A recent dialogue with a client  got me thinking about how backwards it may seem to folks when I tell them that I cannot recommend taking their case to trial because they may be better off taking the insurance money – even if that insurance money clearly is not sufficient to fully compensate them for their injuries.

Heck, if the insurance money isn’t enough, why wouldn’t you want to get a judgment against the bad guy and then collect the money directly from the bad guy?

The short answer is that sometimes judgments aren’t worth the paper they are written on. You have heard the expression “You can’t get blood from a stone?” Likewise, you can’t collect on a judgment unless the person against whom you have the judgment has some money or other assets subject to collection. The plain hard truth is that most often when a person does not have good insurance coverage, they also don’t have any real $ to collect against.

• First, collection may be difficult/impossible because of the lack of assets. You may think, why not get a judgment anyways? What if the person who didn’t have the assets to settle a judgment suddenly hit the lottery or came in to a lot of money? Well, first we would have to know about his windfall – and he’s not going to make that easy. Then he’d have to be dumb enough to put it in a bank where we could reach the money – THEN we might be able to collect on the judgment.

However, collecting on a judgment is very tough and there are plenty of ways for a debtor to hide or shelter money from collection. In fact, I have a judgment for $400,000 I obtained 8 years ago and I have spent close to $30,000 on collection lawyers and we have yet to receive a single penny. For all of these reasons, pursuing a judgment doesn’t turn out to be the solution one would think…

• Second – and this is related to the first point – we don’t get a penny of the money from the car insurance carrier unless we sign a Release releasing the driver from any personal liability. In other words, we are over a barrel – if we want the insurance $, we have to let the driver go. I know the insurance payment is only $25,000, but $25,000 is better than a possible zero.

Now, don’t get me wrong – the insurance will pay $25,000 toward the judgment, but that is all they would be required to pay. So that leads us to the third point…

• Third, it costs money to pursue a judgment because to do so we have to go to trial and the average cost of a trial like this would be approximately $8,000-$10,000. This is just for costs (i.e. doctor’s testimony, court costs, transcription fees, etc.) and doesn’t include a penny of my fee. I hate the idea of eating up that much in costs when the maximum insurance coverage is only $25,000.

For all these reasons, I think pursuing a judgment is not always a good idea. Ultimately, however, it is the client’s decision and I will pursue whatever course he prefers. I just help him make an informed decision.

I hope this clarifies this issue for my blog readers. Please, if you have questions about this topic, don’t hesitate to call or e-mail me for more information.

Thanks,

Jim
_________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

Albany Medical Center Hospital

The Albany Times-Union carried the story, “$5.2 M benefit can’t heal loss.” John handled the case for the family of Diane Rizk McCabe. Diane died in 2007, at age 32. The Caesarean delivery of her second child was not handled correctly. Diane slowly bled to death over 15 hours. Albany Medical Center Hospital will pay the cash settlement for malpractice and mandated changes in procedure.

The McCabe family took a settlement, but John was able to bring this case to an unusual conclusion. The monetary settlement is substantial, but what this family truly wanted two things: To make Diane a remembered presence to her two children and to force the hospital to make changes that would prevent this kind of loss from happening to any other families.

John represented Joseph McCabe, Diane’s widowed husband and a Schenectady police officer. In the Times-Union story, John says he was ready to take the case to trial in August.

“It was never about the money with the family,” John was quoted as saying. “It came down to the non-monetary aspects involved with the settlement. They wanted to do something to make certain this doesn’t happen to someone else and to create a memorial to Diane for the children as they grow up that they’ll know that their mother is being remembered in this way.”

If the McCabe family had pursued the trail, they couldn’t have won those very important non-monetary stipulations. The Albany Medical Center Hospital must fund for the next 20 years a Diane McCabe Memorial Quality Lecture series focusing on topics related to enhancing patient safety.

The hospital must also buy a maternal and neonatal simulator for staff training and to change monitoring procedures for women during childbirth.

I just want to congratulate John for being able to bring such a tragic case to a resolution that really means something to the McCabe family. He’s also a past president of the New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers. The organization sent an e-mail to members with an announcement of this extraordinary settlement.

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866  Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

E-mail me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:
NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.

I told him that the time limit to bring a legal malpractice claim in NY  is “generally” 3 years from the date of the alleged malpractice by the attorney (ie the first date you feel the lawyer screwed up).

