The Joel Bieber Firm

Call 1-800-451-6393

Archive for Attorney

Discipline for a Phone Call

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

In April, Italian police arrived at the Colosseum in Rome. They had orders to remove the men dressed up as Roman soldiers, who were having their pictures taken with tourists. Italy’s culture ministry had decided that they were not going to allow these men in red skirts and helmets, with their tunics and swords;  to harass the tourists for money and cheapen the image of these historical figures by not being in full costume.

An eviction notice had been issued because none of these men had the necessary permits for their money-making activities.  As the police began to remove the costumed centurions, at least 25 of the ”warriors” began to fight with the police. Soon, onlookers started to take sides. They began to chant, “Leave them alone. We are all centurions”.

I just received my Virginia Lawyers Weekly by mail. On the front page is an article titled “Lawyer disciplined for 60-second call”.

On April 15, 2010, an associate for a defense firm that was defending doctors in a birth injury case; received a phone call. On the other line was one of the plaintiffs . She blurted out details of how the lawsuit was working a hardship on her family and how she and her husband “desired to dismiss the case”.

The uncontradicted facts were that the phone call lasted about one minute. The defense lawyer told her that she could “not help her and she needed to contact her own attorney”. The defense attorney notified her co-counsel at the firm of the call. He notified the plaintiff’s attorney that the client had contacted them directly and he relayed what was said and the length of the call.

Plaintiffs attorney filed a motion to have the lawyer disqualified from defending the case. The presiding Judge denied that motion.  Then, she filed a bar complaint against the defense lawyer under the premise that the lawyer had violated rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. That rule basically says that a lawyer can have no communication with the opposing party who is represented by another lawyer.

The bar complaint made it to the disciplinary committee, which determined that the defense lawyer should receive a dismissal de minimis. That means that there was a finding of misconduct but not enough to warrant disciplinary action against the lawyer.

Despite the dismissal, the defense lawyer was not satisfied. Such a finding, even though very minor, still becomes part of her disciplinary record, So, she exercised the right to appeal to a three-judge panel. They upheld the finding the of the committee. The finding was that the defense lawyer should have just hung up immediately.

The bar had argued that “good intentions do not excuse a lawyer from a finding that she violated a Rule of Professional Conduct”.   The disciplined lawyer concluded the article with a quote to the reporter by saying that the actions she had taken were exactly what the Virginia State Bar “instructs a lawyer to do, and it underscores the absurdity of the Bar’s determination to prosecute me for how I handled a surprise, unsolicited 60-second phone call”.

Since this involves a finding of the bar, I will not add any editorial.

Of course this is completely unrelated, but do you happen to know where the expression came from “Whistling Past the graveyard“?

For pic o’, I can’t remember if I ever got around to posting this!

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

A Seminar at the Greenbrier!

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

In “Mary Poppins”, Julie Andrews sings “Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down”. (attached here in case you want to sing along!!!). That’s a little bit of my feelings while I’m here at the Greenbrier Resort.

This is a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) course, but how can you complain when they schedule it at such a beautiful place. I won’t discuss the topics because I’m sure that you would just click away. “New Developments in the Law”  is like the medicine but it goes down well, when you look at this scenery.

Tomorrow, I will send you a technology video. (Isn’t that called a tease). It might let you in on my “learnins” here.

Here’s a picture from the Greenbrier. Do I look like I’m at a seminar? It proves that I’m here and it’s like I always heard as a kid, “How many F’s are in Present?” See, I’m already a winner. For the seminar, I guess I can’t use that slogan, “I always arrive late but I make up for it by leaving early”.

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments (4)

Winning But Losing Verdict

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

Sometimes at dinner or a reception, someone will ask me if I am working on any exciting cases. Even as I typed that last sentence, I wondered how to respond, and that’s usually what happens when I’m asked that question.

Clients’ secrets and confidences normally put some restriction on what I can say. But, the truth is, I usually am working on “some exciting cases”.  In my mind, I define that as unusual and challenging.

The restricti0n on discussion is waived a bit, if I have filed suit. It’s odd though; I never describe a jury trial case. Maybe that’s because I’m not actually working on those right then.. Plus, my mind works like an old number 9 wash tub, which makes me forget details of  past cases, after I don’t need to know them  … first you fill it up and then you empty it when done.

