America’s Trial Lawyers to Insurance Journal: Drop Dead

By | July 26, 2004

  • July 26, 2004 at 7:41 am
    dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This type of attitude is so typical of the plaintiff’s bar. If you don’t agree with their attempts to hijack all 3 parts of our system of government, you are not welcome. Theirs is not an issue of giving the wronged a chance for redress, but about the transfer of wealth from one group of people to another. This is why we need tort reform quickly. The overwhelming majority of Americans want wrongs to be righted and the guilty held accountable, they resent the twisted methods the Trial Bar uses, the monies involved, and the lack of equality in the distribution of the settlements.

  • July 26, 2004 at 8:09 am
    JAY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If you want to know what Justice Breyer spoke about you can go to the ATLA website and it will tell you. For those that will not bother to do so, let me tell you. Justice Breyer presented a Lifetime Achievement Award to Kenneth Feinberg who was the 9/11 Victims Fund special master. He also thanked the thousands of attorneys who represented the vicitims families PRO BONO (FOR FREE). It was the largest pro bono effort in American History. I wonder if IJ would have reported that if they were granted admission to the convention?

  • July 26, 2004 at 8:37 am
    Johnny says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If it doesn’t serve the purposes of the trial association then they want nothing to do with you. This is so typical of this ilk. This serves as a macrocosm of who true plaintiff attorney really are. Their concern is only for the greater good of themselves. Their vehicle is the misfortune of injured people of which they show little or moreover no conern of their needs. They just like you to believe that before you sign the retainer letter.

  • July 26, 2004 at 9:20 am
    andy simpson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jay: As a matter of fact, it was never any secret what Justice Breyer was going to speak about. I just wanted the opportunity to hear him and other speakers in person and would have reported what I heard.

    As for the reader who thinks I should not be surprised or dismayed at ATLA’s attitude, he assumes as ATLA did that as an insurance journalist I represent the insurance industry and therefore must be considered the enemy. That is not how I see my job as a journalist and I regret that the media person from ATLA sees his job and apparently mine in that light. I’m surprised at ATLA’s stance not because I’m naive but because my 25 years of experience have taught me that it’s always better to keep open lines of communication.

  • July 26, 2004 at 9:21 am
    andy simpson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jay: As a matter of fact, it was never any secret what Justice Breyer was going to speak about. I just wanted the opportunity to hear him and other speakers in person and would have reported what I heard.

    As for the reader who thinks I should not be surprised or dismayed at ATLA’s attitude, he assumes as ATLA did that as an insurance journalist I represent the insurance industry and therefore must be considered the enemy. That is not how I see my job as a journalist and I regret that the media person from ATLA sees his job and apparently mine in that light. I’m surprised at ATLA’s stance not because I’m naive but because my 25 years of experience have taught me that it’s always better to keep open lines of communication.

  • July 26, 2004 at 9:43 am
    Gerry says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Andrew,

    Could you at least get some pictures of the Brinks trucks they left behind, awaiting Mr. Edwards arrival?

  • July 26, 2004 at 9:51 am
    JAY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Andy: You did not answer my question. Would you have written a story that mentioned the thousands of hours of Pro Bono work done by trial lawyers on behalf of the families of the 9/11 vicitims?

  • July 26, 2004 at 10:14 am
    Andy Simpson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I would have referred to it in a story along with other news out of the ATLA meeting. Why not? While a wonderful thing, by itself it isn’t all that newsworthy as professionals in all fields donate their time and skills for worthy causes every day.

  • July 26, 2004 at 10:37 am
    Dale Debber says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This reminds of the times that Commissioner Quackenbush banned me and our publications from his news conferances. He said we were anti-him.
    As it turend out we covered Golden Eagle so well via e-mail flash report that at once time a staffer called us so we could hear him yelling about us in the background.
    Go Get Them IJ! The Workers’ Comp Executive (www.wcexec.com) supports you.

  • July 26, 2004 at 12:42 pm
    Reagan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The reporter should ride his high horse all the way To Carlton Carl’s (Carl Carl?)
    house along with a 12 gauge and enusre Carl Carl gets the right attitude adjustment

  • July 26, 2004 at 12:48 pm
    Jerry Sullivan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well — so much for freedom of the press

  • July 26, 2004 at 12:53 pm
    Matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    First….Andy – thanks for sharing this with us! As one that has subscribed to and worked with you, Insurance Journal and the Insurance Times in the Northeast for years I say…great job! You have always been fair, balanced and informative. More people need to see the way the trial lawyers act!

    Second, as the national election approaches I have had concerns over national security, taxes and that “other candidate” flip flopping with the wind..(plus a myriad of other issues)…however when Edwards was named as the running mate the game got even more serious. As a business owner, insurance professional and a citizen, I shudder to think of what the trial lawyers will (try to) accomplish with one of their own playing co-pilot to this nation….too bad this article is just limited to the IJ…people need to see (before November)what these lawyers are costing all of us in our daily lives.

  • July 26, 2004 at 12:54 pm
    Tammy Lesueur says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So trail lawyers are agianst the constitution and freedom of the press.

    Interesting…..I don’t think they are interested in protecting my rights at all.

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:02 am
    Big Insurance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Boston – the “Big Dig” hosts the Big dig- into-your-pockets convention. Not to be confused with the “Big Lie” (The Democratic National Convention) The campaign is trying its darndest to put a smile on the seethingly hostile Democrat Base, and to present John “Botox Brow” Kerry as something other than a perptual protestor, and John “John-Boy” Edwards; both as kumbaya singing CEOs.

