Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

In the past I have written about why a law blog may not be for everyone.

Here is a great blog post examining four highly successful law blogs. Some tidbits from the article (found through Above the Law):

Blogging takes time. Four the four blogs profiled, the weekly time estimates are 2-3 hours, 5 hours, 5 hours, 3-10 hours.
It takes time (estimated as 52 posts or 1-2 years) before a blog will generate business, but when it does, it pays off.
Commitment and continuity are two required elements for a sucessful blog.
Any blog's success depends on the comittment and creativity of the author.

Keep in mind these are blogs authored by lawyers as an enhancement/marketing effort for existing law practices. I look at blogs differently when they themselves are the primary point of the endeavor or are a profit-making entity in their own right. For example, Above the Law or Overlawyered. I'm not sure where I would put SCOTUSblog, since it started out as marketing and blew up into the foremost media authority on the Supreme Court. Clearly, the time commitment to blogs like these is well outside the 2-10 hours a week for a typical law practice blog.

I have never tried to quantify the effect of this blog in terms of business generation. First, I am not certain there is a direct relationship between the two. Second, that isn't really why I do it anyway. I like to write. I hope that this blog contributes to the profession by sharing ideas, trial techniques, and new law, and that it provides a resource for the public by showing what is really involved in personal injury litigation.

Basically, blog because you like it and you want to. As with most things with that foundation, sucess will follow.

The obscenity trial I wrote about here is over. The trial judge dismissed the prosecution's case before it ever reached the jury. Some reports say that the jury would not have voted to convict anyway.

Judge Judy is pulling down $15 million a year for a show that lasts 22 minutes a day, exclusive of commericals.

I hate Judge Judy. People see her show and think it bears a resemblance to real court cases and real lawsuits, which it does not. And her behavior is flat-out unaceptable for a real judge.

It is generally a good thing when a law firm issues a press release and as a result gets mentioned in the newspaper. I mean, that's the idea right? A press release is designed to garner attention. But it's not nearly as good if the attention consists of the reporter making fun of the content of the release and the law firm's motive for issuing the release in the first place.

Here, the Baltimore Sun's Jay Hancock takes aim at a local law firm with a blog post titled "Bowie & Jensen: Look at us! We're suing Ne-Yo!"

Hancock's primary target is a paragraph in the release listing all of the various awards and accomplishments of the defendant in the suit, whom I gather is a pretty well-known R&B singer. Here's what Hancock thinks: "Bowie & Jensen has put out a news release that's less about the merits of the case and a lot more about the fact that they're suing a famous musician and want you to know it."

Hancock plays it fair by contacting the author of the release for comment. But before revealing the author's explanation, Hancock comes off the top rope with a foreign object: "Karen McGagh, who wrote the press release for Bowie & Jensen, disavows any and all intention to draw cheap attention to the firm by seeming to go googy-eyed over a rap-star legal opponent."

At this point, I think it's fair to say this release has not had the intended effect, unless you are of the school of thought that any publicity is good publicity.

As I discussed here, law firms need to be very careful when issuing any kind of press release. The key idea is that it needs to always be about the client and the case. After reading the whole news release, I think that is what they were going for. The error was in the execution. I'm not a big fan of pre-trial press releases. Win the case. Then issue a press release. But if you do one of these pre-trial, its not a bad idea to make it about your client, rather than how famous the guy you are suing is.

When a law firm's news release results in the need to deny trying "to draw cheap attention to the firm," maybe it is better to refrain from commenting until a favorable result is achieved.

On the other hand, this news release seems to have also resulted in much more favorable treatment from the Maryland Daily Record. There, Rachel Pryzgoda turns in a pretty even-handed news item about the case with quotes from counsel for both sides, without making fun of either. I guess no two reporters are alike.

Is anything obscene in Washington, D.C.? I guess we will find out.

No, this is not a politics post. Apparently, jury selection is underway in the first obscenity trial I have ever heard of in the Maryland/DC area.