So, while thinking about cases, and number 9 wash tubs, I sorta traveled down memory lane and did think about some past trials. One that specifically came to mind was the one that I always describe as “the one I won but lost”.

I had been practicing law for less than a year. Have you ever heard someone say that they “need a young lawyer who is willing to fight for me but won’t cost a lot of money”. Yep, that was me. Especially the money part; because I did not have that many cases to work on. Self-employed with more emphasis on self.

So, one day, a boy that had just enlisted in the military came to see me. He told me the story about a Navy chief  that had gotten drunk and beaten him up. He wanted me to sue the chief. I know, I should have stopped there. But a consultation only, doesn’t make for a  blog story about winning and losing.

I told him that I would take the case. I don’t even know if I understood the difference between negligence and intentional tort. The easiest way to describe that is that intentional means, NO INSURANCE is paying for the damages. That chief meant to hurt that new enlistee. Oh yes, they had both been drinking at the same place too.

I filed suit for civil damages relating to assault. The chief hired an attorney and never made an offer. That was OK, because I was ready to go to trial.

We put on our case. I cross-examined  the defendant. The jury seemed to be listening attentively; Although, while the trial was going on, I did notice that my client probably weighed 80-100 lbs. more than the defendant. That detail had previously escaped me. I just kept saying to myself…. assault has nothing to do with weight. Plus, my minister used to say, “the  freedom for your fist stops where my nose begins”.

I introduced my client’s hospital bill through him and after all the testimony, the jury got the case in about 2 hours. That included picking the jury and the Judge’s instructions.

The jury was out about 40 minutes. They came back with the verdict form in their hands and the judge asked the foreman to stand and read the verdict. “We the jury, find in favor of the plaintiff”.

My heart took a bit of a jump because I knew my client had won. The foreman went on to say, ” and award damages in the amount of $1″. I think I noticed the Judge fight a smile back.

The Judge then thanked the jury for their service and excused them. I walked my client out of the courtroom and into the hallway. I tried to give him some “glass half full” by saying that at least the jury had believed him.

He thanked me for “going to the mat for him”.  At the time,  humor was not proper, but  I thought , “look, I’ll waive my 1/3 attorney fee. You can keep the whole dollar”. Taking that case to trial made me realize that I was really a “glass half fool”.

Now, pic o’ day. It might be how I looked when the jury said “one dollar”.

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments (1)

Rock, Paper, Scissors Order

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

     There are some certainties that exist in the practice of law. Those certainties include that lawyers become adversarial with each during highly contested cases; and that Judges grow impatient if they have to be the referee of those disputes.

     When I first started practicing, I remember experienced lawyers threatening to “get the judge on the phone”  if I did not agree to some question or issue during depositions. I quickly learned that mostly, that was a veiled threat because Judges don’t want to be on the phone for every little discovery issue. Plus, it is getting harder and harder to get an available Judge on the phone.    

     Most Judges require that you schedule hearings on  issues that exist, with opposing counsel. Sometimes, those hearings are more than a month away. Virginia Beach gives a little break from that. They have motion day on Fridays, with a duty Judge hearing quick motions. You file, and basically get in line.

     One Judge in Florida, got tired of all the disputes. His order to deal with all the issues is here. You can tell that he had gotten tired of the parties who were a business and an insurance company. He ordered them, to be accompanied by a paralegal of their choosing, to the Courthouse steps. There, they were ordered to resolve their issues through the use of the old game “Rock, Paper, Scissors”. I thought that was a good one!

Here’s Pic O’ Day! Quite a sign, and a dog that I think I’d remember.

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

Lawyer Questions

Monday, September 12th, 2011

     A salesman was running late for his train. As he came running to the train platform, he saw that his train was starting to move down the track.

     With his suitcase in hand, he began to run after the train, in an attempt to jump on. Despite his effort, the train continued to move away until it was far from him.

     He slowly headed back to the station as he worked to catch his breath. One of the people sitting on a bench nearby asked him, “Did you miss your train?”. Without missing a beat, he replied, “No, I just love the chase out of the station.”

     In the practice of law, we are constantly reminded that we are to treat opposing attorneys with courtesy. It’s part of the profession of law. Sometimes though, I feel the few hairs on my head begin to bristle.  Because we are by nature, in an adversarial situation already, it usually means that trials and depositions serve as a good test of self control.