    Seriously, though, Mr. Carl’s mean-spiritedness is nothing more than censorship. The trial lawyer’s don’t want any negative publicity usurping the potential political gain from taking back the house, senate and presidency, hence the High Court in the upcoming election.

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:04 am
    al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well, what about freedom of assembly?

    Since ‘mainstream’ media presumably were able to obtain press credentials, does anyone know where we can read about Justice Breyer’s remarks?

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:11 am
    Chester Butler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Andrew has disrobed the trial lawyer’s assocition and all can now see the true nature of the beast!

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:12 am
    Jim Howse says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As with any industry income is the major issue. It’s not freedom of the press or equal access to the courts. No one does this for free. Any discussion of changing the status quo for any constituancy raises the defensive shields and closes the castle gates. Its a shame because open dialog about abuses at all levels and across all industries is what makes us all better and stronger including freedom of the press and equal access to the court.

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:14 am
    Don Smith says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Should any of us be shocked by the rhetoric of the ATLA. If they truly had the concern of their clients at heart, they would be trying to strengthen laws that punish those who harm others, not open up insurance policies to gain rights unintended by the form. It is all about finding the deepest pockets to draw money from, not punishment of the guilty. If the legal and medical communities were as well policied by each state as the insurance community is, things really would be better for the consumer.

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:43 am
    Ken Shearer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well, Trial Lawyers are not “Communists” but they’re somewhat like “Communists” in that they never call something what it actually is. Of course they would all be opposed to “Communism” in that there would be no opportunities in such a system for them.

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:45 am
    Laura says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Boy, that was quite an interesting exchange…good for you, Andrew, for not backing down.

    The biggest issue in the P & C industry right now is availability of contractor’s insurance..and affordability. Tort reform is the only solution, and I’m sure the ATLA won’t be in favor…using their warped sense of democracy. Unfortunately, the consumer is the one losing out here…pushing premiums up sky high only increases the cost of housing. Here in Hawaii, it’s already unaffordable for many people.

    I would be surprised if the entire ATLA would have been in favor of basically blackballing a reporter from attending their event. Some of the more progressive thinkers would have realized the potential for backlash.

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:50 am
    Joe Rucci says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It was silly to exclude Andrew from the convention. The Journal does a great job of publishing abuses of the insurance industry and trial lawyers. Carlton Carl is right on one thing, agents many times are not going to come forwars about insurance abuses. Fear of losing an agency appointment is a real possiblilty.
    We as a group should do more to stop the denial of legimate claims and underpayment. We should do more to get rid of the unlicensed people selling fake Business, health and life insurance.

  • July 26, 2004 at 1:59 am
    John T. Bernstein, CPCU says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am the author and editor of Law and Legislation, an internal publication of the Corporate Law Department of State Farm. I would like your permission to publish your exchange with the trial lawyers (assuming I can get the article approved by the powers that be in Bloomington). Thank you.

  • July 26, 2004 at 2:16 am
    Edward J. Priz says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow, what a load of hypocrisy for the trial lawyers to deny the Journal access to their convention in the name of fighting for open access to the courts. It really does make one wonder what the trial lawyers have to hide. Apparently the trial lawyers like the idea of open access when it benefits them, but not as a general principle for the rest of us. What a sad reflection on their profession this is.

  • July 26, 2004 at 2:52 am
    Frank Griffin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I believe the position of the Trial Lawyers Association regarding coverage by The Insurance Journal not only ridiculous but downrigh childish. I have always felt that excessive damage awards are not the result ot “runaway juries” but the result of misguided jury instructions from judges poorly trained in the law. And where do these judges evolve from? You guessed it. The Trial Lawyers Association!!

  • July 26, 2004 at 2:59 am
    Dave K. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Is there any way you can provide IJ readers with Carl’s email and/or phone number? I’m sure there are many of us who would love to let him know what we think of his idiotic responses to your request for press credentials.

  • July 26, 2004 at 3:03 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Very good article! Thanks for sharing.

  • July 26, 2004 at 3:57 am
    Glen Hallahan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    his destoy America Convention. The Insurance Journal and publications like this are apparently viewed as a nemisis to organizations like ATLA. Makes you wonder what they are really about. GH

  • July 26, 2004 at 5:21 am
    M.H. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why such surprise and outrage? Clearly in opposing camps, why would either group yield any advantage to the other? The ALTA’s decision was clearly self-interested, but let’s be realistic – the decisions that you and I make every day usually are as well. It’s not about principle, democracy, free press, or any other attribute of the moral high ground. Such a swiping exchange (which, honestly, seemed pretty evenhanded and reasonable from both sides, not heated, hostile, or mean) should be no surprise to anyone. To publish it as anything other than a simple statement of a private group preferring to keep their interest and advantage to themselves is sensational. Does your world view really hold that others are commonly expected to be gratuitous to their potential disadvantage? That is simply naive.

  • July 26, 2004 at 5:27 am
    Big Insurance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The all seeing Oracle speaks! Thank you for your intellectual superiority. We wouldn’t have survived without it!

  • July 27, 2004 at 7:59 am
    JAY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I disagree that it is not newsworthy. From reading all of the comments to this story and reading IJ in general for the last several years, it appears that your readers believe that all trial lawyers are concerned about is making money. Maybe they think that way because they never read stories in IJ about the good things that trial lawyers do.

  • July 27, 2004 at 8:55 am
    Pam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank you Insurance Journal for posting this. I think we should be used to this if
    Kerry/Edwards gets in. I am appalled at the unprofessionalism of the Trial Lawyers Association.

