January 20th, 2009

Goodbye and Good Riddance

Some snippets of fond farewells. Each has much more at the links provided:

From Bob Herbert in the New York Times, December 30, 2008: (Add Up The Damage):

I don’t think [Bush] should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantanamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool’s gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

From Paul Waldman at the American Prospect, November 11, 2008 (Goodbye and Good Riddance):

Goodbye to the rotating cast of butchers manning the White House’s legal abattoir, where the Constitution has been sliced and bled and gutted since September 11. Goodbye to the “unitary executive” theory and its claims that the president can do whatever he wants — even snatch an American citizen off the street and lock him up for life without charge, without legal representation, and without trial. Goodbye to the promiscuous use of “signing statements” (1,100 at last count) to declare that the law is whatever the president says it is, and that he’ll enforce only those laws he likes. Goodbye to an executive branch that treats lawfully issued subpoenas like suggestions that can be ignored.

From Andy Hoffman at The PopTort, January 1, 2009 (So Long Mr. Bush, and Thanks for all the Grief):

As fans of civil justice well know, consumers are kept safe from the havoc inflicted by corporate miscreants by both tough regulations and the deterrent effect of legal liability. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies have done a lot of damage on both fronts — by turning federal regulatory agencies into apologists for corporate wrongdoing and then trying to use these agencies to immunize corporations from lawsuits.

“There ought to be limits to Freedom.”

Gov. George W. Bush, May 21, 1999.

 

January 16th, 2009

We Have A Winner! (Lawyer Soliciting Airline Victim Department)

Last night I wondered who would be the first to violate New York’s 30-day ban on attorneys soliciting after a mass disaster (Hudson River Plane Crash To Test New York’s New Attorney Ethics Rules?)

Now we seem to have a clear winner. After Googling “Flight 1549” we get this ad in the right side-bar of Google (Flight1549LawyerSearch.pdf)

USAirways Crash Victim?
Helping Victims of Flight 1549
Contact Our Aviation Attorneys
www.jcReiterLaw.com
New York, NY

Clicking on the link brings this predictable text:

Were you a loved one aboard US Airways Flight 1549? Are you concerned about your legal rights? Contact our firm to understand how to protect yourself and to seek damages for injuries or trauma sustained during the crash.

OK, those are the facts, now let’s follow the ethics rules…

The anti-solicitation rule is as follows, from New York’s Code of Professional Responsibility (with my italics as emphasis):

DR 7-111 (22 NYCRR 1200.41-a) Communication After Incidents Involving Personal Injury or Wrongful Death

(a) In the event of an incident involving potential claims for personal injury or wrongful death, no unsolicited communication shall be made to an individual injured in the incident or to a family member or legal representative of such an individual, by a lawyer or law firm, or by any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm, seeking to represent the injured individual or legal representative thereof in potential litigation or in a proceeding arising out of the incident before the 30th day after the date of the incident, unless a filing must be made within 30 days of the incident as a legal prerequisite to the particular claim, in which case no unsolicited communication shall be made before the 15th day after the date of the incident.

So is a Google ad a solicitation? First, here is the definition of solicitation, paying particular attention to section (d):

A “solicitation” means any advertisement:
a) which is initiated by a lawyer or law firm (as opposed to a communication made in response to an inquiry initiated by a potential client);
b) with a primary purpose of persuading recipients to retain the lawyer or law firm (as opposed to providing educational information about the law) (see EC 2-6(c));
c) which has as a significant motive for the lawyer to make money (as opposed to a public interest lawyer offering pro bono services); and
d) which is directed to or targeted at a specific recipient or group of recipients, or their family members or legal representatives.

Any advertisement that meets all four of these criteria is a solicitation, and is governed not only by the rules that govern all advertisements but also by special rules governing solicitation.

So what does it mean to be “directed to or targeted at a specific recipient or group of recipients…?” Glad you asked. So here it is, under Ethical consideration (EC) 2-19:

“…an advertisement in a public medium such as newspapers, television, billboards, web sites or the like is a solicitation if it makes reference to a specific person or group of people whose legal needs arise out of a specific incident to which the advertisement explicitly refers.”

So what does the Law Firm of Jonathon C. Reiter win? Either clients or a bench slap. We’ll see which one it is.
———————————————

Note: The law firm link I provided is via TinyUrl redirect so that the firm does not benefit from any Google juice from this posting.