     Last week, I was in a deposition where I was put to the test. My client had recently been determined to be totally disabled by the Social Security Administration.  According to her doctor and repeatedly listed in the Social Security opinion, my client is disabled with no ability to work.

     The defense attorney asked about my client’s ability to work in different ways, “So when are you planning to go back to work?” Then, she followed up with, “Does your doctor think you can work?”

     Perhaps being disabled might not mean permanently. Still, I couldn’t tell if the attorney was unprepared or being tricky. Afterward, my client asked why she was being asked about going back to work. I felt like saying that I just felt like we were loving the chase of the train.  As you can see, sometimes it makes me feel better to vent a bit in the blog.

Now, pic o’ day. A reminder to be careful what you wish for. 

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

Job Listings and Resumes

Sunday, September 11th, 2011

     This past week, I had lunch with our law firm’s retirement account manager. He had come up to meet with any employees that wanted to discuss their current accounts.

     I met him before going to law school after answering a job listing ad. At that time, he was hiring for a chemical supply company that sold equipment to the Navy.

     Later, he told me that he had received almost 100 applicants for the position. When he saw my letter and resume, as he was throwing it out, he happened to mention to his wife that he had gotten a letter from one applicant that didn’t even know how to spell.

     I had written that I hoped that he would interview me and that this resume would only serve to “whet his appetite”. I know, pretty corny line. His wife asked how he thought it should be spelled. “Well, wet your appetite.” She said that “you’d better interview him because he’s obviously a better speller than you”. That started a life long relationship, after his wife had given me the advantage.

     At the firm, we are looking for more paralegals, assistants and even an attorney. Occasionally, we get some usual inquiries.  It reminded me of the article that listed “10 crazy things that people put on their resume”. Here they are:

     1. “The more you pay me, the harder I will work.”

     2. The applicant had been fired from multiple jobs and included each as a reference.

     3.  One job-seeker listed her dog as a reference

     4. A husband and wife applied for the same position and submitted a poem as part of “their” application.

     5. A candidate listed the following email address that included the phrase “shakinmybootie”.

     6. Throughout the entire resume, the candidate’s first name was only listed. (dispensing with formalities?)

     7. On two different resumes, the following selling points were listed: “versatile toes” and “ability to do the moonwalk”.

     8.  One applicant insisted on getting paid to come to the interview “because his time was valuable”.

     9. Candidate mentioned that he was arrested for assaulting his previous boss

     10. A job seeker asked, “Would you pass up an opportunity to hire someone like this? I think not”

     Now pic o’ day that was sent to me because football season has started

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

Don’t Hire a Lawyer!

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011

     Sometimes when I am negotiating with an adjuster, I can hear a “rumpling” sound. It sounds like turning pages. Then, the adjuster might come out with some response to  my question about why the offer is so low.  The adjuster then says something like,  ”our medical review panel determined that the amount of necessary medical treatment should only have lasted 6 weeks”.

     Every now and then, I throw them a curve ball. The adjuster might start out with the argument that, “you do realize that there was little damage to the car?”  I quickly assure the adjuster that “I don’t want you to worry about the car, I don’t represent the car”.  There usually is a pause. I don’t think that the claims manual has “car representation” in the categories for response.

     Many insurance companies also have manuals that include written scripts; when calling an unrepresented person, right after a  car crash. In a lawsuit a few years ago, below is the script that was produced to one lawyer, that was  the form to be read, when contacting someone that had not hired a lawyer:

Quite often our customers ask if an attorney is necessary to settle a claim. Some people choose to hire an attorney, but we would really like the opportunity to work directly with you to settle the claim. Attorneys commonly take between 25-40% of the total settlement you receive from an insurance company plus the expenses incurred. If you settle directly with Allstate, however, the total amount of the settlement is yours. At any time in the process you may choose to hire an attorney. I would, however, like to make an offer to you first. This way, should you go to an attorney, you would be able to negotiate with the attorney so his/her fees would only apply to amounts over my offer to you.”

Now, why would Allstate worry about whether a person hires a lawyer, when that person isn’t even their insured. Well, in Allstate’s “Unrepresented Segment Training Manual” (p 15-30) they tell their adjusters that when an injured person retains a lawyer, it more than doubles the recovery.