  • July 27, 2004 at 12:08 pm
    Ken says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A recent story carried in several New Hampshire and Boston area papers described how a few doctors were refusing to provide medical treatment trial lawyers in their state. Could it be the docs had seen the light and were fed up with being asked to assume the role of proctologists doing cranial extractions for the trial lawyers?

    It’s intersting that the defenders of our rights to free speech are so eager to deny a legitimate member of the media to attend an address by a public official. It’s further worthy of note that Justice Breyer would participate in a closed assembley, shame on him as well.

  • July 28, 2004 at 1:04 am
    Debbie Kegley says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    May I? butt in here and exchange written dialogue from guess who and for whom? (POS) and it doesn’t mean pretty outstanding. You have permission to contact me John T. Bernstein (State Farm) kegley199@aol.com July 22, 1998 Dear Ms. Kegley, When your first retained my services, you expressed your concern about a few points that you felt might be weaknesses in your case. First, you described an extensive history of preexisting back problems. I told you that that would not be an obstacle, but that we would have the burden of proving the back pain from the accident, for which State Farm would be responsible, from preexisting back pain, for which state farm would not be responsible. You also expressed concern over the fact that your injuries were only soft tissue, rather than broken bones or someting serious like that. I told you that juries do not award much money for soft tissue injuries in this county, but that if your medical expense were reasonable, you would likely receive a verdict (or a settlement from State Farm) covering your expenses and giving you additional monies for your pain and suffering. You thanked me for my candor. I do not plant delusions of grandeur in the minds of my clients. I tell them the stong points and the weak points in their liability and damage claims. Based on (1) your soft tissue injuries, (2) your history of preexisting back problems, (3) the x-rays showing nothing wrong with your spine, (4) the entirely conservative physical therapy treatment you received, (5) the stinginess of Santa Clara County juries on soft tissue injury cases and (6) the fact that your treatment was performed at the most unimpressive medical facility in the county, Valley Medical Center, I evaluated the worth of your case at somewhere between $7,500.00 and $10,000.00. Yesterday, July 21, 1998, you told me that you refuse to sign the release to effect the end of the claim against (BLANK). I strongly advise your to reconsider. You have no idea what your claim is worth. I do. That is presumably why you hired me. You are ignoring or disregarding my advice. You are contradicting your authorizatin given to me on July 16, 1998 to settle the claim if and I felt it was appropriate to do so. I handle 25 plus or minus cases like this one a year. You may be involved in 1 or 2 car accidents in a lifetime. I appreciate your interest in wanting a larger recovery, but the claim does not warrent it. I tell you that with all sincerity. If there were realistically more money to recover, I would surely to after it. The more I recover for you, the greater my fee. What better motivation could an attorney have to continue pressing a claim? But here, the claim value has been exhausted, if not, in my opinion, exceeded. END for now. People the real points I’d like to make is these facts to start.

    #1. September 4, 1997 EMG verified C8 Radiculopathy & mild left ulnar neuropathy

    #2. Ambulance denies me transport to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center.

    #3. Diagnosis of (no) cervical or odontoid fracture.

    #4. The real radiology report of MVA of January 13, 1998 shows C3 & C4 subluxation.

    #5. Daniel G. Herns forged my signature on the Release and Trust agreement.

    #6. Current radiology films show degenerative C5 & C6 with spurs and other.

    Deception at its’ best, Mr. Daniel G. Herns ESQ. insisted that my neck was fine and that I did NOT need additional X-rays taken or an MRI. (POS)

  • July 27, 2004 at 2:24 am
    chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When is the last time you allowed reporters from the trial lawyer magazine to cover your conferences? ATLA is a private organization. Get a grip.

  • July 27, 2004 at 3:01 am
    Chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Instead of wasting time on all these conspiracy theories against Trial Lawyers, don’t overlook the obvious: trial lawyers simply would rather not associate with anyone from the insurance industry. After all, who would?

  • July 27, 2004 at 3:52 am
    andy simpson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Insurance Journal is an independent publication. IJ is neither run by an association nor owned by one, so we have no meetings to which we might invite trial lawyers. We do not run trade assocoiation conferences. We do some interviews. In fact you’ll find one with the president of the Texas ATLA chapter on our web site right now.

  • July 27, 2004 at 4:29 am
    PM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think its a good thing, all this tort reform. After all, when doctors make mistakes, and people’s lives are devastated, why should they be able to get money? That just means insurance rates go up and then its not just that someone is injured, but we all have to pay more for doctors visits. Thats silly. Don’t compound the problem. Leave injured people alone and leave doctors who injure people alone too. They’re trying real hard. Medical insurance is too high.
    Also, the Bush administration recently directed the FDA to say that if a medical product is approved by the FDA that there cannot be a lawsuit over it. Thats good too, this way we can have more medical devices that will be cheaper, and if some people are hurt we don’t have to worry about them clogging up the courts or asking for money. Dont like it? Dont use medical devices.
    I also think we should take a look at auto insurance because mine is skyrocketing. I think we should do away with these automobile accident cases. When there is an automobile crash and someone is hurt or killed, they should not be able to sue because that just means that we all suffer because insurance rates go up. That makes no sense at all. Dont like it? Dont drive.
    People need to just accept the fact that if someone hurts them they should deal with it instead of suing people and trying to make them pay money. These suits do no good to anyone except the people who are hurt (and their lawyers), while everyone else suffers because our insurance rates go up. Thats just wrong. Do away with lawsuits.