The reason I qualified this statement by saying “generally” is that there are a few, very limited exceptions to this 3 year time limit requirement (more on this below).

In this man’s situation, his case may be dismissed – and that could have been caused by legal malpractice by his own attorney. Through no fault of his own, this victim is looking at his case being dismissed before he even really gets started because the time limit to bring a NY legal malpractice case (3 years) has already expired.

The sad part is that he might not have any recourse because he was so caught up in his medical situation that he didn’t even know the applicable time limit for bringing a lawsuit against his lawyer. Now he has discovered that he may have to hurry up and file a legal malpractice case – if he can – before the 3-year window to bring a legal malpractice case closes.

He wanted to know if this was all the time his case had left – and if there were anything else he could do.

Statute of limitations in legal malpractice cases can be very tricky to determine and often are very fact-dependent.

My usual rule of thumb is to use 3 years from the date of the alleged malpractice.  Any date other than that can become very risky because you are relying on exceptions to the general rule.

With that said, there is an exception generally referred to as the “continuous treatment doctrine” that is occasionally applied in medical malpractice cases. It says the clock doesn’t start to tick on the time limit to file a malpractice claim until the last date the defendant doctor continued to provide active treatment to the patient.

The corollary to this exception in the legal malpractice world is the “continuous representation doctrine” and it would suggest that the clock doesn’t start to tick on the attorney’s malpractice until the last date the attorney represented you on the particular matter that you allege he screwed up.

As I said before, these are general exceptions and the courts can be very strict in applying these exceptions to the facts of any particular case.  Accordingly, competent malpractice lawyers prefer not to ever rely on these exceptions and try to bring the action within 3 years of the date of the alleged malpractice.  I refer to this as the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Because determining the proper time limit is so important (and fatal to your case if you do it incorrectly!), I urge anyone with a this issue to consult with an experienced malpractice lawyer ASAP!

I hope this helps.

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866  Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

E-mail me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:
NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.

I had the pleasure of handing over a sizable settlement check to the victim of a Pennsylvania Motorcycle Collision the other day.  It’s a pretty common occurrence, but the circumstances of this particular case made it particularly satisfying.  My hope is that by sharing the information on this blog, I can keep a future motorcycle client from making the same mistake.

This client  didn’t come to us when he was first hurt.  He made the mistake of calling one of those firms who advertise on TV about every 15 seconds.  So they sent an “investigator” to him to have him sign a retainer agreement, and made him travel to their BIG CITY office several hours away to meet with some paralegal.  Everything seemed to be going fine until the time came to discuss settlement with the insurance company.  It turned out that who was at fault for the collision was a little bit of an open question, so the insurance company decided they wouldn’t pay a penny and basically dared the attorney to sue them.

This is where things get really interesting.  You see, the client had a really significant injury.  If this “BIG CITY” lawyer with the multi-million dollar advertising budget could convince the insurance company that their driver was at fault, the insurance company would surely offer up the entire policy due to the nature of the biker’s injury.  For whatever reason, this “BIG CITY” attorney couldn’t convince the insurance adjuster to do this.  That kind of thing happens.  Insurance companies don’t stay in business long if they hand over money every time an attorney comes knocking with an arguable claim.  If the insurance company refuses to pay anything willingly, the next step is clear:  you sue them and start heading for trial.  It doesn’t mean there will necessarily be a trial, as after the discovery part of the law suit is concluded there will be another round of negotiations where the case may settle, but you have to keep the case moving.

What happened next astounded me.  This “BIG CITY” lawyer with the tough guy commercials tucked his tail and ran for the hills.  He told the client he would no longer represent him.  Now that the case might actually take a little work, this “BIG CITY” lawyer wanted nothing to do with it.

So the client came to me.  I couldn’t figure out why the “BIG CITY” lawyer dropped the case, as it seemed like a good case to me.  I sued the case and proceeded with the litigation.  I was eventually able to convince the insurance company that their driver was at fault for the accident, and they agreed to pay my client the fully policy limits.

There are a couple lessons to be learned from this case.  First, spending millions of dollars a year on tough sounding TV commercials doesn’t make a lawyer tough.  Second, you don’t have to drive to a big city to get quality representation.

