Sounds like this client isn't a whimp, but someone who is trying to abuse the system. Either way, it's your job to reign him in and explain to him why these requests aren't going to look good in front of a jury.
No, he's an absolute whimp. And probably trying to abuse the system. Think Both can be true, but you're right.
I just listen to them, say I’m sorry and understand where they’re coming from, but then explain why we aren’t going to do that and how it will affect their case negatively.
I had to meet with the extended family in a train death case Sunday night to do a Q&A about why we don’t have a case because the video clearly shows that the family member was at fault and likely intended to kill himself. The hardest work in this profession doesn’t pay.
i have no fucking idea. hopefully he shows up tomorrow for the depo. if not, we are going to be going for nuclear level sanctions. this is the one with the uninsured car chop that has a TV show on apple tv. the dumbass defense lawyer was going to try to make some stupid argument that the guy test driving the vehicle that hit our client was a contractor, so he didn't file an answer for him. so, the poor dude, had to find his own lawyer, and now that lawyer is legit just helping us with everythingggg and making this case a lot easier. they were going to try to get out by saying that some part failed on the truck and that's what caused the wreck. the lawyer for the 'contractor' let us know that the shop was actually modifying that part when they were changing the suspension on the car to some air suspension or something (not a car guy) and the part failed in a test drive at 9am. then they did another test drive at 4pm and the part failed again and thats when they hit my guy.
oh yeah, the contractor got a charge as well for fleeing the scene of the wreck. a tow truck that the shop owned came and took the truck he was driving away from the scene and his boss told him to get in and they took off. loca
To zealously advocate on these cases you have to dig in beyond just medical bills and the medical records. You have to do the stuff that are you forced to do when you are going to trial. Once you do those things , you will realize whether the case has merit or not and whether you can really sympathize with the client and zealously advocate or not. It comes down to the before/after witnesses that will really tell the story of the interruption to this person's life. I've had chiro only cases, MMI after 3 months, where the B/A witnesses said it was a major interruption for that period of time. P had to get family members to pick stuff up off the floor, family had to do household chores, P was the bread winner in the family and was really struggling , could hear her groaning and moaning around the house, coworkers said they had to drive to a training function and P was passenger and was really hurting from being in the vehicle, etc etc etc. If you can get good B/A witnesses to bring that thing to life, then you will convince yourself along the way that this really was an interruption and PITA for this person . If your client is a dirt bag and you can't even get ppl to go to bat for them and explain why this was a PITA and painful, etc, then a jury isn't going to believe them either and you'll also probably have a hard time zealously advocating for them. The truth always comes out in the end. But this takes a lot of time and effort and you doing yoru homework to even get the data I described above. Also, you aren't asking for a billion dollars for a case with 3 months of tx at the chiro. But you are asking for a reasonable sum to make them whole. That's all you're zealously advocating for. But the carrier is trying to deny even that. Also, you'd be surprised what a jury will give in general damages even in a conservative jurisdiction for a bonified legit 3-6 months of tx injury if you have good b/a witnesses to illustrate . Eventually you can basically ask them in closing, without violating the golden rule, what would it take to get you to sign up for what the P went through. I mean we can do this exercise right now: I want you to sign up for me to wreck into the back of your vehicle at 30 mph (I did realize I was going to wreck into you last minute and slammed on my brakes)when you are stopped at a red light, this will be a significant crash, it will cause $13,500 in property damage to your vehicle. You will have to go to the ER. You will then have to go through 20-30 visits to the chiropractor over the course of 3-6 months. During this 3 months you will be in pretty bad pain, you won't be able to sleep well at night, you will have problems sitting at your desk and doing your job, your relationship with your s.o. and friends will suffer, you won't be able to do the things you enjoy doing outside of work in your free time. What would it take to get you to sign up for that? No way in hell I'm doing that for $10k. I wouldn't do that for $20k. I wouldn't do it for $50k.
I already added paragraphs before you posted that. I mean I'm doing heavy lifting here pro bono. You can't bitch about it
Really, it's coming down to a handful of cases I signed up immediately upon joining the firm that I wouldn't sign up now, with how busy we are. But, I still have an obligation to these clients and want to give them good representation.
I also just got stood up by a Spanish chic I've been sexting with all week so I'm lashing out from San Sebastian while getting loaded on red wine and pintxos buckle up buckaroos
dude is drunk and crashes into my lady head on . my lady slows down a bit and then gets rear ended almost simultaneously . dude tendered his policy limits. I'm filing a MIL on the dude being drunk. The fact that he was drunk has no relevance to the lawsuit against the rear end driver. Do I win my motion or not?
I know a little. Used to be that they were damn near unenforceable. No Blue-penciling. If the clause was deemed unreasonable (not reasonably limited in time and scope), then they were tossed out entirely. Constitutional amendment that passed back in 2006 (I think) made the Courts a little bit more receptive to them and allowed for modification by judicial decree in some circumstances. My general understanding is that 12 months is fine, 18 months is tough, 2 years is unreasonable. And in terms of distance, that is a sliding scale depending on the industry and the scope of the prohibitions.
The new statute passed in 2011ish I think (which i believe was in response to the Constitutional amendment) seems pretty employer-friendly. I got a client who hired away an employee under a non-compete. Employee received a cease and desist letter, which was shared with my client. Based on the circumstances, I think this would one could turn into a lawsuit. I want to get local counsel ready to move if my client gets hit with a TRO petition.
I've never understood how the new employer could be hit with a lawsuit. No privity of contract with the old employer, so what would the claim be? Seems like the claim would be against the employee, not employer. Is your client in Augusta or Savannah? I can get you a referral if its in either place.