  • July 27, 2004 at 4:50 am
    Joe Rucci says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    PM,
    Where in the mane of justice did you learn logic, I hope you are not selling insurance to the public. If you live long enough you will run into the person who was crippled by a doctor’s mistake. And unless you have deep pockets no attorney in CA will take the case unless he is 100% sure he will win. Why? Doctor’s through thier insurance carriers can hire and spend whatever they want to win a case. The attorney representing the injured party can only recover $250,000.00. sound like a lot of money, try giving up your life to care for a loved one for the next 30 or 40 years.
    Your auto claims logic is all wet too. When some drunk driver hits my car, I want it repaired and to be made whole again. Do some homework PM, about 40% of the BI lawsuits are against our own insurance carrier under the Uninsured Motorist coverage. Do you think drunks worry about carrying insurance?
    This country needs fair insurance professionals who work for thier clients and the need for Trial lawyers would be less.

  • July 27, 2004 at 5:18 am
    Laura says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think that PM’s post was tongue in cheek…

    I have no problem in making someone “whole” which was the original purpose of insurance…but something between the litigation and affordability of insurance has to give someday…we are at an impass that is only hurting the consumer.

    We could learn from other countries who have people with the “gee, I slipped on the crack in the sidewalk…maybe I need to look where I’m going” attitude…and guess what? Surprise, surprise, the insurance costs in those countries are radically less than ours.

  • July 27, 2004 at 5:43 am
    Paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe Insurance agents and insurance companies need to not write insurance for PI attorneys as well. There are thousands of legitimate cases a year where someone is hurt and they deserve to be compensated. BUT!!! There are tens of thousands of cases where lazy attorneys milk the situation and profit off of cases where no one was hurt. That’s the reason for rising insurance costs.

    It’s this simple other countries don’t have the lawsuits like us and their insurance is much cheaper. It’s that simple!

  • July 27, 2004 at 5:44 am
    Tim Hogan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Freedom of the press” doesn’t mean you get to go where you ask and are denied permission to go. “Access to the courts” is fundamental to any little guy having a chance against Big Insurance or Big Business or the medical doctors who kill 80,000 people a year, according to one study. We lost 55,000 in all of Viet Nam and some want to gut the laws that give innocent, injured consumers some shot at fair compensation.

    By the way, the 80K doesn’t include those only maimed or brain dead. (Soft ball, here for some lucky reader which wants to shoot or whatever). When we address the completely inadequate doctor disciplinary system we might see better care because we all “know” a small percentage of docs cause most of the claims paid. The system, by the doctors own design, fails to weed out the very few which don’t practice exemplary medicine.

    The ILJ reported on a W.Va. doctor sponsored effort to underwite med mal in Florida, I’d like to hear more and how they’re doing. The Risk Retention Act Amendments signed by President Reagan allows for such groups and allows for docs to group with others to bargain for lower rates with carriers, what’s happening with those alternatives? That sounds like a great opportunity for some agents to group docs and make a deal, and some money. Go for it!

  • July 28, 2004 at 7:04 am
    Maria says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hurray! This just confirms the lack of interest for the individuals and also confirms that perhaps Trial Lawyers do have something to hide? Why not let everyone attend? What do you have to loose? Working in the insurance industry I see and hear everyday of how plaintiff attorneys contract with crooked doctors to collect on their bills etc. This is so large that its unbelievable ergo the high insurance rates. Is anyone out there going to end the mandatory No Fault benefits and cut off the money flow to these attorneys?

  • July 28, 2004 at 7:14 am
    Maria says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jay: Workers Compensation is a different story I am talking about Property Casualty claims. And even in workers comp as a person that investigates claims I have seen plenty of that too. There are many workers that either make a comp claim at work when they just need the summer off or have hurt themselves playing sports and milk their companies is this not true? Perhaps you don’t see it because you actually represent them and they would never tell it any other way. I am glad you win most of your cases and I understand the judges rulings very unfair at times but as the saying goes one bad apple spoils it for the rest. As far as you retiring I don’t think too soon myself there are plenty of workers and plenty of claims. I salute you for all your wins and I am sure these are honest individuals you represent. I however remain faithful to honesty is the best policy and if you fake it you loose it. I believe that this is where we are heading look at healthcare policies today do you feel you get the same coverages you got 20 years ago? Why do companies collapse? Look at the CEO’s stealing peoples retirements we can go on and on. This is a 50/50 deal like you say some are true and some are not.

  • July 28, 2004 at 7:18 am
    JAY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maria, The insurers have the means for ending the money flow to plaintiffs’attorneys. All they would have to do is pay a reasonable amount on claims that should get paid. Most claimants only go to lawyers because they know that they are not going to be treated fairly by the insurers.

  • July 28, 2004 at 7:59 am
    Maria says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    JAY I understand your comment and yes it is true. I have managed claims for over 25 years and when due by contract a claim should be paid unfortunately 9 out of 10 claims are fraudelent in nature. Especially AIP. Staged, fraudelent doctors, over billing, unbundled billing,unlicensed providers doing surgery,these claimants have runners,doctors and even money laundering is involved. How bad is it going to get before law enforcement gets involved? Its just a huge web, so in response to your statement if we did pay would the attorneys not categorize the company as a paying company easy to make a claim against? Please.

  • July 28, 2004 at 9:20 am
    Sandy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You all talk about trial attorneys making money from no-fault claims. If the insurance companies didn’t deny legitimate claims, the attorneys would have no money to make. My attorney told me he does not get paid if he doesn’t win my insurance case. My claim was denied for some stupid reason that none of us understood and then it was denied after my attorney sent a letter and then after he filed a lawsuit the insurance company paid it and then paid him. How can you put the blame on the attorney? It is the stupidity of the adjuster thinking that he can get away with it.