I don’t want to overload information on studies and statistics, so just one more. In 2003, the insurance industry’s chief research organization (IRC) outlined that the vast majority of insurance dollars that are paid out on bodily injury claims, are paid to people who retain lawyers for those claims. (79% of all payouts).

Insurance companies are in business to make money. That’s why Cigna denied a liver transplant for a dying teenager because they deemed the procedure ”experimental”. Progressive sent investigators to pose as potential member at a church Bible study, to secretly tape a claimant’s conversation.   

It’s a jungle out there!

And now, a newspaper correction as our pic 0′day

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments (2)

The Size of the Farm

Tuesday, March 15th, 2011

     Our Daily Bread had a great story  about a different point of view. It was consistent with my depositions today.

     A Texas rancher went to Germany to do some agriculture consulting. He looked over the land and asked the German farmer about the size of his farm. “About a mile square”, the German farmer replied. The German then asked the Texas rancher about the size of his property back in Texas. 

     The Texas rancher decided to put it in country terms. He explained that if you got in his pick-up truck at dawn, and drove until sunset, you would still be on his ranch. Not to be outdone,  the German  farmer replied, “I used to have an old truck like that!”

     I just finished up depositons  where I took the defendant’s deposition, and the defense attorney took my client’s deposition. It is a rear-end crash, but they still assert defenses. It’s typical for the way things are today. Unfortunately, no one ever thinks about frivolous defenses.

     At one point in the deposition, I objected to the defense counsel asking my client about when she hired me. I think that’s work product and shouldn’t be admissible. Plus, why is hiring a lawyer,  relevant to a rear-end crash.

     The defense attorney’s perspective is that he thinks it should be relevant; to try and show that my client got extra medical treatment, because of my involvement. Thus, he thinks it’s a proper question and something the jury should be allowed to consider.

     Different viewpoints, much like the farmer and the rancher.  We are looking at it from a plaintiff and defense perspective. Plus, some defense attorneys say that the case just hasn’t ripened for settlement. That means that they haven’t quite billed enough hours.

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Uncategorized
Comments (3)

Our Television Advertising

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

     It is probably no surprise that we get inquiries about possible cases through the Internet. My blog is not really meant to generate business but I know that the reach of the blog has helped in introducing some of the “on goings” of the practice. Because this really isn’t a political blog by nature, I don’t get the ranting comments like some other blogs that I read. My advertising, on the other hand, has sometimes gotten a different reaction.

     I think that I aired my first television legal ad in 1989.  I remember the first ad as being pretty tame and basically was a name recognition advertisement that included the slogan “Leave it to Bieber”. When I was in law school, I would always joke that I would have Ward and June characters outside of a house, like the old “Leave it to Beaver” show, calling to me and saying something about “The Bieber” while the June actor would be saying something like, “Do something, Ward” . If you’ve seen the old re-runs from that show, I’m sure you’ve seen that line a few times. 

     When I really used the theme of “Leave it to Bieber”, I didn’t expect much of a reaction. I recall getting a great deal of business from the ad but I also recall getting calls and hearing grumblings from lawyers, about the fact that we were doing TV advertising. To this day, there are lawyers still complaining about it; but mostly, so many lawyers are on TV, that it has become “old hat”.

     When I first arrived at law school, I quickly learned that there were some first year students that were very friendly. Those same friendly students are now friendly lawyers. They brought their personality to the practice of law.   When I am asked about what I think of lawyers, one of the responses I give is that all lawyers that come to the office make me happy. Some make me happy when they arrive and others when they leave.   

     I still sometimes speak on advertising. In the beginning, many would ask me if television really works. Now, I’m not asked that question. I guess they figure that we have been around long enough that something must be working or maybe, we have the “Secrets to the Secrets” locked up in a vault somewhere.

     We still do a bit of advertising on TV but the amount has been greatly reduced. Now, people get their information from many sources; There are so many channels on cable or TV that it is hard to target a large viewership. You can now more effectively, though, target a specific audience. ESPN targets young males. Dr Phil targets a female audience. For me, I like that we keep just hanging around. In the next 5 years, who knows what will be the hot item for advertising.

     God willing, we’ll still be here. I suspect that we won’t be advertising by bullhorn or megaphone. Maybe by then we will be in 3D and you’ll see me standing in the middle of your living room, while you wear your fancy 3D glasses. I guess if that’s true, I better go out and buy some new clothes. I have to look good from all angles,  you know!

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off