If you need a personal injury attorney, ask your family, friends and neighbors who they may have used.  Do some research, and make an informed decision.  As the above situation reveals, which attorney you choose can make a huge difference in how your case comes out.  Ask any attorney you meet with if they are willing to take your case to trial if necessary, and how many similar cases they have tried.     Insist that you actually meet with the attorney that will be handling your case and not some “investigator”.  After all, do you really want to hire an attorney who is “too busy” to meet with you himself?  If you are too far away for the attorney to drive to meet you, aren’t you too far away to drive to meet the attorney?

Everything for this client ended up working out for the best.  I just worry about that firm’s other clients.  Heaven help them if the going get tough in their case.

Thanks for reading,

_______________________________
Adam M. Gee, Esq.
NY and PA Personal Injury and Malpractice Attorney
The Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, NY  14901
Phone: (607)733-8866
Fax: (607)732-6062
Email: agee@zifflaw.com
www.zifflaw.com

At long, long, last. A new documentary may reveal the TRUTH about a tragic case. One personal injury case in the early ’90s has been held up as the epitome of a “frivolous” lawsuit. In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was severely burned by spilling a cup of McDonald’s coffee onto her lap.

After a long struggle with the McDonald’s legal forces, Stella was awarded $2.9 million in damages by a New Mexico jury. The story became a national lightning rod for controversy over personal responsibility and bogus litigation. Poor injured Stella was lampooned for stupidity, clumsiness and greed. The term “Stella Award” was even coined to refer to any lawsuit or victim award viewed as preposterous.

New documentary presents radically different view of coffee case

“Hot Coffee,” slated to be released in 2011 according to IMDB.com, returns to the principals in the case to find out the REAL details. In many of the most important, basic details, Stella’s hot coffee case was very different from what was reported in the media.

One thing that is mentioned in the trailer (check it out above) that is not usually emphasized is the fact that the courts drastically reduced the jury’s verdict. Despite that reduction, the tort reformers NEVER mention that fact and ALWAYS refer to this as the multi-million dollar McDonald’s case! Very dishonest.

Also in the brief trailer you can see participants reflecting on the case and the amount of disinformation that was spread. The reason, suggested by some experts: McDonald’s objective to embarrass Stella Liebeck, ridicule her legitimate claim and foster a public climate in which injured claimants were reluctant to press for justice.

Thanks to the filmmakers for all their hard work on this important story. Hopefully it will change the reigning public opinion about Stella Liebeck’s intentions and claims.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

The short answer is YES, attorneys want and need clients. The long answer is that it is a two-way street. Clients can commit actions or have habits that make it difficult for an attorney to continue to work with them. These traits include lying to your lawyer, ignoring your lawyer’s advice, and being generally discourteous.

I recently came across a great post for clients, “The Top 10 Ways to Get Fired by Your Lawyer,” at BlawgIT.com

In the blog post, patent lawyer Brett Trout explains the 10 most common client actions he believes will cause an attorney to call it quits on a case. I wanted to focus on two of Trout’s tips and use them to illustrate how I work with my personal injury and medical malpractice clients at the Ziff Law Firm.

Communication is key – right from the start

Two issues that can cause friction between client and attorney are when the client fails to pay promptly and/or nitpicks the bill.

As Trout explains: “Failing to pay your bill within 30 days of the invoice is no guarantee your lawyer will fire you, but it certainly does not help. If you have a concern about the bill, contact your lawyer immediately to discuss it.” As for nitpicking, Trout explains that he is not referring to genuine fee disputes, but cases in which a client consistently has issues with his or her lawyer’s bills.

Most of my clients do not pay by the hour. I work on a contingency fee, receiving one-third of the amount recovered after expenses are deducted off the top. Because of this arrangement, I don’t have issues with people paying me late or nitpicking my bills. (To see how clients with representation still come out ahead financially, check out the ZiffLaw Accidents and Car Crashes FAQ.)

I also believe, however, that one of the reasons that I have never had a fee dispute with a client in more than 22 years of practice is because I spend time going through the details of my retainer agreement right at the very beginning of our representation.

Any good lawyer is willing to spend the time to make sure that a client understands exactly how fees and disbursements are calculated and paid. It’s one of the ways we make sure we don’t get “fired” by our clients – but rather work together to achieve the resolution they are looking for.