  • July 28, 2004 at 6:07 am
    JAY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maria, I would like to see the study that confirms that 90% of all claim are fraudulent. I handle employee workers compensation claims. What I see is a large portion of the claims of injured workers being denied by the insurers. And they are being wrongfully denied because 95% of the time the judges are ordering payment of benefits once they hear the case. And I am not winning 95% of these cases because I am a great lawyer. These are claims that should have been paid from the begining. So, as I tell most of my clients, if the insurers paid the claims that they should, I would be out of a job. I have no fear that I will be retiring any time soon.

  • July 29, 2004 at 9:30 am
    Lawrence N. Rogak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Plaintiffs’ trial lawyers are the most arrogant SOBs on earth. They exude the attitude that anybody who has any money, owes it to them. They cover their greed with a thin, transparent gloss of social responsibility by claiming that they are fighting for the rights of the injured, but they never admit anybody can possibly get hurt due to their own carelessness. Most of them are simply wealth-redistributors who act as a filter that catches 1/3 of the money that passes through them. Now of course, sometimes people are genuinely injured through the negligence of others, but as an insurance defense attorney with 23 years experience, my honest impression is that there aren’t enough such cases to support more than 5% of the tort lawyers in America. And just to show how balanced my opinion is, I think the defense bar is guilty of some complicity in all this abuse, because every lawsuit requires a defense attorney. So lawsuits are good for both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys. Yet you almost never hear defense attorneys calling for tort reform. Why should they? The rising tide of lawsuits raises their boats, too.

  • July 30, 2004 at 8:22 am
    xsman17 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    First get a Groucho Marx nose and glasses you’ll be able to get in. Next all those legal mal carriers should start charging the appropriate prices for this line of business. You have the power to modify their behavior.

  • July 30, 2004 at 11:27 am
    Sharon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I do not understand why the Insurance Journal wanted to attend this convention so bad, anyway. From your emails and posted comments it sounds like you could have written a story without even going, simply based on your preconceived perception of trial lawyers.

  • August 2, 2004 at 7:12 am
    2 Sense says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Is the U.S. way ahead of the rest of the world or what! Hardly a building in the rest of the world would pass OSHA inspection and most of the cars I saw in Europe had unrepaired physical damage. Where are all their attorneys hiding?

  • August 2, 2004 at 7:15 am
    Diana Magosi says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Is this Glen Hallahan from Williston Park? Saw your name and thought you might be. Do you know who I am??

  • August 2, 2004 at 1:43 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Trial Lawyers want high judgements, which result in high rates. If Insurance Agents had any brains they would be funding the Trial Lawyers every step of the way.

    Misplaced loyalty towards Insurance Companies has only resulted in reduced commissions and loss of agency value. If Insurance carriers want someone to carry their water on tort reform they should be more supportive of their agents.

    As respects their customers, agents are even more blind. The typical business owner will fire his agent to save money, and it doesn’t have to be a lot of money.

    Trial lawyers may be as rotten as we have historically claimed, but at least they have the good sense to know what pays the bills.

  • August 2, 2004 at 1:45 am
    Russ Anderson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jay:

    That is quite possibly the most naive statement you could make. I spent 18 yrs in claims, and there is no doubt in my mind that the primary motivation of the vast majority of “trial” lawyers I dealt with was to get the biggest fee they could. I say “trial” because many have never even seen the inside of a courtroom in the last 10 yrs.

    By using your logic, that would mean that true “trial” attorneys would NOT take the plethora of spurious questionable cases they routinely take. They essentially extort the claims adjuster into settling the case by threatening litigation, when they know full well they have no case. They know that in many instances, the adjuster will attempt to resolve the case to reduce the expense of litigation.

    It is not just compensation the attorney is after for their injured, he has to pay for the radio, yellowpage and t.v. ads he runs.

  • August 2, 2004 at 2:09 am
    Clay says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is just a preview of the attitude that will prevail if Kerry and Edwards gain the White House. Who, in their right mind would want to elect another lawyer as president, that has selected a trial lawyer as his vice president?

  • August 2, 2004 at 2:57 am
    Jere Allan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • August 2, 2004 at 3:03 am
    Jere Allan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hurray for the trial lawyers, they have now lifted themselves to the level of the ACLU. Two peas in a pod. Can you imagine what they will attempt to do if John Edwards becomes Vice President of the USA?

  • August 2, 2004 at 4:09 am
    Big Insurance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Med Mal, high drug prices, mold (is gold), asbestos, lead paint, and now silica dust (sand for God sake.) No wonder the U.S. is not competitive, and our citizen’s can by foreign goods for less. Is there any wonder why we have a trade deficit?

  • August 2, 2004 at 6:27 am
    bill white says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    some things can only be done in the dark

  • August 3, 2004 at 8:03 am
    Edmund says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    although I often feel that some journalists are too pushy & arrogant, you should be rightfully indignant! Make as much noice as you/we can!!

  • August 3, 2004 at 9:28 am
    James says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ATLA should have allowed the reporter to cover the story. I have contacted several Tort reform groups in Texas and offered to open my files. I told them I would drop any case they felt was frivolous. They refused. I have some clients that appear to be full of crap. I also have clients that have been pushed around unfairly by insurance companies.

    I did not grow up and say “hey I think I can make a bunch of money screwing insurance companies.” I have been on both sides of the v. What would Jesus do?

  • August 3, 2004 at 1:09 am
    Insurance Person says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow, I haven’t seen so many comments about such a passionate issue before. Perception can be everything & Mr. Carl’s comments just confirmed MY perception of 90% of those #%^*(#$%^@$%%^ attorney’s!!!

