-Bismol.

I think its a shame that a big portion of the general public (and therefore the jury pool) forms their impression about personal injury lawyers and injury plaintiffs based on stories like this one. It isn't fair that victims of serious or catastrophic injuries will be stereotyped based on the media hype given to someone who wasn't even hurt, but filed a lawsuit anyway.