Thanks,

Jim

______________________________

James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14901
Tel: (607) 733-8866
Fax: (607) 732-6062
Toll Free: 1-800-943-3529
Email: jreed@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com

Please visit the New York Injury Law Blog at: http://www.NYInjuryLawBlog.com

Email me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:
NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Eight Powerful Reasons to Hire a Local Attorney (zifflaw.com)
• Get Paid Fast! Accident Victims’ Right to Prompt Payment of Insurance Claims (zifflaw.com)

And so you wait. And wait. And wait. Your calls are returned, but nothing seems to be going on. You are frustrated, but confident your lawyer knows what he is doing. You trust that it all will end well. But it doesn’t. Three years pass and one day your lawyer calls to inform you that he is mortified, but he failed to put your case in suit within three years and now your claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations. You may no longer sue the trucking company or its driver. You have lost your claim.

Outrageous? To be sure, but unfortunately it happens more than members of the profession wish to admit. And, indeed, you have lost your claim against the trucking company and its driver. But you are not without a remedy, because the reason your claim is barred is a direct consequence of the negligence of your lawyer. You now possess what is called a Legal Malpractice claim.

Legal Malpractice claims are different than other negligence cases because they are really two cases rather than one. To prevail, you must prove that your lawyer deviated from good and accepted legal practice. On our facts, that proof is not difficult. Your lawyer let the three year statute of limitation run without suing your case. That part of your Legal Malpractice case is a slam dunk.

But the lawyer handling your Legal Malpractice claim must prove more than the prior lawyer’s negligence. He or she must also prove the original case. There are two cases, then, that your new lawyer must prove: one against your former lawyer and one against the trucking company and its driver. And on the facts I have offered, the second part of your case may be problematic because there will likely need to be a trial to determine whose account of how the accident occurred is truthful.

The trucking company, if there is any basis for believing the version claimed by its driver, will likely hire its own accident reconstructionist to come testify that the physical evidence (photographs, debris, vehicle damage, etc.) point to the impact as having occurred in the trucker’s lane of travel. They will seek to discredit your version of how the accident occurred. What will be different, however, is that the defense lawyer will be a person hired by your first lawyer’s malpractice insurer, not by the insurance company for the trucking company.

This case can still settle. Most do, particularly if the physical evidence does not strongly support the trucker’s version. But in the hypothetical case I have created, it is likely that the physical evidence was at least equivocal if not supportive of the trucker. That would help to explain why three years passed without the trucking company’s insurance carrier having made a significant settlement offer.

Legal Malpractice litigation is more complex than garden variety negligence litigation. Not many lawyers have experience prosecuting these cases. The Ziff Law Firm has been handling Legal Malpractice claims and obtaining good results for years. We would be happy to have a look, without charge, at yours.

Thank you for reading,
Carl
_________________________________________
Carl T. Hayden, Attorney
Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Phone (607) 733-8866
Fax (607) 732-6062
Toll-free 1-800-943-3529

mailto:chayden@zifflaw.com
www.zifflaw.com

Calling all Constitutional Law Junkies: June 26, 2008 was a monumental day.

It is not often (yet more frequent these days than is perhaps appropriate) that the U.S. Supreme Court authors a decision in which it offers — in nearly 150 pages of disparate, arguably subjective detail — overtly telepathic insight into the minds and hearts of the framers cast under a thin, unimpressive veil of stare decisis. A day to celebrate? Perhaps, as it was for the N.R.A. supporters and the libertarian crowd who view the District of Columbia, et. al. v. Heller through a narrow pragmatic lense as a promotion of individual liberties (and security that they can keep their guns.) A day for outrage? Apparently for a “frightened” Mayor Daley, as he trumpeted the call to fight for the right to ban guns in his hometown and plans were made to challenge similar laws in megapolises across the country.

I felt something in between. I feel scholastic excitement, to be sure. Heller , like Bush v. Gore, will certainly endure as a landmark case in Constitutional Law 101 for centuries to come. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy, is bursting with interesting (if somewhat trivial given Scalia’s general predisposition against extra-four corners constitutional analysis) historical references — James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment; E. de Vattel’s 1792 “The Law of Nations, or, Principals of the Law of Nature”; England’s 1671 “Game Act”; and, of course, the mighty and ever-persuasive Federalist Papers. (As a reverent admirer of the Papers, I write this tongue-and-cheek to respectfully mock Scalia’s apparently selective use and disuse of the great Hamilton/Madison cryptic debate depending whether it supports a case’s end result.) Further, Justices Breyer and Stevens each offer 40+ page dissents, allowing all of us to catch a glimpse of what it must have felt like to be in the back room on this one.