  • August 3, 2004 at 1:51 am
    Maria says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The amount of comments shows us how important this topic is and also that there are many insurance professionals out there that feel the same about trial lawyers and this whole insurance thing. Its not only in New York but everywhere. Such a sensitive topic should be posted and perhaps someone will start making some progress. Mr. Rogak I read your article and concurr. You know who I am we have worked together in the past. Perhaps on your site a discusion can be held? Hopefully this journal and the reporter that was not allowed in to the “meeting” can use his time in exploring this topic? This way Mr. Carl can get some real feedback…

  • August 3, 2004 at 1:55 am
    Lawrence Rogak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    On my Yahoo group website, I have an open forum for insurance professionals to discuss all aspects of the claims business, including tort reform. I write a daily newsletter examining the latest court decisions in the claim field. Membership is free and there is no obligation. Sign up at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRogakReport/

  • August 3, 2004 at 1:56 am
    Ralplh says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Laura’s comments are essentially, “let’s assume responsibility for our own actions”. I agree with her 100%, unfortunately however it seems that most trial lawyers care little about where the fault lies and primarily “can we get some money out of this”.

  • August 3, 2004 at 1:58 am
    Maria says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Rogak will do. I am a member already. How is Brendan? Now do you know who I am?

  • August 3, 2004 at 2:00 am
    Lawrence Rogak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hello Maria! Gee, I know a LOT of Maria’s! Why don’t you write me directly at insurancelawyer@aol.com

    Larry

  • August 4, 2004 at 9:22 am
    An Atty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Comments like the one that trial lawyers don’t look to blame, only to see how much money they can get out of a case, fundamentally misunderstand this country’s legal system. Lawyers are not “truth seekers”, and they are not SUPPOSED to be. They are advocates, and their job is, and is designed to be, to advocate truthfully their client’s best position in an effort to maximimze their client’s reward.
    Why is it so? Why aren’t lawyers attempting to find the “truth”? There are a number of reasons.
    First, the law resolves disputes. Clients always feel they are right. How satisfying would it be to you if you KNEW you were 100% right, but you couldn’t get anyone to fight for you? How would you feel if the “lawyer” told you, like the defendant, that in fact you were actually 50% at fault? That would NOT be a satisfactory system to individuals seeking retribution. Remember, lawsuits serve in part to replace gun fights. It is far more satisfactory to people generally, and as a society we are going to be far more accepting of a verdict that is rendered after we feel our position has been professionally and adequately represented by someone who’s interests are aligned with ours.
    Second, we have determined as a society that “truth” is better revealed through vigorous advocacy. If lawyers were supposed to be determining the truth, instead of advocating their clients position, then lawyers would simply become the jury, since they would be determining the “truth” of what happened. We as a society prefer to allow everyone to participate in that process — not just people with law degrees.
    Third, lawyers have duties not to bring frivolous cases and not to misrepresent facts and not to cross the line. Do some fail to follow the rules? Of course, just as some people in every profession do. Unspecified blanket criticism of the entire profession is not only inaccurate (and hurtful to those of us who take our jobs very seriously) but is counterproductive.
    I recognize this is an uphill battle I am fighting, but I’ve chosen to dedicate my life to speaking up for people who have been injured. Do I sometimes wonder if the client is “fudging” a little? Of course. But unfortunately, people fudge when they are self-interested, and that is why both sides get lawyers, and why there are trials.
    On a separate note, my limited and personal experience with insurance companies has been that MOST of the time people get a fair shake, but when big money is on the line, or sometimes for no apparent reason, some individuals really get railroaded. That bothers me because the very reason for insurance is to protect against being injured, and there are laws that command insurance companies to treat such people fairly. When they do not, I fight and I fight with every tool at my disposal to rectify the situation.

  • August 4, 2004 at 10:19 am
    Insurance Person says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In response to the latest comment by an atty, insurance is not supposed to protect a person from being injured, it is supposed to protect an INSURED from a devastating financial loss. I’m sure you do your best for your client as I’m sure most adjusters are doing their jobs, but if someone is 50% at fault, why don’t you just swallow your pride & tell them that instead of going forward with a lawsuit. Wouldn’t that be more truthful & serve more people more effectively? It still seems to be about the attorney’s fees & feathering your own nest.

  • August 4, 2004 at 10:23 am
    Matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To all of those who feel that the insurance journal should have been granted access ATLA’s meeting and feel that it will only get worse if Kerry-Edwards are elected – all of speculating what would happen if they take office – I have one question that you all should try to explain: HOW IS IT THAT AT A PUBLIC POLITICAL RALLY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (who is the vice president of every american citizen – not just registered republicans) COULD REQUIRE EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO ATTEND AND LISTEN TO HIM THAT THEY MUST SIGN A LOYALTY STATEMENT STATING THEIR LOYALTY TO VOTE THE BUSH-CHENEY TICKET IN THE ELECTIONS? So undecided voters – never mind democrats – who have had their sons and daughters or husbands or wives sent off to fight the war in Iraq – who wish to hear him speak at this public function must swear their loyalty to him? LONG LIVE THE MONARCHY – WHERE FAILING SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO THE RULER RESULTS IN BEING LEFT OUT! You guys can keep speculating about the dems but the dems don’t have to speculate about the republicans – all people have to look at are the republicans’ actions and results.