Tortious Interference - idea being the employer hired the employee knowing of an existing non-compete or continued to employ the employee in violation of the non-compete after being made aware of it. There's also allegations that the employee took a bunch of confidential info/trade secrets from from employer. Looking for someone close to Gainesville.
was at a discovery hearing and the people before us were fighting about.... it sounds like a trucking company erased the interior facing cam in their truck. the plaintiff lawyer knew about it because they produced a still image of the video right before the wreck happened. oops!
reading their motion. the driver also tested positive for meth after the wreck. how have they not just cut a check on this
I have a very similar situation where there’s a camera inside the dispatch room that shows the person there and will show what cameras they were monitoring and what they were doing. they gave us a still of that, but deleted the footage from the rest of the night.
fred loya hasn't learned their lesson from slow paying settlements. had an in person hearing with one of the judges here where they made the main lawyer for loya in texas appear in person to explain why they were slow playing claims. we sent a release on 10/8 and we sent two follow up emails that were ignored. sent another one today saying my client is calling every day can you please give me a status. lawyers response: We cannot control the fact that your client is reaching out for a status update everyday. Thank you! fun!
and i just got called unprofessional because i said if we didn't have the check in hand by friday it can be the second time a fred loya has had to explain to a judge why they take so long to cut checks. however, my unprofessional attitude resulted in them agreeing to overnight the check.
Any real estate/ property lawyers here to answer a couple questions from a dummy? AES wanting to replace some poles on my property and they want an easement for my land and there’s no property transfer, said they’re gonna give me $2,800 for the easement. Seems a little too good to be true…
An easement lasts forever, and as long as they’re using the property within the intended scope of the easement, you can’t tell them to do anything differently. You have no say in the type of poles, what is run on them, voltages, when they can work on it, how they maintain it, and anything near the easement gets cut as soon as it grows near it.
Is it worth trying to hold out for more money or are they just gonna do the billion dollar AES thing and give me what the property is worth? I guess I still keep the property but I can’t build a structure/ plant trees on their easement. What happens if I deny their offer?
It depends, but utilities have the power to open an eminent domain proceeding simply to take your property and own it. The easement avoids litigation so it’s a cheaper remedy for them. In eminent domain, there are set back rules that limit how many feet from a structure they can take, things like that. If you grant the easement, I think you may be the one who pays real estate taxes on it in Ohio, because you still own it. The easement compensates you for their use, but the state taxes you. Check that though, Inmay not be right.
They told me I’m the first one they really met with because all the other land around is agriculture.
I think o just gotta start asking the basis of people’s objections more often what’s the basis of your form objection hearsay oh ok
I think it's lame that if you agree to the standard stipulation that all objections except to form are reserved, then they can just not object during the deposition , and if it is a perpetuation deposition, they can they object retroactively later on , even though they didn't object on the record. Had some depositions taken for trial use where that happened . No objection on the record and OC later moves to strike testimony . To me, if you don't at least object to form, you shouldn't get another bite at the apple later. I guess your remedy is to state on the record that you do not agree that all objections are reserved.
omg. The guy who did the hearsay form objections thought he couldn’t ask questions to the cop because he didn’t cross notice the depo. He was texting the other defense lawyer hey ask about this please I didn’t cross notice bruh the other defense lawyer didn’t either? Unreal
Any one have any suggestions on telling a person they are not a client and no attorney client relationship exists? Form letters to share? PNC referred to me in June. I send 1 email saying let’s talk mid-July after I get back from vacation. PNC says she’s leaving the country and that works. This was the only time I have sent any communications to her. Never talk. No communications until late October On a Saturday in late October, I get a call, voicemail, and email from PNC. They say that they’re leaving the country on Tuesday, have a VoIP phone, so calls have to be scheduled in advance to ensure they’re on WiFi, and that PNC will call me before she leaves Tuesday morning. I did not respond and never heard from her. Last night, I receive an email from PNC as if I’m her attorney, with factual information for her engagement. PNC was ordained by the Universal Life Church and wants to use that as a basis for starting a church so she can use the church’s tax exemption to avoid paying US taxes since she disagrees with the US govt. Regardless of the legality of her plan, I don’t have capacity to handle a moonshot like this right now, so I need to tell her that but, more importantly, make clear there is no attorney client relationship.
Chatgpt could make you a good letter. There is no magic language. #1 make it clear they aren't your client #2 if they have a cause of action make sure you tell them the SOL
Yeah I was going to use Claude to draft something when I get to the office, but figured some of you pltf’s guys may deal with this on occasion
I can send one when I get to the office but it just says in a nice way we arent your lawyer and here’s the SOL
Spoiler Re: Declining Legal Representation Dear [PNC]: Thank you for contacting Not Your Law Firm LLP regarding establishment of a church. After careful consideration, I have determined that our firm will not be able to represent you in this matter. Among other reasons, we are not able to represent you due to the number of current ongoing transactions at our firm: we would not be able to devote the necessary time to your matter. While I appreciate the opportunity to consider representing you, I believe you would be better served by another attorney. Please understand that: 1. I am not expressing any opinion about the merits of your case. 2. No attorney-client relationship has been formed between us. 3. I am not your attorney and will not be taking any action on your behalf. 4. Any communications between us are not protected by attorney-client privilege. It is important that you promptly contact other counsel, as there may be time limitations that could affect your legal rights. Thank you again for considering our firm. I wish you the best with your legal matter. Sincerely, [Not your Lawyer]