An "adult video" producer has been charged with obscenity in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. The charge is based upon some (really, really disgusting) adult movies that were produced and sold over the internet. If you have a "prurient interest" in exactly what the content was, you can go to the linked article (work safe from Law.com) and find out. I'm not summarizing it here because doing so would prove to Ron Miller that letting me write unedited was the bad idea some people predicted it would be.

There are a few things about this that grabbed my interest, beyond my shock that there is still such a thing as an obscenity prosecution.

First, this is a leftover case from the Bush administration. There was a much bigger focus on obscenity cases under the Bush administration than under Clinton. Yeah, I know. Insert joke here. Seriously, the article points out that under Bush 360 people were charged with obscenity, as opposed to half as many under Clinton.

The other odd thing is that this case is being prosecuted in D.C. at all. Think about it. You are a U.S. attorney. You would like to charge a dirty movie man with obscenity. Your potential defendant is selling these (really, really) dirty movies on the internet. The thing about the internet is that it goes everywhere. So naturally, you have an FBI agent in Washington, D.C. order the movies, and then you prosecute. Well, that seems to be what they did here, anyway. Being a plaintiff's lawyer, maybe forum shopping is just in my blood. Because if I were that U.S. attorney, I would have had those dirty movies purchased by an FBI agent located as deep in the Bible Belt as possible, and then prosecuted the case there, instead of in Sodom on the Potomac.

Why prosecute this case in liberal D.C. when it looks like venue would have been obtainable wherever the movies were purchased and shipped? Maybe there is a good explanation for this. If so, tell me. Because unless I am missing something, the venue selection here looks like a colossally dumb move.

In any event, I think the whole prosecution is a waste of all of our tax dollars. If this material is truly obscene and offensive to community standards, it is a self-correcting problem because if that were true nobody would buy it. Essentially, my position is that the First Amendment guarantees the right to produce and sell whatever immoral, offensive tripe people wish to buy and view, as long as it does not depict conduct which is itself illegal and as long as nobody is being hurt. Conversely, (and perhaps inconsistently) I believe it does not guarantee the right for religious whackjobs to use speech to disrupt soldiers' funerals and add to the misfortune of grieving families.

My prediction: The jury will say "Hey, this stuff isn't my bag, but I don't care what other people watch in the privacy of their homes."

Hot of the presses is a new "study" on "Tort Liability Costs for Small Business" from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's tort reform propaganda ministry, the dubiously named "Institute for Legal Reform."

I found this through the efforts of Walter Olson at Overlawyered. I'm ambivalent about reading, and linking to, Walter's site. It's not that his site is no good. In fact, just the opposite. The site is outstanding, and is a fantastic resource for news about the legal system. Its just that Overlawyered is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Man, Inc. And you know how I feel about The Man. Nonetheless, I will continue giving credit where it is due.

The report itself is more of what I have come to expect from this source. It wears the sheep's clothing of objectivity, but an examination of the sources and methods it uses reveals the wolf beneath. Consider this:

"In a separate survey of small business executives in Maryland, 91% indicated that lawsuits filed against corporations are hurting Maryland’s business climate. Nearly six in 10 respondents to that survey said they have increased their costs, reduced services, or changed products they offer. Fourteen percent said they even considered closing their business as a result of a lawsuit."

The source? A survey commissioned by Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Seriously? That is as credible as citing a survey of cows to support the conclusion that steak is a threat. A biased report from the U.S. Chamber trying to appear objective by citing "independent" sources like a poll by MDCALA. Luckily for the Chamber, in an era defined by the 30-second sound bite most consumers will never read the footnotes or ask if the sources used are credible.

I haven't gotten through the whole "report" yet. I am sure I will have more comments.

I try to be pretty upfront about the fact that I obviously have my own biases that I bring to the table on these isssues. Otherwise, nothing I say about it could be taken credibly. That is a big part of the problem I have with "studies" like this. There is never any acknowledgment of the inherent bias presented by the source.

So if you haven't been following me closely, I am not surprised that a report sponsored by the largest business group in the United States concludes that lawsuits against businesses are bad. Considering the source, no other conclusion was possible.