At the same time, however, I feel disappointed. To have such a monumental decision — one where the highest court in our land determined the parameters of what I suppose should now be referred to as an “individual right” by a 5-4 vote along ideologic [i.e...(dare I suggest it) political] lines — is a tough reality check for a struggling idealist to bear. I am still trying to hold on to the red, white and blue notion that judges are impartial and justice is politically blind, but decisions like this make me feel more foolish than enlightened or proud. Do I believe in a “living constitution”? Not really, but I firmly believe our nation ‘s judiciary desperately needs to develop a set a norms by which to interpret constitutional doctrine that is not so fraught with explicit contradictions as to make monumental decisions such as Heller appear disingenuous at best.

(Bear in mind my worldview has been shaped by an outlandish cast of global characters who boast extremely divergent philosophies. From peace makers in Missoula singing Kum Ba Yah in the foothills to my hometown husband who spends every possible minute each fall in a tree stand, I feel lucky to be able to appreciate the widely debated social issue at stake in Heller — whether individuals should bear arms — from many different angles. How I actually come down on that debate is a subject for another post, because, in my opinion, it is wholly removed from the doctrinal mishaps displayed by the Supreme Court yesterday.)

Worst of all, the decision left me feeling a little lighter in the pocketbook — at least in my personal future’s market. When the Supreme Court granted cert on this case, I bet my brother-in-law dinner at one of Elmira’s finest dining establishments that there was no way the court would strike down D.C.’s law. “Scalia is an originalist,” I argued, “but even he won’t stretch so far as to breath individualism into the Second Amendment.” Guess who got a text yesterday reminding me it is now time to pay up…

After posting this I was approached by a few folks who asked, “So, what do YOU think of the opinion?” Though I initially tried to remain neutral, this is what I think:

I think the Supreme Court got it wrong. Forgetting the legal and constitutional context for a moment, I feel bearing arms (at least in our neck of the woods) is a good thing. Most people around here have them for sport, and so long as they are well regulated it does not seem to be a bad thing.

In legal terms, however, I think the majority opinion – authored by Justice Scalia – is off-base. Purporting to use pre-colonial history to support the notion that our founders envisioned an unfettered right for an individual to bear arms for any purpose, Scalia, in my opinion, ignores the black and white text of the Second Amendment – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Instead I tend to adopt the viewpoints set forth by Justice Breyer in his dissent. Breyer accepts the Second Amendment guarantees some sort of an individual right, but argues (1) the Amendment protects militia-related, not defense-related, interests, (a position for fully developed in Justice Stevens’ dissent); and (2) the protections provided by the Amendment are not absolute, but rather, like other constitutionally protected rights such as the right to be free from search-and-seizure, can be regulated or curtailed by the government so long as the government’s purpose for doing so bears, at a minimum, a “rational relationship” to a “legitimate governmental purpose.”)

Thanks for reading (and putting up with a bit of pontification),

Christina

While getting the kids ready for school in the morning, I often have the TV on some news program to check the weather, school closings and local happenings before work. What I have been seeing lately is disturbing. Nearly every day, I see a commercial touting the need for tort reform to prevent law suit abuse and “frivolous lawsuits“. It seems unlikely that in the 10 minutes I have the TV on that I am seeing the same commercial the only time it airs, meaning this commercial is on the air quite frequently. This concerns me because the commercial is so misleading.

I have a confession to make. Even though I have been an attorney for more than 10 years and have handled probably more than a thousand lawsuits over that time, I have never personally seen nor brought a frivolous lawsuit. I don’t personally know any attorneys who have done so either. That’s not to say they don’t exist, though. Everyone has heard of the judge who sued his dry cleaner over the lost pants, and I have occasionally heard of an individual who is not represented by an attorney bringing harassing lawsuits against the same person or people over and over again. What you never hear of, though, is an attorney who makes his or her living as a trial attorney bringing frivolous claims. There is a pretty good reason for this, too. As a trial attorney, I have grown accustomed to getting paid at some point in the litigation. Whether it is a personal injury case taken on contingency (meaning I get a portion of the proceeds of the case) or a case taken on retainer (meaning I am paid on an hourly basis) I don’t handle cases where there is no chance of earning my fee. By definition, a frivolous claim is one in which there is no viable cause of action which could earn a fee.