Links to this post:

mortimer, morden, and miracles
a few “quickies” that took too long to write this saturday morning afternoon: thank you, john mortimer, for creating rumpole: as today’s new york times reports, “john mortimer, barrister and writer who created rumpole, dies at 85” (jan.
posted by David Giacalone @ January 17, 2009 1:25 PM

 

January 16th, 2009

Linkworthy

We have a new blog in town, John Hochfelder’s New York Injury Cases Blog. John clearly understands the first errors so many personal injury bloggers make; he doesn’t treat his blog as an island unto itself to be used solely for self-promotion, and is joining the blawgospheric conversation. He’ll be digging into the meat of those big verdicts you sometimes hear about, and will let us know what they really mean;

A Phoenix rises in Blawg Review # 194 with Susan Cartier Liebel at her Build a Solo Practice;

Anne Reed let’s us know at Deliberations how Clarence Darrow picked juries. Some things are timeless:

Every knowing lawyer seeks for a jury of the same sort of men as his client; men who will be able to imagine themselves in the same situation and realize what verdict the client wants

…but his stereotypes of Irishmen, Englishmen, Germans, Jews and others needs to be seen to be believed;

“Tomorrow at midnight, New York will joins the ranks of other jurisdictions in which liability insurers must prove prejudice from delayed reporting of liability claims.” Roy Mura at Coverage Counsel has the details;

Ron Miller takes an historical look at the efficiency of the justice system; he starts with a Time Magazine article from 45 years ago that seems to have some familiar complaints;

And TortsProf has their 21st edition of the Personal Injury Law Round-Up.

 

January 15th, 2009

Hudson River Plane Crash To Test New York’s New Attorney Ethics Rules? (Updated x2)

The plane crash in the Hudson River today may test New York’s new attorney ethics rules with respect to solicitation.

New rules were put into effect in the wake of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster that killed 11 and injured 71. The Appellate Divisions were appalled that so many personal injury lawyers ran to place ads in the Staten Island Advance before a 3 pm deadline on the day of the accident; ads that were placed while rescue efforts were still underway.

Specifically, there is a prohibition on solicitation within 30 days of such a mass disaster. (While some of the new rules were found unconstitutional, this one was not.) The new rules read:

DR 7-111 (22 NYCRR 1200.41-a) Communication After Incidents Involving Personal Injury or Wrongful Death

(a) In the event of an incident involving potential claims for personal injury or wrongful death, no unsolicited communication shall be made to an individual injured in the incident or to a family member or legal representative of such an individual, by a lawyer or law firm, or by any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm, seeking to represent the injured individual or legal representative thereof in potential litigation or in a proceeding arising out of the incident before the 30th day after the date of the incident, unless a filing must be made within 30 days of the incident as a legal prerequisite to the particular claim, in which case no unsolicited communication shall be made before the 15th day after the date of the incident.

Lawyers who place the ads claim that they do so so that people will be able to quickly learn their rights before an insurance company stuffs a release under their noses while they are still in shock from the incident, and gives them 10 cents on the dollar. The new rules, it should be noted, prohibit the insurance companies from doing so. The following paragraph reads:

(b) This provision limiting contact with an injured individual or the legal representative theoreof applies as well to lawyers or law firms or any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm who represent actual or potential defendants or entities that may defend and/or indemnify said defendants.

Of course, the authority of the court to regulate the insurance companies in such a manner has never been tested. (See: Did New York Courts Exceed their Authority With New Advertising Rules?)

Some may believe that, thanks to the fast and heroic action of local ferry operators that saved so many people, and the lack of serious injuries at this point (as per news reports), it would indicate that few personal injury lawsuits would even occur. But even if the physical injuries are minor, there will no doubt be substantial psychological damage to many who thought they would not live to see another day, and may suffer post-traumatic stress disorder in the months and years to come.

With all this in mind, I Googled “Hudson River Plane Crash” to see who started to run ads. Thankfully, the answer is zero. None. Nada. Zip. I don’t know if this is the result of the new ethics rules, or due to the lack of death or serious physical injuries, but it is certainly surprising. A pleasant surprise I might add.

So far, so good. Let’s hope I don’t have to do an addendum.

[1st Addendum: OK, I now have to do an addition. Yeah, you knew there would be one, right? An attorney search service is might, in fact, trolling for victims (via Overlawyered and Popehat). This is would be a clear violation of New York’s attorney ethics rules, but of course, the site claims not to be a law firm (and this might be for a different crash). I had warned in November 2007 of exactly this type of problem, with lawyers using agents to advertise while turning a blind eye to the ethics of the services. See: The Ethics of Attorney Search Services. I wrote at that time:

The implications of attorneys outsourcing advertising to a third party that may be acting unethically represents an area of law that is unexplored by many ethics committees. The company itself is most likely not in your state and not subject to attorney disciplinary rules. So what forces the advertising company that the lawyer is using to act in accordance with local ethics codes?

The very act of engaging such an advertising service should subject the law firm to disciplinary action for any ethical violations committed by the non-attorney advertising company. With this threat hanging over the head of an attorney, it is unlikely they would take such risks with their licenses. It thus makes it impossible to turn a blind eye to any ethical breaches by any service that is used as a front for the law firms.