I am slowly getting back into my daily routine after concluding a long trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

Regular readers (assuming there are some) know that I usually provide a summary of my cases that go to trial, but I have to sit this one out. In lieu of my usual post-game wrapup, I offer the following: "The matter resolved in a manner mutually agreeable to the parties, beyond which I have no comment."

Sorry, curious readers. Maybe next time.

But that's OK. On to the next case. And I have some interesting things cooking: a trucking accident that caused a brain injury, a retained foreign body medical negligence case, and an appeal involving the scope of a trial court's authority to confirm an arbitration award, among others. So I won't run out of cool stuff to do.

As a bonus, here is a step into Bizzarro-world. In Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate, Justice Scalia writes an opinion in favor of a class of plaintiffs, allowing a class action to proceed in federal court despite a state law that arguably would bar the action. Scalia? Plaintiffs? Wierd, huh? Really, I think this has more to do with the scope of Congress' rules enabling statute and respecting precedent than anything else. But nonetheless, Scalia gives one to the good guys. HT to SCOTUSblog.

Even more bizarre is the makeup of the majority: Scalia, Roberts, Stevens, Thomas and Sotomayor(?) Strange bedfellows indeed.

By way of full disclosure, readers should be aware that I have a man-crush on U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley.

Here's the deal. Braley is a former president of the Iowa Association for Justice, and despite that, won election to Congress. I am also an evil, greedy trial lawyer, and I happen to sit on the board of the Maryland Association for Justice. We recently held our annual Installation Gala recognizing our immediate past president Kevin Goldberg and honoring our new president, Robert Zarbin. Congressman Braley was our keynote speaker.

As part of Braley's talk, he played to us this clip of bad people shouting "trial lawyer" and "ambulance chaser" at him when he spoke on the House floor about patient rights during debate on the healthcare bill:

It's funny how things change. Since the bad guys shouted good old Bruce down, there was a little oil well explosion down in the Gulf of Mexico. People seem to like trial lawyers a lot more when the stuff that "can't happen to them," you know, happens to them. Check out this video (HT to PopTort) of Braley ripping into a Transocean executive because his company coerced traumatized workers from Deepwater Horizon to sign affidavits the day after the accident saying they weren't injured and didn't witness anything. Nobody's shouting him down now, are they?

I wish I lived in Iowa, just so I could vote for Bruce Braley.

Ron Miller and I have a tendency to get off-topic when we are collaborating on a case or project. One thing we have been talking about recently is judicial selection, spurred on by the recent nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ron sees a lot more benefit in putting Harvard/Yale intellectuals on the Court than I do. His theory is that you are more likely to hit on a good candidate from that background that you are from say, UB Law grads. I know he will not think I did his viewpoint justice in the preceding sentence, maybe he will elaborate in his blog.

I would like to see a much broader range of experience. I think the Court is becoming too homogenous. It is full of former appeals judges, government lawyers, and academics. By way of example, once John Paul Stevens (I just love his keyboard work on Houses of the Holy) retires, there will not be a single member of the Court who has ever served in the military. I would bet that more than half of the current Justices have never tried a jury trial, and that no more than one of nine has ever represented an ordinary person in court outside of a pro bono program in some huge law firm. On this issue, the only "maybe's" I can find are Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor. Kennedy at one point took over his late father's private practice, and at some point Sotomayor worked on her own, but I couldn't find exactly what kind of work each did. But that's only two possibles of nine. I think that is a real problem.

The thing about the law is that it does not exist in the abstract. Certainly there are broad policy components to nearly everything the Court does. But having the brute mental horsepower to wrap your mind around those sort of weighty issues is not the whole ballgame. At some point, ALL law is ultimately applied to a specific situation. That is where the rubber meets the road. And we have a Court full of people who have never been there when that happens. We do not have one single Justice who made a career representing individual human beings.

And we never will. Never. The word you are looking for is "unconfirmable." The day a real trial lawyer sits on the Supreme Court I will probably die from shock. We live in a world where Rep. Bruce Braley is shouted down on the House floor to cries of "trial lawyer."

