Mobile Personal Injury Lawyer

Learning to Tell a Story

Clay Rossi — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:12:27 GMT

At the core, every successful trial attorney must be a storyteller. Sadly, law schools do little to nurture and develop this essential skill but rather, ironically, do quite a good bit to destroy the ability to communicate. After three years of legal education, graduates come out “speaking like lawyers.”

Once joining a law firm, the young lawyer is most likely relegated to drafting discovery responses, where clarity in communication is often not sought and even less frequently achieved. Next it’s on to motion practice where wrangling over legal elements and statutory construction further stunts the practitioner’s ability to converse in anything but the most obscurantist manner. Only after years of this regimen is the attorney deemed ready to talk to twelve ordinary people seated in the jury box. The result is as one would expect.

Some lawyers come to understand what has been done to them, others don’t. The one’s who do understand are likely to turn to books and seminars in an attempt to effect a 12-step recovery on their ability to talk like human beings. Yet the goal of many of these rhetorical “recovery programs” is to get you to speak “plain English.” If successful, you are back where you started and no closer to the skill of story telling then you were the day before you walked into law school.

Why not turn to the experts.

Who has the most expertise in being a storyteller than – you guessed it – the professional storyteller? But here again, do not confuse who is a “storyteller” for the purposes of communicating to a jury. While the novelist, actor, and screenwriter might all have something to contribute, what trial attorneys do is rooted in the eons old verbal art of which there remain few practitioners.

One such man is Irish storyteller, Eddie Lenihan who retells the traditional folktales that we unappreciatively label as mere superstition. Lenihan’s stories are surreal – and as such are the perfect antidote to the hyper-rationalism that dominates the lawyer’s mind. How many times does a case turn on the happening of the most improbable events (which in fact did happen!)? However, most of us fail to learn the craft of making those improbable events come alive to the jury. Lenihan knows how. (NB: He also shows that a Hollywood personal appearance and newscaster diction have nothing to do with it, which for most of us should be good news.)

So, take some time and enjoy the incomparable Eddie Lenihan in the following videos and see if that by the tale’s end you don’t find that for a split second you found that the improbable might just have occurred.

http://youtu.be/pMXn7v5wTx0

http://youtu.be/3pl8M0mYrc0

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Clay Rossi

That's the Law??? Shame on you, Alabama

Pete Mackey — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:50:06 GMT

I got a call last week from a person who was robbed by a bad guy in the parking lot of a big box store here in Mobile. There were several lights out in the section that he parked and he did not see his assailant until it was too late. Also, parking lot security at this store is apparently non-existent. In most states, business owners have a duty to provide customers with a safe place to park and shop. In Alabama, not so much. In this state, you have to show that the business owner was on notice that the PARTICULAR assailant was trying to do harm to a PARTICULAR person. How often does that happen. In the foregoing scenario, 30 different people could be robbed in that same spot on 30 consecutive nights and the store will still not have any duty for safety. This naturally encourages business owners to spend the least that they can on security. It also leads to tragic results.

Two years ago, a woman came to Mobile from North Alabama to attend her daughter's graduation at a local college. She rented a room at a nation wide chain located on the interstate service road near the college. As she unlocked her room (on the back side of the motel), she was pushed inside and brutally raped and beaten by her attacker. The police detective that investigated the matter told her that it was the fifth rape in three months in that area. The motel did not have any form of security - no cameras, no security guards and no warning that this was a dangerous area. I had to give her the bad news.

When the law imposes no duties on business owners for safety, this is how things turn out. And that is just not right. Please, call the state representative in your district and tell that person how you feel. He or she probably has no idea that this is the state of affairs in Alabama.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Fire danger from laptop computers in bed

Pete Burns — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:57:05 GMT

My wife sent me an email about a fire death thought to have been caused by a laptop computer the decedent was using in bed before he fell asleep. The theory was that the air intake for the cooling fan in the computer was blocked by bedcovers. Snopes could neither confirm nor deny the report so I ran it past a certified fire investigator, Doug Cranford, and our firm's outside IT guy Barry Langley. Both confirmed that this is a real threat. Doug has seen it before and Barry has seen laptops that melted from being left on the bed.

Takehome message: don't take your laptop to bed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

The Worst Lawyer TV Ad Ever

Pete Mackey — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:56:05 GMT

I do not know any statistics on lawyers advertizing on television - what percentage do, how many ads per month are the average or how much money is spent on the endeavour. Our firm has never advetized on tv. We do not fault those who do, however, provided that a respectful message is conveyed. We have just felt that doing so was not right for our firm. I have seen some awfully good ads which inform the public and are tastefully done. I have seen others which degrade the profession with screaming rants for cash settlements or "bulldog on a chain" representation. However, I have never seen anything as bad as this one.