  • August 4, 2004 at 11:59 am
    An Atty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To Mr. Insurance:

    No, if I told a potential client that they had not rights because they were 50% at fault, I’d be committing malpractice. Even if 50% at fault, the other side is still 50% at fault and is 50% responsible. Thats the law.
    One nice thing about contingency fee arrangements is that if you think the client’s claim is bogus, or that they are legally entitled to minimal amounts, you don’t take the case becuase it isn’t worth your time.
    In my limited experience I have heard TONS about bogus claims being filed yet I have experienced very few. It strikes me as more typical protect business rhetoric, since ultimately thats what insurance companies are — some of the biggest businesses.
    p.s. You’re wrong about the role of insurance. I don’t have liability insurance on my car to protect me from catastrophic loss, I have it to pay injured parties for my negligence. And the good people in Washington and every other state capital I know of have deemed it such an important social function that everyone is required to buy that form of insurance.

  • August 4, 2004 at 12:13 pm
    Insurance Person says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No, I am not wrong about insurance. It IS to protect you! If your limits are inadequate, you will be personally liable for the balance of any judgement. If you are not negligent, you shouldn’t have to pay anything. That is the simplified version. I know it doesn’t work the way it is supposed to, but perhaps we can work together to correct it. It irritates me also that we are required to carry insurance because of bureaucrats, but that’s reality. Thank you for your comments about advising your clients and contingency fees. You are restoring some of my faith!

  • August 4, 2004 at 12:22 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Matt, maybe you need some kool-aid.

  • August 4, 2004 at 12:27 pm
    Russ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At what point did the term “liberal” become so vilified? As in most things, there is a spectrum of positions people can take.

    Perhaps it is easier to just drop people in categories, rather than analyze the specifics of a situation and arrive at a reasoned conclusion. I’m more liberal than most of my friends, so we don’t always agree on politics. But the venom that seems to be spit both ways is just so unnecessary.

    Lets not forget that this country was found on collective dissent of the status quo. Now it dissent is pointed to as evidence of a lack of patriotism.

  • August 4, 2004 at 1:35 am
    Tim Hogan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Conflict is the essence of democracy” said one of the authors most influential upon our founding fathers. If we stifle dissent, we presume the sovereign is infallible. The only infallible person I know is my bride.

  • August 4, 2004 at 2:45 am
    Andy Barile says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As a 40 years insurance/reinsurance industry Consultant, and specifically a Litigation Consultant, the combative nature is what we thrive on all my cases are like this exchange of information, its a great experience I wish I had at the beginning of my insurance career.

  • August 4, 2004 at 2:45 am
    Andy Barile says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As a 40 years insurance/reinsurance industry Consultant, and specifically a Litigation Consultant, the combative nature is what we thrive on all my cases are like this exchange of information, its a great experience I wish I had at the beginning of my insurance career.

  • August 4, 2004 at 2:45 am
    Andy Barile says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As a 40 years insurance/reinsurance industry Consultant, and specifically a Litigation Consultant, the combative nature is what we thrive on all my cases are like this exchange of information, its a great experience I wish I had at the beginning of my insurance career.

  • August 4, 2004 at 2:45 am
    Andy Barile says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As a 40 years insurance/reinsurance industry Consultant, and specifically a Litigation Consultant, the combative nature is what we thrive on all my cases are like this exchange of information, its a great experience I wish I had at the beginning of my insurance career.

  • August 4, 2004 at 2:45 am
    Andy Barile says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As a 40 years insurance/reinsurance industry Consultant, and specifically a Litigation Consultant, the combative nature is what we thrive on all my cases are like this exchange of information, its a great experience I wish I had at the beginning of my insurance career.

  • August 4, 2004 at 2:45 am
    Andy Barile says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As a 40 years insurance/reinsurance industry Consultant, and specifically a Litigation Consultant, the combative nature is what we thrive on all my cases are like this exchange of information, its a great experience I wish I had at the beginning of my insurance career.

  • August 5, 2004 at 7:14 am
    bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why does this Andy Barile guy feel compelled to repeat himself 6 times???

  • August 5, 2004 at 7:37 am
    Maria says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe so someone gets the point? Possible error are you perfect?

  • August 5, 2004 at 9:15 am
    james says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He must feel strongly about his position. I read it six times and still don’t know what he is saying.

  • August 5, 2004 at 9:56 am
    Lawrence Rogak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Russ asks when the term “liberal” became so villified. The answer is: when the definition changed. When the norm in our society was to deprive blacks and women of basic civil rights, and to have children work in factories, and to arrest people for advocating birth control, the Liberal advocated freedom and equality. As American society became more free, and most of the goals of the true liberal had been accomplished, the “Liberal” actually became mainstream, or “centrist.” (President Bush is a “Liberal” by the standards of, say, 1930. Conversely, JFK’s positions are, by today’s standards, staunchly conservative.) In other words, yesterday’s “Left” is today’s “Center.” So who is today’s “Liberal”? Somebody who is usually not “Liberal” at all, in actuality, but is radically Left. Today’s Liberal takes the anti-American side in every dispute between the USA and an opponent. The Liberal gives no credit where credit is due, if the credit is due to anyone deemed a “conservative.” At the same time, the Liberal refuses to criticize bad behavior on the part of anyone who is seen as either an ally of the Left or one of its favored constituencies. The Liberal thinks America is to blame for “causing” 9/11; the Liberal thinks the answer to every problem is an expensive government program; the Liberal resents people who have accumulated wealth through honest hard work (and wants to redistribute that wealth); and the Liberal does not believe that people should take responsibility for their own mistakes and bad judgment. Under the guise of “compassion,” Liberals push their political agenda for wealth-redistribution, and anyone who doesn’t think he owes a large chunk of his hard-earned money to strangers is excoriated as “lacking compassion.” And finally, the Liberal does not believe that people with contrary viewpoints have a right to speak. “Liberal” students on America’s campuses feel free to disrupt speakers with whom they don’t agree, or to protest against their very appearance on campus. “Conservative” groups on campus are harassed and their publications sabotaged. And look at the legacy of those chosen as allies by “Liberals” over the past 50 years: first, the repressive Communist governments which stifled all opposing points of view; and then, after Communism fell, the “Liberals” embraced the violent, repressive, intolerant factions of radical Islam. To sum up, today’s Liberal is not “Liberal” at all, but an idealogue who demonizes his opponents and has no tolerance for conflicting viewpoints. The classic Liberal motto used to be, “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Today, the motto is, “Those who oppose our agenda are bad people who have no right to speak.” THAT’S why “Liberal” has become a bad word.