I did a minimal (and when I say minimal, I mean minimal) amount of research, and I found only two Justices who made representing real people a focus. Abe Fortas, who argued Gideon v. Wainright (the case establishing a right to counsel free of charge for defendants in criminal cases) and Thurgood Marshall who argued a case you probably have heard of, Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation). Interestingly, Marshall also argued Murray v. Pearson in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which resulted in the desegregation of the University of Maryland's law school. That school's law library is now named after Marshall.

Would the Senate confirm Thurgood Marshall today? I wonder. Just look at the recent controversy over some of his comments in the context of Elena Kagan's nomination. In a speech in 1987 Marshall described the Constitution as originally drafted as a "defective" document. You know, because of that whole thing about it basically leaving out any rights for people who were not white males.

Kagan was a clerk for Marshall. She was attacked by Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele as having shown "support for statements suggesting that the Constitution “as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’” First, what an insane system we have where a nominee is scrutinized over what she thought of a speech her former boss made in 1987! Second, Michael Steele should thank God every day that Thurgood Marshall held those views, since if he had not, there is a good chance Steele would never had the chance to go to Georgetown or to be Maryland's Lieutenant Governor, what with him being African-American and all.

Imagine the controversy if Marshall himself was the nominee in 2010. Staff counsel for the NAACP? These kind of things are why we have the blandest Court possible. Lawyers who hold strong beliefs and who will go to court and fight for them on behalf of average Americans will never sit on a court where having no record to critique is actually an advantage in the confirmation process. So there you go. Don't look for me or Bruce Braley on the Supreme Court anytime soon. But, you never know. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was counsel to the ACLU.

Peter King is one of my favorite sportswriters. His Monday Morning Quarterback column for Sports Illustrated has a regular section called "Ten Things I Think I Think." He is an intelligent guy and a better writer than me, so instead of coming up with an idea of my own I stole his. So here are some things I think I think (but I might be wrong):

Walter Olson points out that the $75 million liability cap in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 does not override state law remedies that may apply to the BP oil spill. His point is that the $75 million cap in the federal law may not be the upper limit of BP's actual liability, depending on the amounts recoverable under state law. Yeah, but: lots of states have damages caps that apply to common law tort claims arising under state law. I do not know if Louisiana, Missisippi, Alabama and Florida have caps that would apply, but I think it's an important piece of information to know if you are analyzing whether the damages cap in the federal law needs to be changed.

Many lawyers in Maryland (and elsewhere, presumably) beleive that to be admissible, expert opinion evidence needs to be accompanied by some sort of magic words like "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty." First, I think that is not the law. I think it is sufficient if it is clear that the standard is "more likely than not" for an expert in whatever field is applicable. And I think if the law is that some magic words are required, that is a stupid requirement that should be changed. It is clunky, cumbersome, overly technical, and a perfect example of lawyerspeak that clues the jury in to ignore whatever follows it. The court has just accepted the witness as an expert. It should be clear to everyone that his opinion testimony is offered as that of an expert in the field. Why do we go out of our way to make our legal proeedings as cumbersome, time-consuming and annoying for the jury as possible?

I think Bret Michaels is getting a lot of valuable exposure for having not died. I also think it is painfully obvious that the bandanna is because he is bald. One more reason to hit the Maryland State Fair.

I think the primary function of a "Motion for Reconsideration" is to elevate legal billings. In my experience, when trial judges are presented with an additional and more detailed recitation of facts that have already been presented to them, they rarely decide they were wrong the first time. I am sure these motions have some value in making a record for an appeal, but I can't recall ever having seen a trial judge grant one.

I think that when faced with a party or witness whose first language is not English, but has some limited proficiency, more lawyers should consider using an interpreter anyway and letting the witness testify in their native language. Interpreters have a cost and add more time to a deposition, but the transcript will be a lot more accurate. Particularly if the witness stutters and/or is a Seinfeldian "low talker."