When a lawyer seeks you as a client through an ad like that, the implication is that this is the way that the system works, so they are your logical choice. In fact, lawyers that promise wads of cash for an injury generally turn to be wads themselves. They never enter the courtroom and settle cases for far less than they are worth. A lawyer that promises to rip your soon to be ex-spouse's throat out (for an additional $399 - today only - hurry, operators are standing by) is a lawyer who is held in low regard by both his or her peers and the judges in that jurisdiction.

So how does a client find a lawyer in this day and time? The Yellow Pages are not much better than a television ad. The ad lists your problem as that lawyer's specialty, but what does that mean? Perhaps that lawyer justs refers the case on. The best way to find the right lawyer for you is to talk to your friends. Who have they used? Do you know a lawyer? Get their advice on who the right lawyer is for your issue. When you get a short list, go to their web sites. If those lawyers still pass muster, submit a question or call them up. There is no problem with getting a second opinion. Just don't pick your lawyer solely on something you see during a station break.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Hey Stossel - Should Tort Reform Apply Here?

Pete Mackey — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:33:19 GMT

The editor and chief wack-job of the World News Daily, Joseph Farrah, is about to sue Esquire over a parody that the magazine did recently announcing that he was recalling the latest WND published pulp fiction questioning Obama's birth certificate. The definition of the word "parody" is "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing." I wonder if Farrah, or his lawyer, or both, understand how the First Amendment is involved in suits of this nature. Could it be that the purpose of the suit is not to right a wrong, but to bring attention to a cause quite undeserving of such attention? If so, would that be considered a frivolous lawsuit?

Let's ask John Stossel. We know that he hates lawyers. He feels the same about lawsuits, unless he is the one filing the lawsuit. So tell us John - where do you stand? Is this a frivolous lawsuit? You are a member of the media - what does the First Amendment mean to you (while I am on the subject, how about the Seventh Amendment?)? Operators are standing by waiting on your call.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

John Stossel Is A Big Fat Liar

Pete Mackey — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:42:09 GMT

In the book of Stossel, there are two things most revered - John and Stossel. He does not care if he gets it right. He does not care if his story offends. Correction - he wants it to offend. Liittle kids and their mothers - check. Women in general - check. Consumers - check. Sometimes he takes things out of context. Sometimes he slants the real data. Sometimes he just lies his ass off. He does not care, as long as it sells.

Oh, and he hates lawyers (like we couldn't have figured that out, Pete). Except he likes them when he gets bitch slapped by a professional wrestler. Eric Turkewitz has a great recount on his blog, including video, of one of Stossel's finer moments. It seems that the guy who hates lawyers hired own of his own. Eric reports that his case settled for $400,000. For two slaps in the face??? Why won't you talk about that case, John? Is your lawyer one of those that you hate? Did he settle your case too cheap.

Fifty years ago, John Stossel would have been a carnival barker. Today, Fox News pays him a lot of money. Hmmm ...

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Whether the Weather Might GIve Rise to Liability

Clay Rossi — Tue, 03 May 2011 18:20:52 GMT

The recent devastation caused by tornados in Alabama has become one of the major news stories of this spring. Due to the proliferation of video recorders and videophones, the horrific events were captured as they happened. Similarly, through remote cameras, news channel meteorologists were able to cover the events in real-time and, arguably, saved lives with their warnings to residents.

However, what if the warnings had not been given or given incorrectly? I came across an interesting legal survey on whether liability exists for negligent weather forecasts.

While the author shows that, to date, suits arising out of allegedly negligent weather forecasting have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful, the issue is not completely dead. The author pointedly reminds us of the Second Restatement of Torts, Section 323, which states:

One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking.

Arguably, with the explosion of smart phones, and people’s reliance on receiving information through these devices, it is conceivable that provision of wrong weather information (or failure to provide an official weather warning) through an “app” may one day give rise to legal liability.

Is such liability likely? It is as difficult to predict as the weather.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Clay Rossi

Delaying Juries, Denying Justice

Clay Rossi — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:07:59 GMT

Recently it was announced by Alabama Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb that the state would be holding fewer jury trials to compensate for judicial system budget cuts. Just how many fewer? Cobb implemented a 50 percent reduction in the number of civil trial weeks and a reduction of 25 percent for criminal trial weeks.

Are we really to believe that there was no fat left to cut in the state budget? That hardly seems plausible. Rather it seems to be a reflection of values and priorities. Those with the purse strings know that in the current culture not many tears will be shed over putting a plaintiff’s cause on hold and or making the accused languish in a jail cell a little bit longer. It is the product of the cynical wisdom of realpolitik. What they fail to acknowledge is the violence this attitude does to our justice system.

