Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by Jax Teller, Apr 8, 2015.
do you want me to autograph your copy
Trial starts tomorrow. So fucking pumped for it to be over.
What all do you have to do tomorrow? Any chance of a last minute settlement?
Absolutely none. This is a loser case that plaintiff is trying because the insurer wouldn’t pay excess. And I don’t think they should.
I’m doing openings. Most of my witnesses are prolly Tuesday/ wednesday. Hopefully wrapped by Thursday
Think y’all have a shot at winning on liability if what you said a couple weeks ago is true
I think the single expert will win the day. Plus the injuries are bad and the kid was like 17 at the time. If the plaintiff was an asshole, maybe. I’m at peace with it. An hour drive each way gonna suck but will allow me to decompress when it ends, which hopefully is Thursday morning. If I’m not swamped, I’ll update as I can.
Y’all didn’t get a hotel??
They said they would but I honestly don’t want to sit there and have nothing else to do. I don’t mind driving and seeing my dog each night.
No, no, and no. I follow the doctor thread for reasons. This thread is commonly on the front page so I pop in from time to time.
looking for insight
so our client has 2 DUIs from the early 2010s. He had his license temporarily suspended.
Plaintiff called our client. On cross, we ask if we can go into redirect. During this direct, we ask about the fact that he has had a driver's license since 2005.
On cross, P's counsel asks (I don't recall the exact language) whether he has been licensed consecutively since 2005. our client kinda stutters, doesn't understand, we object, and a sidebar commences.
it is clear that Plaintiff was trying to insinuate that this guy had his license revoked/suspended.
The courtroom is small, judge is right next to witness box which is right next to jury box. the youngest juror (29) is sitting closes to the judge.
white noise turns on. and old ass P's counsel says "This guy has two DUIs" pretty fucking loud. Like, I am nearly 100 percent certain some of the jurors heard it. Of course, the court rules that it is more prejudicial than probative. P's counsel took a weird position during the sidebar argument, suggesting that we uttered the improper question. I took all of his actions to suggest that this guy knew exactly what he was doing, got the sidebar purposefully knowing it was an improper quesiton, and said this DUI shit way too loud.
Unfortunately, probably no way to know if the jurors heard it (although I am certain they did). Thoughts on what action to take given this occurred right at the end of trial today? we've tossed around a motion for a new trial after making a fuller record.
I doubt the jury even cares that much about that
If youre 100% sure they heard it do a motion for new trial and a motion for sanctions
if you’re speculating that they heard it then get ready for tomorrow
alas, the issue
love it, classic old man trick. Like the old dude that steps on your shoe going for rebounds playing pickup ball.
Why did you ask about whether he had a drivers license since 2005? I think that opened the door to ask whether it had been continuous since 2005.
I didn’t ask the question. And the court disagreed that the door was opened.
Other good ones I learned from Mitnik
always leave the bench smiling and acting like you won, even if you get your ass chewed out and lose.
always make friends with the deputy and clerks and chat them up on breaks because it looks like you’re there all the time.
That’s wild. So, the judge is fine with the defense implicitly vouching for the Defendant’s driving history/competence but not the Plaintiff challenging it? What’s probative about his having a driver’s license (other than some coverage issue)?
Yeah, I don’t understand how his question would be remotely improper in response to that. Can’t believe the judge would say it didn’t open the door.
License suspension would have been coming in, in just about every courtroom I practice in
I don’t have a strong opinion on the DUI coming in, but I think it’s error to not let the Plaintiff ask if he’s held the license continuously since 05. Door was absolutely opened.
My issue was more with the attorney shouting the issue in question during sidebar, but I’m glad we’ve narrowed in on the 403 ruling
that was allowed. It was the inquiry into the dui that was upcoming that was objected to. Did not object into the question about holding a license since 2005. Sorry if it was written unclearly. King day.
Depending on how froggy you’re feeling or how your relationship with the judge is, you could tell the judge you’re concerned about it and ask if he’ll poll the jury to see if they heard any comments in the sidebar yesterday.