Yet another reason I don’t bring frivolous claims is that the ethics rules governing attorneys prohibit bringing frivolous claims. I am not about to put my license to practice law at risk for a case in which there is no chance of earning a fee. Every other attorney I know feels the same way, which is probably why the frivolous cases we hear about are brought by people representing themselves.

The commercial that prompted this blog makes it seem as if frivolous lawsuits are rampant. My guess is that the people funding this commercial are the same ones who claim that all the medical malpractice lawsuits are frivolous. They claim that the poor doctors are sued so often they settle cases just to get rid of them. Yeah, right. As someone who regularly sues insurance companies, I can personally assure you that they are not settling frivolous claims just to get rid of them. Its difficult enough to get them to put realistic money on legitimate claims.

Here’s something else you haven’t heard about these so called frivolous lawsuits against doctors: unlike nearly every other type of insurance out there, the doctor’s medical malpractice insurer has to have the doctor’s permission to settle the case. Your auto insurance carrier doesn’t need your permission to settle a claim against you, and neither does your home owner’s insurance company, but the doctor has to agree to any payment on a claim made against him, including the so-called frivolous claims. Makes you think a little, doesn’t it?

The next time you see a commercial like this on TV, take a minute to think about the claims they are making and who has enough money at stake to pay the millions of dollars required for an advertising campaign of this magnitude. Think about who has enough at stake to spend that much money attempting to brainwash the public into thinking that the judicial system is bursting at the seams with frivolous lawsuits. Think who would want to have that commercial running through the minds of potential jurors as they climb into that jury box. Do you think that the insurance companies have anything to do with it?

If you want to know why this type of false advertising gets us angry, imagine that you are the Plaintiff and its your future being decided by those jurors with that commercial running through their heads.

Are you angry now?

Thanks for reading,

Adam M. Gee, Esq.
New York and Pennsylvania Personal Injury and Malpractice Attorney
Ziff, Weiermiller, Hayden & Mustico, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, NY 14901
Phone: (607)733-8866
Fax: (607)732-6062
Email: agee@zifflaw.com
www.zifflaw.com

A Chicago lawyer doesn’t like some comments that an anonymous blogger has been making about this attorney and his firm so the attorney has offered a $10,000 reward for whoever reveals the identity of the anonymous blogger. Kind of reminds me of the “Wanted” posters for the bad guys in the old Western movies!

I personally dislike the idea of anonymous blogging and feel that if you feel strongly enough about what you are saying than you should be strong enough to sign your name to it. We all know it’s easy to talk tough behind someone’s back or anonymously but the real test of one’s conviction is to do it face-to-face or by signing one’s name.

With that said, I understand that many very interesting blogs are anonymous because the writer’s circumstances force them to post anonymously because otherwise they would be promptly fired.

So this really creates a dilemma and I would be very curious to hear back from my readers as to how they feel about anonymous blogging– is it a good thing or bad thing? Please post your comments and we can have a discussion regarding this interesting dilemma……

Here’s the link to the story that pasted below: http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/partner_offers_10k_bounty_for_bloggers_identity

Partner Offers $10K Bounty for Blogger’s Identity

Posted Jan 22, 2008, 05:28 pm CST
By Martha Neil

A Chicago lawyer who is being criticized, along with his law firm, in an anonymous Internet blog supposedly authored by a fellow attorney has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can provide him with the identity of “Troll Tracker.”

The anonymous blogger, who claims to be “just a lawyer; interested in patent cases but not interested in publicity,” has criticized Raymond Niro and his 30-lawyer IP boutique, Niro Scavone Haller & Niro, for representing clients who own patents but don’t necessarily make products. Instead, the firm earns licensing fees from users of the patented technology—and potentially sues users if they don’t pay up, explains the Chicago Tribune.

Although Troll Tracker claims a First Amendment right to criticize the firm anonymously on the blog, Niro says the blogger should take responsibility for his or her views. Plus, he points out, knowing the identity and affiliations of the blogger likely would affect the way that readers perceive the Troll Tracker’s critique.

“I want to find out who this person is,” says Niro, who initially offered a $5,000 reward in last month’s issue of the IP Law & Business trade magazine, and has since upped the ante to $10,000. “Is he an employee with Intel or Microsoft? Does he have a connection with serial infringers? I think that would color what he has to say.”