The right to a jury is not a discretionary spending item and the Bill of Rights is not contingent upon a government accountant’s recommendation. What does it say when we endorse the idea that fundamental personal rights can cost “too much” money and are willing to freely compromise them under a theory of budgetary necessity? Ideas have consequences and certain ideas are patently inimical to justice. One of those ideas is the radical application of economics to the field of law.

In essence, what we are witnessing is the triumph of the cost-benefit analysis – the same intellectual evil fueling tort reform. This defective reasoning holds that the cost of providing for rights is to be counterbalanced against its supposed utility. This view looks only at the bottom line – with an emphasis on “bottom” – descending into the basest materialistic inclinations of human nature. (It can be soundly argued that the law and economics movement, and its central pillar, the Coase Theorem, is nothing more than a rationalized justification for the bad behavior of 19th century railroad barons.) Unfortunately, like many issues in the law today, cost-benefit analysis is the dominant paradigm in part due to it being the chief cognitive activity of insurance companies.

Financially, the delay of jury trials is a boon to insurance companies when applying the cost-benefit analysis. Without a trial setting (the cost), insurance companies are less inclined to make reasonable settlement offers. And without the risk of a trial they can enjoy the benefit of keeping funds in their possession – a benefit sometimes called the time preference.

The radical view of rights adopted by Americans holds they are inalienable, even in the face of a financial crunch. In Alabama, our code explicitly acknowledges our dependence on the common law of England, the bulwark of which, the Magna Carta, declares: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

But justice is undoubtedly being delayed in Alabama, and though not selling justice, the state has created a governmental/corporate arrangement that has made the administration of justice a for-profit industry. More than two years ago, there was an under-reported story that the state’s online court records system had become a “lucrative business,” thanks in part to a no-bid contract between the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts and a private technology company. Today, in light of this jury crisis, we are left to ask whether such a “no-bid” arrangement was wise – and whether such practices will continue in the future.

To answer that question, state leaders need only look to the Alabama Constitution, Article I, Section 35: “That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression” What does it say that at the end of the day the citizens attempting to access the courts suffer delay but the corporate no-bid contract holders and insurance companies come out benefitting? On who’s behalf is the machinery of government functioning for?

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Clay Rossi

Online Poker: Cyber-Debate Could Have Real World Effects

Clay Rossi — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:07:27 GMT

The federal government recently blocked U.S. gamblers from logging on to internet-based, offshore gambling sites. The move raised legal issues as players’ online “bankrolls” were essentially frozen – leaving many players with significant personal funds rendered inaccessible. Subsequently, government officials stated that, they had reached agreements with two of the larger sites and would “restore the companies' domain names so they can return money to U.S. players.” As of today, however, American online poker players have not been able to cash-out.

The issue of online gaming has stretched legal concepts to the breaking point over the years. Traditional legal theory of jurisdiction struggles in the face of a casino located in “cyberspace.” The debate has raged over whether the “casino” should be governed by the laws of where the player is when he logs on, where the casino servers are, or where the domain name is registered?

Cyberspace aside, there is the threshold issue of whether online poker even illegal under federal law. Certainly Attorney General Eric Holder thinks it is, but former U.S. Senator and current chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, Alphonse D’Amato thinks not. Even more ironic is that the nation’s capital is poised to become the first jurisdiction to expressly legalize online poker.

In defending the rights of poker players to feed the online pot, D’Amato raises an interesting distinction as to why poker should not be considered gambling. He makes the argument that gambling is technically the wagering on an event of mere chance while poker, rather than a game of chance, is a game of skill. As many common law jurisdictions traditionally held wagering contracts unenforceable as malum prohibitum (unlawful under statute) rather than malum in se (intrinsically evil), if D’Amato’s theory of poker as a “game of skill” gains acceptance, soon that I.O.U. a poker player throws into the pot at the weekly poker game might be legally recoverable if the notemaker turns “welcher.” If that occurs, it would represent the greatest instance to date of cyberspace’s influence on the law of the “real world.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Clay Rossi

MDL Deadline is April 20, 2011

Dottie Perry — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:49:49 GMT

The "short form" designed to allow claimants to join the Multi-District Litigation currently ongoing in New Orleans is due by Wednesday, April 20, 2011. There is no fee to file, and it can be filed electronically and without legal aid.

Regardless of whether your claim has been paid or denied, if you have outstanding damages arising out of the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, it may be beneficial to you to join the MDL.

The MDL court will try the limitation of liability portion of the trial against Transocean on February 27, 2012.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Dottie Perry