You may remember me blogging about a defense verdict in a tough four-day trial recently. I think is was very nice of my client to send me a thoughtful personal letter saying what a great job I did, even though we didn't win. On balance, though, I would rather win and not get a nice letter.

A few of the legal assistants in our office are taking college classes in paralegal studies. The other day at an office lunch they were telling me about the coursework in their legal research and writing class. The students are taught to do legal research the old-fashioned way, with (gasp!) books. That is also how I learned to do legal research back in the dark ages (late 90's).

It's funny. I do the overhwelming bulk of my research online now. I can't imagine Shepardizing a case using a book. I don't even remember how.

But some things I think are a lot quicker and easier with a book, like looking up a Maryland statute. If I know what I am looking for I can flip right to it more quickly than I can open Explorer and search. Plus, it helps to be able to browse the sections immediately before and after for related material. There are also a few reference books that I use regularly, like Pleading Causes of Action (Sandler & Archibald) and Maryland Rules Commentary (Neimayer & Schuett). Nearly everything else I do online.

Back in the day, online research was pay-per-minute or pay-by-search, and conducted over slow dial-up connections. Now flat-rate pricing and super-fast broadband have made online research much more accessible. I can do more research more quickly this way. I can do better research too, because I can access materials that would not be found in most law libraries.

I guess knowing how to do research the old way is a good foundation for learning, but I can't say that I would like to go back. I guess it was possible to practice law in the days before cell phones too, but I can't say that I would want to give it a try.

Charlie Crist is the Governor of Florida. He was a Republican, but now he is running for U.S. Senate as an Independent. He switched May 13. Relax. This is not a political post, even though I think there is an inherent hypocrisy in being a Republican on Thursday, but Independent on Friday in an election year. You won't see much politics here, unless I am talking about tort reform (by the way, I'm against it).

Charlie Crist is getting sued by one of my favorite recording artists, David Byrne. Apparently, Byrne is accusing Crist of using one of his songs, "Road to Nowhere" by Talking Heads in a campaign ad without permission. I hate people when they're not polite. I know, that seems like a strange title to use in a campaign ad. There is delicious irony in stealing a Talking Heads song to use in politics, a field populated by talking heads. I haven't seen the ad, but my understanding of the context is that it is being used to take a shot at Crist's opponent.

Byrne is mad as all get out. He is taking the "I am an artist, I do not license my songs for ads" approach, with a little "I do not want people to think I endorse this candidate or Republicans generally" thrown in. So he has filed a million-dollar lawsuit seeking damages for the unauthorized use of the song. He is represented by the same lawyer who represented Jackson Browne in a similar lawsuit against John McCain for using the song "Running on Empty" without permission. Byrne is an intelligent guy, and he makes a very credible argument as to why what was done with his song is not a legal "fair use" of the material.

Byrne's lawyer, Lawrence Iser, has commented in the New York Times that “[a]s an attorney and the former attorney general of Florida, Gov. Crist knows better.” Come on, Mr. Iser. The guy passed the bar on his third try. He's doing the best that he can.

Ultimately, I bet this case will go away more or less quietly. It's not good publicity for a candidate to get sued for stealing intellectual property. But it has allowed me to achieve one of my goals for this blog- quoting "Psycho Killer" in the title of a blog post.

One thing I learned early on is that it is impossible to succeed as a lawyer on your own. Not in terms of practicing as a solo- there are many very good lawyers that are solos. What I mean is that every good lawyer that I have ever met has to depend on others to succeed. Our paralegals and assistants are integral to what we do.

Here is a great example of someone who truly understands that everyone needs to understand the importance of their role. That man is Mark Sanchez. If you don't know, he just completed his rookie year as the starting quarterback of the New York Jets.

Mark is a third generation Mexican-American. Because of that heritage and his notoriety as a celebrity athlete in New York City, he was invited by President Obama to attend the most recent state dinner honoring a visit from Felipe Hinojosa, President of Mexico. Mark's invitation came with an "and one," sort of like bringing a date to an out of town wedding reception.

