A few weeks ago, a group of Florida teens saw a disabled man drowning in a local pond. Not only did they fail to take any steps to rescue him or call for help, they instead taunted, mocked, and ridiculed him. How do we know? They filmed it and posted it online (warning, it is disturbing to watch and hear)
People often ask me, “Mike, what kinds of NY personal injury cases do you take”? My answer is simple: Cases I can win. I don’t mind if they are tough to win, but at least they must be winnable. I want to help my clients, and taking an unwinnable case does the client no favor. Tough for me to get paid on unwinnable cases, too, since I operate almost exclusively on a contingency fee basis.
Funny that no one ever asks me what kind of cases I don’t take. Glad you asked. I just read about a case that is the poster child for a case I would not take: A Texas entrepreneur, Henry Riojas, recently sued a tortilla manufacturer claiming bad tortilla chips caused him to have a stroke.
Love affairs are tantalizing, but dangerous. I know because I have been involved in such a love affair for well over a decade. The object of my affection is not a person. It is a thing. And what a lovely thing it is: Email!
Email has revolutionized my New York personal injury practice. Before email, I would get back to the office from a day in court and have dozens of phone calls to return, and to make. Ever since I got email on my smart phone (about 10 years ago?) that hardly ever happens. My smart phone is always on me and I can read and respond to my clients’ inquiries while standing in the Deli line or while sitting in court waiting to argue my case. What a time saver!
Email, I love you.
The photo above accompanied an article on the front page of the Auburn Citizen yesterday. The article was about the billboard. Recognize those guys in the billboard? Yup, that’s us. In our one and only billboard.
Before I tell you the story behind the billboard, let me tell you why we have only one billboard. Generally, we under-spend our rivals on advertising by a long shot. That’s because we get most of our cases from our network of referring lawyers and prior clients who love our results. We don’t need to advertise as much as those other guys. But we do like to get our name out there a little.
But I didn’t really want to write a book. I was too busy representing my many clients injured in New York accidents. So instead I looked online and in book stores for a book that would explain what all my clients should know about their New York State personal injury claims process.
Guess what. I didn’t find one. (Well, there were some, but they were either inadequate or just plain wrong.)
Unlike in past presidential elections, “tort reform” is not a hotly debated issue this time around. Nevertheless, for a New York personal injury lawyer like myself, whose firm is currently representing hundreds of injured tort victims, it is an extremely important issue. I therefore decided to research how the four main presidential candidates (Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders) feel about so-called “tort reform”. (Note: Those in favor of limiting injured victims’ rights in court invented the term “tort reform”, but since I don’t think our tort laws need “reforming”, and I think that denying victims their day in court is a bad idea, I would rather call it “tort deform“. I recognize, however, that most people won’t know what I’m talking about if I call it “tort deform“, so I will — unwillingly — call it “tort reform” just like they do.)
Donald Trump: Although many or even most of Trump’s supporters would probably support tort reform, Trump himself is no enemy of lawsuits. In fact, he is one of the most free-wheeling lawsuit filers on the planet. He often uses lawsuits to force settlements or to stop people from saying things about him that he does not like. For example:
- He threatened to sue Ted Cruz if he did not remove a campaign ad where Trump is shown in a 1999 interview claiming he was “very pro-choice.”
Michaels & Smolak’s new publicity campaign is taking off! Starting today, April 1, 2016, many commercial airlines around the country — and beyond — will feature the Michaels & Smolak personal injury law firm name and tagline, as shown in the photo above.
Not everyone is excited about the new ads. One passenger interviewed as she was boarding a Michaels & Smolak plane was quoted as saying, “while I realize Michaels & Smolak is one of the top personal injury law firms in the nation, their logo on this plane with the tagline ‘for serious cases‘ makes me a little uneasy about boarding to say the least”.
Most airlines nevertheless jumped on board the innovative campaign.
What is more stunning is that the verdict was purely for emotional, not physical harm. No amputated arm or leg. No paralysis. No scars. She is still beautiful. She still has a stunningly successful career as a sports broadcaster for Fox.
Yes, I am blogging about the Erin Andrews verdict.
Here at Michaels & Smolak, on any given day, you are likely to find, on our attorneys’ desks, piles of dog-eared, highlighted, and marked-up volumes of the New York Jury Verdict Reporter. The Reporter summarizes jury verdicts on a weekly basis from around New York State. (Actually, this publication is now called “VerdictSearch“, but old-timers like me, and most New York personal injury lawyers, still call it the “Jury Verdict Reporter“.)
Why do we read it? To help us represent YOU in YOUR CASE. True, every case is different, including yours, so the New York Jury Verdict Reporter provides only limited guidance. Every case, including yours, has a unique set of facts, lawyers, and jury members. All of these variables can and do affect the result of a case. Therefore, in one sense, the result of a single case reported in the Jury Verdict Reporter literally tells us nothing about how your case will end up.
But if you keep reading the jury verdict reports week after week, as we do, certain patterns emerge that are very helpful to both predicting the result of, and guiding our handling of, your case. Here are five main lessons that come out of the jury verdict reporter:
One thing you godda love about lawsuits is “discovery”. It’s what goes on right after you sue and the party you sued answers. Then you get to ask them to turn over almost any document relevant to the claims or defenses. Almost any document that has any possible relevance at all is game.
And sometimes you turn up some real gems. It’s what I call “getting the goods”.
Think about the lawsuits in the 70’s against Big Tobacco. Imagine finding – hidden in the reams of papers turned over to you – internal reports admitting that Big Tobacco manipulated nicotine levels to “hook” smokers to their dangerous product. Or that they knew their product caused cancer even as they denied it publicly. It’s a “gocha” moment! How much money is that kind of evidence worth at trial!?