I’d be afraid that would draw more attention to it. If anybody then heard it, you can be assured they’ll all be talking about what was said during the first break. And it’ll take on a life of its own. More potential harm than good IMO
The case is also a loser, as I’ve described, on liability. My fear, however, is that hearing vaguely about DUIs will impact how they feel about awarding a large sum of damages. Certainly risky, as Z mentioned. Something to mull over on my long drive this AM
Did you all move contemporaneously for a mistrial? You keep saying you moved for a new trial, but at least in Florida those things are distinctly different and make a big difference in appellate remedies.
2100 hours last year
hope all of you have been blessed similarly by the billable gods
have a great 2023 fellow dorks
some of these small shitty insurance companies are a fucking joke
10/27 wreck. third party runs red light. my clients like entire upper body is purple.
we were hired like 2 weeks ago
kemper/american access hasn't accepted liability even though there is a police report.
i am praying to god that they don't accept this stowers demand omg
My legal assistant not being able to figure out a scheduling order is annoying as f
I've determined getting excess liability on small cases isn't even that cool. Ok the meds were like $15k and the limits were $25k. Yah you'll probably get a $30k-40k verdict. But in the bad faith case, the jury isn't going to hit State Farm with six figures for exposing their insured to $5k-15k , State Farm will probably pay the excess , and State Farm will probably successfully claim it was a pocketbook dispute. I don't know if you even ever get to punitives. Now if it's a $25k policy limit and your client had six figure damages and they don't tender that's a whole different story. But I see the former way more than the latter.
Bad faith basically doesn’t exist in Texas
My car got rear ended by a Kemper insured and it was a fucking nightmare to just get a fairly minor property damage repair approved. I hope you bankrupt them.
I have a few good ones with them :)
In the future though go through your own insurance and theyll subrogate what they pay and your deductible from Kemper
Well, the Texas Stower's Demand thing seems like a pretty great alternative. I wish we had that.
You should move to Colorado then
Yeah it definitely is
one of my Kemper claims is getting referred to a real defense firm because we stowerized them for their $30k policy limit, dumbass pre-lit adjuster offered $15k and the in house Kemper lawyer thinks it’s worth 6 figures
Shouldn’t you be in a courtroom rn
Discovery hearing at 1 PM has been going on for 40 minutes. Some case with Toyota. Giving me time to shit post
I’ve hit over 2000 the last two years. The prize you win for the pie eating contest when you make partner is more pie.
This in South Florida? I wonder if I have the akumin to figure out who it is.
Lol progressive lawyer who has never tried a case before thinks the unredacted police report is coming in
any way to keep out some facebook posts my client made?
May be able to beat them up on authentication if it is a simple screenshot of the post. This assumes your client didnt authenticate it for them. Other than that, I guess relevancy.
If it’s authentic, then your client is going to have to lie for you to object on authenticity. Maybe a 403 argument will work, depending on substance. I think it’s probably getting in, though.
my initial thoughts as well
so it's a deal where an uninsured woman cut across traffic, my client was able to slam on her breaks and not hit that lady, and then a man rear ended my client
we settled with state farm uninsured
the cut across lady got a ticket and i guess they think they have a smoking gun there even though there is no way that is coming in
the facebook posts are basiaclly just my client being like omg i was in a wreck i'm hurt a lady cut across traffic. this was like a day or two after the wreck. i think i just bring it up and i'm like upon reflection, 3.5 years later, is that still your position?
Just had a 45-minute Zoom interview with my buddy's PI firm. Will be going Of Counsel with them and get paid a percentage of recovery. I'm the only attorney in their office licensed in both WA and OR.
lol just talked with the guy and he said his only exhibit is going to be a certified copy of the police report
I also had my contract with my old defense firm extended through the end of 2023. So kind of back to full-time work but on both sides of the aisle. Will see how long I can stomach that.
And got a few PI clients of my own. I'm going to be busy AF but on my own terms. Celebrating with some mezcal tonight.