Here is where understanding how to be a leader and the value of teamwork comes in. Does Mark bring one of the many beautiful young women in NYC who would be sure to be impressed by a state dinner? Or some family member, agent, or hanger-on? No.

Who does he bring? D' Brickashaw Ferguson. His left tackle. When Mark drops back to pass, this is the man who protects his blind side from angry, 300 pound men who want to kill him. If I were a betting man, I would bet that D' Brickashaw now understands very well how Mark Sanchez values what he does. He took his left tackle to dinner with the President, over his mom, his girlfriend, and everyone else he could have taken.

Mark Sanchez understands teamwork. This is a good lesson for all of us.

I often wonder what (or if) other lawyers are thinking. Here is an opinion from the Court of Appeals of Maryland reviewing the rules aplicable to holding a lawyer in direct criminal contempt of court.

This arises out of a criminal case for driving without a license. We don't handle criminal cases at Miller & Zois, but the lesson to be learned here doesn't have much to do with the facts of the underlying case. It is enough to observe that the defense attorney got into a disagreement wit the the trial judge about a procedural aspect of the case's disposition. He protected his record about the disagreement, and was overruled. Then, the defense lawyer just walked out before the judge had even finished ruling. The court issued an order holding the lawyer in contempt.

The lawyer appealed to the Circuit Court, which remanded the case back to the District Court because the trial judge's initial order of contempt did not comply with the fairly complicated and little-known procedural rules governing the imposition of sanctions for direct criminal contempt. The District Court judge then entered a revised order clarifying the original one, and still holding the lawyer in contempt. The lawyer appealed again to the Circuit Court, which this time affirmed the contempt order. The lawyer then appealed again, with the case ultimatley winding up in the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals overruled the trial court because the court was allowed to enter a revised order of contempt on remand from the circuit court. The appellate court said basically, that a trial court only gets one chance to get a direct crimnal contempt right, and that if not, the contempt order must be vacated.

There was a vigorous three-judge dissent from Judges Murphy, Battaglia and Barbera. The basis for the dissent was basically that the courts have a strong enough interest in protecting the orderly administration of justice that they ought not to be prevented from entering and enforcing a contempt order just because of a procedural defect in the order that could be remedied with a revised order. I think the killer factor for the dissenting judges was that this lawyer disrespectfully walked out of the room while the judge was talking.

I agree with the dissent. I don't care what the reason is. You can't just decide you don't like a judge's ruling and walk out. That's disrespectful in any setting, even more so in the context of an officer of the court interfering with the administration of justice. Plus, I don't see what it does for your client in terms of advocacy. The way to handle an adverse ruling, even (or especially) one you vehemently disagree with, is to make your objection, protect your record, and go on to advocate for your client as best you can. If the trial judge was wrong, you can correct it on appeal. Allowing lawyers to do what happened here fosters disrespect for the judicial system and undermines public confidence in the law and the legal profession.

I think the Court of Appeals made the wrong move in not allowing this conduct to be sanctioned as contempt based on a procedural defect in the trial court's original order. This illustrates why I would not be a good choice as a trial judge. Because if it were me, and a lawyer walked out of my courtroom while I was talking to him, he would be appealing to the Court of Appeals from his cell at the detention center.

I wonder if this is going to wind up as an Attorney Grievance matter, regardless of the ruling in the contempt issue. I would think so, because the ethical rules (for example, MLRPC 3.5(a)(1), which prohibits a lawyer engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal) apply regardless of the availablility of a criminal sanction for contempt. I will be shocked if the Court of Appeals just lets this slide.

Here is a great blog post by renowned trial lawyer Paul Luvera where he talks about representing victims of an oil refinery explosion. Paul is responding to people who were critical of the victims' families retaining counsel.

His main point is that when dealing with a large corporation, there is only one language the corporation understands- money. The only reason a corporation exists is the generation of a profit for the shareholders. All of its corporate decisions are governed by that overriding principle. Left entirely on its own, a corporation will generally do what is in its economic self-interest, whether that entails reasonable actions to promote safety or not.

