just got a call from an OC who passed the bar a month ago. Trying to push me around citing Federal Rules of Civil procedure. All I could do was laugh and politely tell him that none of that matters and is a dead giveaway you are new. By the end of the call he was thanking me for showing him the ropes. I didn't have it in me to bully him around. Not a big enough case where it's worth my conscience to take advantage of a rookie.
Just got an offer of $1k on a case from a pre lit adjuster and it says they’ll withdraw that if we file oh no
I’m still tinkering with what to ask for on a wrongful death FTCA claim against the VA when I send if the notice letter. It was a 68 year old guy who was married and owned his own business. I feel like if I ask for too much I’m guaranteeing that they’ll blow me off, but can’t ask for too little or I’ll get fucked if I have to try it.
Yah asking for too little is malpractice. I wouldn't worry about asking for too much. I'm guessing they don't pay that much attention to your numbers as they are going to value it themselves anyways and then come at you with their counter. And doesn't everyone expect plaintiffs to ask for a crazy high number anyways these days?
Have a MVA case with like $7k in meds that is set for jury trial in January. They were at like $7k then $9k . I told them I'd recommend $15k to my client. They got to $14k but said they can't do $15k. I told them we still don't have a deal. I wonder who is going to blink first over $1k.
Annualizing at 2600 because I started the year with two 250s, but I’ll end up at 2300-2400 when the dust settles (our fiscal year isn’t the calendar year).
My old partner just hit wal-mart for $2 million in Florida. bertwing Meanwhile my favorite defense lawyer just disclosed after 17 months that he’s known about a witness the entire time who contradicts all of his defenses and the MSJ he previously filed. Going to be tough paying off law school student debt without a law license.
I'm so used to defense lawyers telling me my lying, faking, and stealing plaintiffs are frauds that it has befuddled me when twice in the last few weeks I've contacted unbiased neutral witnesses to a collision who have completely refuted the defendant/insured's version of events. In both cases the defendants have blamed my clients for the collision, accused them of faking, and generally called their entire character into question when in reality the defendants caused the collision and have lied about what happened.
Man, in car wrecks, no one knows what the fuck happened most of the time. Anyone who is “certain” of some small detail is probably lying or mistaken.
I have a judge who has already given them a warning that if there was anything else he was going to do very very bad things to them and then just rattled off all the times he had struck answers and sanctioned people 7 figures. since that warning we’ve found out they destroyed the two most important email accounts and now withheld the one eyewitness.
In one of the cases my guy was walking with his nephew into walmart . He was in a crossing area right in front of it . Some guy ran over him. Defendant claims he was idling going 2-3 mph and my guy slapped the front of his hood. Defendant claims he stoped the car, put it in park, and got out of the car and approached my client. As he approached, my client threw himself on the ground. Basically saying my client is a liar and full of shit and trying to make an injury claim out of nothing. The witness says the guy was going 10-15 mph and the whole thing about my guy throwing himself on the ground is completely made up. That's a pretty big discrepancy and would obviously play terribly for the Defendant with a jury. Defendant has already put his version of events in writing under oath in his rog responses. In the other case , my client was driving down a major road and a coca cola truck turned out in front of my client causing her to run into the trailer. The Coke driver said my client wasn't driving down the main road and instead suddenly and without warning shot out from a parking lot or side street so Coke denied liability. We later got surveillance showing that my client was just going down a main road and the Coke driver is full of shit. Also got a witness that saw the whole thing and completely backs up my client. So in both situations the Defendant didn't lie about minor details, they lied about major details at the heart of the controversy . My point in posting this was that more often than not the shoe is on the other foot for me. They have surveillance completely undercutting my claim. Also it is pretty rare for me to have witnesses that completely refute major parts of the defendant's defenses.
I think this is the first time I've gotten surveillance that really backed up one of my cases. I've been blind sided in depositions and meditations with surveillance/social media /etc that has completely gutted my cases resulting in me either withdrawing or the client accepting a cost of defense settlement offer.
I got blindsided in a mediation when the defense lawyer showed us a video of my client taking out the trash and then rolling her trash can from outside her garage to the street The few thousand they spent on that really made me reevaluate my entire case
I have a interesting situation where a defendant in a MVA case in their rogs admitted liability. But then during her deposition she unequivocally stated that my client was at fault for the wreck and really went to town on how negligent my client was. I kept bringing up how that was at odds with her written stipulation that she was at fault. The case is better for me imo if liability isn't admitted. I'd rather polarize the case and show she isn't accepting any responsibility. Her lawyer got really heated and said that they could admit liability even if the client testifies that she wasn't at fault. She said she'll have her coached to admit liability by trial. Even if at trial she admits liability I should be able to impeach her with the deposition testimony.
Mine weren't minor , they usually involve my client picking up tremendously heavy things when they are supposed to be on light duty and unable to tie their shoes
I agree. I wish I had video'ed the deposition. She was being indignant , rude, and aggressive about the whole thing. But she hit my client from behind. This lady hated me with every ounce of her being. You should have seen the looks on her face.
My mentor always drilled into me that you have to assume everyone is always lying to you, especially your own clients.
I had a case filed in West Texas where D produced "surveillance" video of my client the morning of the mediation. But it wasn't surveillance. Instead it was hip hop music videos my client posted of himself on social media rapping, jumping off of things, crowd surfing etc. We settled.
Except the one I witnessed from my office window where a lady who appeared to be high as fuck ran into the back of a car. Then drove around them and got in front of the car and backed into the car then yelled it was their fault. Then she got in her car and tried to drive away put her axel was broken and made it about 15 feet. I went down just to talk to the police because I knew the high lady was going to claim it was the other people's fault.
Like 15 years ago I was in a Publix parking lot about to head back home after grocery shopping. Some middle-aged lady is coming out of the store pushing the cart in front of her when from her left side a car doing about 2-3 MPH didn’t see her until late and slammed on the brakes. The front of the car tapped the side of her grocery cart, not even hard enough to tip it off it’s wheels. I then saw the lady let go of the cart, take three steps backwards and gingerly lay herself down on her back before she starts screaming for help because she’s hurt. But I left the scene because I ain’t to snitch.
Have a case against McDonalds where they mopped the floor , then didn't put out a sign. Client fell when walking in , tore up her knee requiring surgery and hurt her back. Adjuster: Based on the video, there is no way she hurt her back in this fall. Me: Send me the video so I can see what you are talking about Adjuster: You might get the video in discovery but I can't send it to you. Makes causation arguments based on a video then refuses to send said video I expected them to refuse to send it fwiw. Such a silly policy.