There is little doubt that if and when attorneys are called on the carpet for problems, they will simply play dumb and say they didn’t know. But that should not be an acceptable excuse. And this is a problem that should be nipped in the bud quickly.] End 1st Addendum

[2nd Addendum: OK, it seems that we have a clear winner on the issue of this crash and the new ethics rules, with one New York firm clearly and unequivocally using “Flight 1549” and “US Airways” in their Google ad]

And one big, gigantic tip of the hat to the pilots and crew and all involved in the rescue. I would call the result a miracle, but if I did so it would diminish the skills and courage of those involved.
————————————————————————-
Photo Credit: Fanny Brown Rice
————————————————————————-
More on the crash:

…it’ll take more than a miracle to keep the lawsuits from flying. As far as we know, no suits have yet been filed. But we were curious about what such a claim — negligent infliction of emotional distress, anyone? — may look like, and whether it could succeed.

Please don’t rush to New York and file a lawsuit over yesterday’s crash.

Links to this post:

mortimer, morden, and miracles
a few “quickies” that took too long to write this saturday morning afternoon: thank you, john mortimer, for creating rumpole: as today’s new york times reports, “john mortimer, barrister and writer who created rumpole, dies at 85” (jan.
posted by David Giacalone @ January 17, 2009 1:25 PM

 

January 14th, 2009

InkJetSuperstore Not So Super

I’m irritated. The web site claims that orders “are usually shipped the same day.” But it took them five days to ship mine. Since this is ink for my printer, that matters.

Over the last 20 years I have done everything as an attorney from answering the phones and filing papers, to taking verdicts and arguing appeals. I’ve also taken care of my office equipment, which inclues the utterly mundane act of ordering ink.

InkJet Superstore has ink. So I ordered it. But when I got an email five days after placing the order that it had just shipped, I was steamed.


I tried to call, but the customer service number was no longer working.
I tried to email, but there was no email address on the site.
I tried “live chat” and got a human, claiming to be named “Jane.” Ah ha! So let’s see what happened to my ink:


info: Please wait for a site operator to respond.
info: You are now chatting with ‘Jane’

Jane: Hi! How can I help you?
you: I ordered my stuff 5 days ago. Why did it take 5 days to ship?
Jane: I do apologise for that delay. Could you tell me your order number so I cna look it up?
you: 683089
Jane: And what is your name please?
you: Eric Turkewitz
Jane: We experienced a severe delay during the weeks from Dec. 29 to January 10th, this is why your order shipped fiveive days later. I apologise for this inconvenience.
you: Your website says:
you: Orders placed before 3pm PST are usually shipped the same day. (Monday – Friday).
you: I tried to call, by the way, and the customer service number on the website has been disconnected.
Jane: Yes, but as I said, we went thourgh a very big, unforseen, delay. Which is why we couldn’t ship a lot of orders within due time.
Jane: Our phone system is down at the moment, we’re trying to solve it.
you: What was the delay?
Jane: We had our anual inventory recount opnthe last week of December, which resulted in a huge delay of orders from that week and the week after it
you: If this was an annual recount, why was it “unforeseen?”
Jane: Because we don’t prevent how many orders we will have delayed
you: ??? (That didn’t seem to make sense)
Jane: The delayed was expected, but we didn’t know it was going to be such a delay. Is there anything else you need us to do for you???
you: If you knew there was a big delay, why didn’t you at least send the stuff to me by next day delivery instead of ground service?
Jane: I’m sorry for the inconveniece, but we weren’t able to do that at the time.
you: That’s not a very good answer to an unhappy customer
Jane: I apologise for this problem I really understand your situation.
you: Saying you have delays due to an annual recount and apologizing for me not sending me the stuff pronto, doesn’t really answer any question that I had
you: Your site says 100% satisfaction guaranteed. As you might guess, I am not satisfied
Jane: What you can do, if you wish, is return the items for a full refund, when you receive them.
you: Where were these goods shipped from?
Jane: Form Bell, CA, 90201
you: Great, so it will take another 5 days to reach New York?
Jane: Yes.
you: Will you be letting your boss know that s/he has lost the business of a customer, not just because of the initial delay, but because the company then caused further delay by shipping it via ground?
Jane: I will. We always report this issued to our boss. I’m sorry for this inconvenience.
you: By the way, you said you couldn’t ship the stuff to me via air after the delay. Why not?
Jane: We can’t change the shipping method a package once the order is shipped.
you: But it only shipped today. You knew many days ago you were having long delays. So why wasn’t it switched before it was sent?
you: I mean, really, is that any way to treat customers? To make them bear the brunt of your delays?
Jane: This was an unusual situation, I’m so sorry about this.
you: You’ve already apologized. I’m not looking for another one. I want to know why steps weren’t taken to immediately rectify the foul-up. Because if the company can’t rectify foul-ups in such a simple manner, there seems to be little reason to trust the company in the future.
you: Hello?
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to [xxxx [at]Turkewitzlaw[dot]com] at the end of your chat.

So there you have it. Delays by the company, and the hope that lots of “I’m sorries” will somehow make the goods appear at my office quicker. I never did get a decent answer as to why an annual recount was unforeseen or why the company didn’t ship delayed items by air to make sure the customers got their goods with as little delay as possible.

OK, you’ve each been warned about this company.