When unsafe actions start to cost money (either through suits for money damages, regulatory fines, or bad publicity) is when corporate behavior changes. If you have ever seen the movie Fight Club, there is a scene where the main character describes his job as a "recall coordinator" for an automobile manufacturer. He says his job is to apply "the formula." This is how he describes it:

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

That is essentially the corporate decision making process. Where a decision making process is governed by money, the only way to change that process is with money. Here is what Paul says about it, and I agree with him:

"Those who complain the lawyers and the families are only in it for the money and that no amount of money can make up for the harm are really suggesting we let the corporation go without paying what they owe. A lawsuit for damages is the only way civilized societies ensure that justice prevails in a tragedy like this one."

We have a system in this country where we allow free enterprise and promote the generation of profit, sometimes to the detriment of the little guy. We also have a system where wrongdoers may be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

It brings me back to one of my favorite quotes about the justice system. It is one of the truest comments I have ever heard:

"The system is there to bury you. Why can't it be there to save you?" -- Ice Cube.

I would rather represent David than Goliath, rather be Robin Hood than Sheriff John, and rather root for App. State than Michigan. I don't want to be one more lawyer piling on top of someone already buried under the weight of the system. What trial lawyers do is stick up for the little guy against The Man. At least, that's how I see my job. Maybe you disagree. I don't care.

Last night, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill to put a contitutional amendment on the ballot in November raising the jury prayer amount in civil cases. Currently, in any civil case filed seeking more than $10,000.00, the defendant has a right to a jury trial. This provision does not have an escalator allowing it to rise along with the cost of medical care and wages lost.

This bill will permit a Constitutional amendment raising that amount to $15,000.00. Because this law relates to a constitutional amendment, it needed a 2/3 majority to pass. It will now appear on the ballot in November's general election, where it will hopefully be approved by the voters.

This is an important issue for car accident lawyers in Maryland. As an example, consider a typical soft-tissue injury case. There is an emergency room visit with X-rays and a bill from the ER physician. That's about $800, conservatively. The client needs 8 weeks of follow-up physical therapy. That's about $4600. Then include two weeks missed from work, at about $1400 total. That's $6800 in out of pocket losses. If the client needs an MRI to rule out a structural problem, you are looking at $8,000 in out of pocket damages for a relatively uncomplicated sprain/strain case. Filing for $10,000 does not really provide the potential to make a recovery to adequately compensate that client. But filing for more means that the defendant may pray a jury trial and delay the case for up to a year waiting for a trial date in Circuit Court, and requiring expensive, time consuming discovery. The plaintiff may need to miss even more time from work to appear at a deposition, a court-ordered medical exam, and a settlement conference.

If the voters approve the proposed change, that case can be filed in District Court for $15,000.00 and it will stay there. This is a good change. It will keep less serious cases from clogging the Circuit Courts, and will relieve our jurors of the burden of appearing to hear these cases. A jury demand is also used tactically by defense attorneys and auto insurers in cases in this value range.

In a county with a conservative jury pool, any case over 10k will almost always result in a jury demand. This means expensive discovery, delay, and the prospect of trying the case before a panel of jurors who may very well believe their time is being wasted on a case of that size. These cases can also be more difficult to try before a jury because of the nature of the injury claimed. A muscle strain can be very painful, and can take a few months to resolve. It also does not show up on an X-ray or MRI. Even if you achieve a satisfactory result for the client, you have taken a year to do what should have been done in six months. Of course, in counties where the jury pool is perceived as being more plaintiff-friendly, jury demands are much less common.

Hopefully Maryland's voters will make the right choice. In the context of a modern economy, $15,000 is not the huge sum it once was. The change will allow the District Court to fulfill its purpose of resolving less serious cases in a fair and expedient manner with as little cost as possible.

Look for more on this issue as the November election approaches.

Today I saw (via Overlawyered) a blog post by WhiteCoat where WC is critical of a poorly framed law firm press release.