  • August 5, 2004 at 10:25 am
    James says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Based on your definition, I have never met one of those Liberals. Clearly Kerry and Edwards do not fall into your definition? If you feel they do, I guess you would be a radical.

  • August 5, 2004 at 10:57 am
    Lawrence Rogak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t think Kerry and Edwards are true liberals by today’s standards. Al Gore, with some of his wacky ideas, is. Kerry is inconsistent in his views, and Edwards is, well, I don’t know what he is, politically. He’s a trial lawyer, which means he has a tendency to shift blame to others. I’ll tell you who is NOT a liberal: Bill Clinton. If you judge him by his actions instead of his words, he’s rather conservative… and opportunistic. He calculates which way the wind is blowing and does what’s best for himself personally.

  • August 5, 2004 at 12:19 pm
    James says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In the same terms as you have talked down about Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards, can you analyze Bush and Cheney?

    RE: Shifting Blame

    The company that says they are not responsible for their acts is also shifting blame. Is it worse to blame someone else or to refuse to accept responsibility?

    Most of my settlements are a win for all sides. Some companies actually feel guilty for their acts and want to resolve claims.

    Take your example, 911. You want to place blame. Why?

  • August 5, 2004 at 12:23 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    James & Larry, why don’t you conduct your political discussions privately between the two of you. This started out as a reporting of Mr. Carl’s comments. I don’t think it was intended to be a political forum!

  • August 5, 2004 at 2:23 am
    james says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Who are you? Are you telling me I am not invited to discuss as I please. Does your comment have anything to do with the discussion? Are you the judge?

    Maybe sometimes it is just best that certain people are not invited.

    I AM OUTTA HERE.

  • August 5, 2004 at 2:41 am
    Lawrence Rogak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We were talking about tort reform and the discussion expanded into the politics of the pro- and anti-tort reform. Why should anyone want to shut us up? Must be a “liberal” — hahahaha.

    As for insurance companies denying responsibility: I think that everybody should accept their share of the blame for whatever harm they cause or which befalls them. However, our legal culture has made it impossible to just say “I’m sorry” and move on. Us lawyers call that an ADMISSION and it has big financial consequences. I like how Japanese culture handles blame. When a big corporation causes an accident, the president of the company goes to the home of the victim, takes off his shoes, gets on his knees and offers apologies and sympathy. He begs the forgiveness of the victim. He pays for the victim’s medical treatment and expenses. Not a bad system, but it would put American tort lawyers out of business.

  • January 30, 2005 at 9:49 am
    Maria Taylor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    For an interesting perspective on attorney Lawrence Rogak, search this Journal for the comments attached to the Igor Perlov fraud matter.

  • January 30, 2005 at 10:51 am
    Bullfrog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I read Rogak’s comments. Sounds to me like he’s defending his client. What’s the problem?

  • January 31, 2005 at 1:21 am
    Sharon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I read Rogak’s comments. Sounds to me like he’s defending his client. What’s the problem?

    Wow! I do not have to read Rodak’s position or even understand the underlying issue to comment. You asked, “What is the problem?” The problem is perverse and pervasive. There are those among us who feel it is their professional obligation to defend their clients above all else, by hook or by crook. The “problem” is that morality on the part of these individuals has been allowed to take a second seat to professional ($$$$$) obligation. Sometimes, one can achieve both moral and professional obligations by encouraging their clients who did wrong to settle at a reasonable amount. So here is the crux of the problem: Attorneys think they must go balls to wall for their clients in order to protect them. In reality, this approach is hurting society as a whole, and on a societal basis, even the clients attorneys defend. Thus the ultimate answer is: The problem is YOU!

  • January 31, 2005 at 1:21 am
    Sharon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I read Rogak’s comments. Sounds to me like he’s defending his client. What’s the problem?

    Wow! I do not have to read Rodak’s position or even understand the underlying issue to comment. You asked, “What is the problem?” The problem is perverse and pervasive. There are those among us who feel it is their professional obligation to defend their clients above all else, by hook or by crook. The “problem” is that morality on the part of these individuals has been allowed to take a second seat to professional ($$$$$) obligation. Sometimes, one can achieve both moral and professional obligations by encouraging their clients who did wrong to settle at a reasonable amount. So here is the crux of the problem: Attorneys think they must go balls to wall for their clients in order to protect them. In reality, this approach is hurting society as a whole, and on a societal basis, even the clients attorneys defend. Thus the ultimate answer is: The problem is YOU!

  • January 31, 2005 at 7:47 am
    Bullfrog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like you should be complaining about the lawyer defending Michael Jackson. This lawyer here says the charges against his client were dropped. If his client was innocent what’s the big problem. Save your moral outrage for the OJ and Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson lawyers, those are the ones saying that guilty people are innocent.

  • January 31, 2005 at 8:51 am
    Sharon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dear Bullfrog,

    Never mind! lol



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*