He criticizes a press prelease issued by a medical malpractice law firm. It reads: "Prominent Beverly Hills Law Firm Awarded $16.5 Million Medical Malpractice Jury Verdict." The basis for WC's criticism is that it does not mention the client, thereby making it appear as if the award was made directly to the firm.

I don't think he believes anyone would be misled. I think he is really pointing out that it smacks of arrogance to leave the client totally out of the equation. As he says, "Screw the client."

I don't really see any functional difference between that press release and one that says something like: "Renowned Neurosurgeon Ben Carson Successfully Separates Conjoined Twins."

But I agree that it is a bad press release, and and for the same reason as WC: It's focused on the lawyers, not the client. As personal injury lawyers, we must constantly battle public perceptions that we are all greedy and arrogant and that our clients are all liars and fakers who are seeking "lottery justice."

What this release should have said is something like: "Jury Awards 41 Year Old Man $16.5 Million Compensation For Medical Negligence Causing Permanent Paralysis." It is more accurate, puts the award in context, and most importantly, shows that the money was given to compensate an innocent victim for a horrific injury that happened because somebody did something wrong.

At Miller & Zois, we keep this in mind whenever whenever one of our cases gets media attention. It is always about the client. Because the case itself is always about the client.

Every media inquiry is a chance to show that big awards or groundbreaking precedents happen because deserving victims secured the justice the law demands, with our assistance. Making it about the law firm or particular lawyer plays into the hands of the enemy, namely those who foster the perception that out-of-control juries give away huge sums of other peoples' money for every bump, bruise, or hangnail. Anybody who has ever stood before a jury in an injury case knows this isn't true. It is stupid and counterproductive to act in a way that fosters that perception.

Is this one release a huge deal? No. Somebody's PR people did a poor job. But cumulatively, this stuff matters. Its a subtle difference of perception that all personal injury lawyers and law firms should keep in mind in terms of media relations.

There is a man who lives in York, PA named Albert Snyder. His son was in the military, and was killed in the line of duty. When Mr. Snyder tried to bury his son in Baltimore County, MD, the funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church. They showed up with signs saying things like “God Hates Fags.” Apparently, they believe that U.S. military deaths are God’s revenge for our society’s tolerance of homosexuality. Mr. Snyder sued the Westboro Baptist Church and got an 11 million dollar verdict. This has been in the news recently because Mr. Snyder lost on appeal to the 4th Circuit, and was ordered to pay the church’s costs of about $16,000.

The same day, there was a $1.44 million dollar verdict in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in a medical malpractice case. This was a death case. The defendant was an ER doctor who failed to diagnoses sepsis, leading to the death of the patient. Baltimore County is one of the most conservative jurisdictions in the state. Because of this, this verdict was also in the news.

Our local paper’s website allows comments, and I read the comments to both of these stories. The comments to the medmal story pillory the plaintiffs and their lawyers. The plaintiffs are called greedy, their case was called frivolous, and one commenter said it wasn’t fair because $1.44 million dollars won’t bring the dead man back. This is a case where a man died.

The comments to the Snyder story support him fully, and are appalled that he now has to pay costs. There is no mention of the amount of the verdict, and nobody called him greedy, or his case frivolous, even though he sued essentially because his feelings were hurt at a very emotionally sensitive time.

Why do people think one of these cases is frivolous and not the other? Death case= frivolous. Hurt feelings case= not frivolous. I guess frivolity is in the eye of the beholder.

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t think either of these cases is frivolous. But there is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in calling one case frivolous but not the other, simply because one case is wrapped in the flag.

The local paper publishes a list of top ten self-defense killings.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks this is kind of inappropriate. To quote one commenter: "What's next, a list of top ten rapes?"

You pull into a what you think is a utility road to make a phone call. You were wrong. It is not a utility road, it is a driveway. The people who own it ask you to leave. This makes you mad. So you wait a while until they leave. Then you go back, steal their dog, and throw it off a bridge from a moving car.

You are a bad person.

However long this guy gets in jail, it isn't enough.