Fort Bend Law

CEO vs. Plaintiff Lawyer

2012-02-14T16:13:00.002-06:00

CEO vs. Plaintiff Lawyer
A CEO’s job duties include the following:
a. Determining strategy of how the company will progress;
b. Making sure that strategy is understood throughout the company;
c. Hiring and firing a group of personnel which can bring the strategy to life;
d. Creating a path for the company to get from strategy to realization of goal;
e. Setting budgets to manage the growth of the company while maximizing return;
f. Creating a net profit for the shareholders.
For this job major CEOs are paid millions of dollars upfront along with stock options, retirement plans and benefits. If the company fails to make a profit, the CEO is usually fired or resigns with a severance package, full benefits and stock options amounting to millions of dollars. This despite the fact he failed in his or her job and the company and shareholders lost money. Additionally, none of the money budgeted or spent came out of his or her pocket.

A Plaintiff’s personal injury trial lawyer job duties include the following:
a. Determining strategy of how a case will progress from intake through trial;
b. Making sure that strategy is understood throughout the firm;
c. Hiring and firing a group of personnel which can bring the strategy to trial;
d. Creating a path for the firm to get from strategy to resolution of claim through settlement or trial
e. Setting budgets to investigate and develop of the case while maximizing return;
f. Recovering damages for the client to compensate for injuries caused by others.
For this job personal injury trial lawyer is paid nothing upfront. They receive no stock, no options, retirement plans or benefits. If the attorney fails to make a recovery for whatever reason, he or she gets nothing. This despite the fact he or she paid for all expenses out of pocket which could result of tens of thousands of dollars spent. If they do receive an offer to resolve the claim, the client has the ultimate decision on whether to accept the offer or to continue to trial. If the case is resolved the attorney will receive a percentage of the recovery which the client has approved and which the client authorizes prior to the settlement being completed.
Instead of attacking the way personal injury lawyers are paid perhaps we should have the CEO’s work on a similar structure. I would think they could even take a base salary of a $100k (since most of them do not seem to have enough confidence in their ability to do it without a base as personal injury attorneys do on a daily basis) plus a percentage of profit generated.
If CEO’s did this maybe they would consider what is best for the shareholder and company as it would directly impact their salary. They would not be spending shareholder money on expenses which do nothing for the bottom line profit of the company and they would be more selective in the risks they are willing to take with the company money. It still isn’t directly their money, but at least it will have some impact on their salary.
So next time you hear about those greedy trial lawyers why don’t you see if the person would be willing to take the same compensation package and be willing to have full accountability to their customers/shareholders.

MY Party

2012-01-31T16:18:00.003-06:00

It’s my party and I’ll blog if I want to. Since I can’t seem to find a party I like, I decided to create my own. I actually had some other names for the party, but the cool ones were already taken, so I decided it is My Party. If you wish to join – you’re in and the name works because it will be your party (wait??- no ok, when it is your party and you tell people about it -- you will tell them it is My Party so we are still good!!) Acknowledge your affiliation with My Party by forwarding it to others letting them know about My Party. At some point we may need to have a convention, which will probably consist of a grill and keg and selection of candidates.

My Party Platform

Flat tax everyone pays same. The dollar you earn is the same why not the tax. If you want to pay more great the tax form will have a line for additional contribution.

Pro-life if you don't want a baby there is a way to avoid it.

Congress -- If you pass a law then own it. If you really believe Obamacare is what's best for the country then it should apply to you.

Obamacare should not require anyone to pay for contraceptives or abortion if they oppose it morally or religious.

Congress -- Once you leave congress your salary ends. You're not working for the country so you shouldn't be getting paid.

If your title or job description has the title czar in it – it’s over. USA does not equal USSR. We elect not create positions by fiat.

Every agency should have a justification of its job and need.

Tort reform we have it – they are called juries. They hear the evidence and are in the best position to determine what is just --As in justice. An artificial cap on damages only impacts cases which have been shown to be requiring a verdict to correct harm.

No cap on salary if you can earn it through hard work power to you, but don't be a hypocrite and support tort reform. Either you are for a free market or you aren't

There is no “the problem was Bush, Obama, etc., etc.” The problem is America’s. Stop whining about what happened and start changing what is happening and what is going to happen. There is plenty of blame to go around so let’s move forward and do what has to be done.

Brent Carpenter – It’s My Party

Pro-Choice--Really???

2012-01-25T12:09:00.001-06:00

As I have not blogged lately I decided to start 2012 off with a low controversy issue. Let’s start off with a few definitions:

Pro-Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those advocating legalized abortion.

Pro-life is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those opposing abortion.

Abortion is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
This week the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement detailing the requirement that employers are required to provide insurance coverage including contraceptive drugs including abortion drugs.

The rule will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.

Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.

The entire statement can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html.

If you are a Pro-Life employer you are understandably upset as the rule would require you to pay for something that you oppose on potentially both moral and religious grounds. If you are Pro-Choice I would think that you would be concerned as it is a clear move by the government to do away with Choice. In this rule they are requiring everyone to either obey the law in violation of their personal belief (religious, moral, etc.) or to violate the law and face the consequences. If the issue is truly one for the women whom it impacts — as espoused by Pro-Choice proponents then why is this decision a government issue which requires those who do not agree to pay for that decision.

The issue of pro-choice v. pro-life is one that is so fundamental to most people that a discussion on it will generally end with whether you consider the embryo to be a baby or not. The issue of paying for terminating the life of a baby is not one that should be forced upon anyone or mandated by the government.

The statement by Secretary Sebelius that an additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule is ridiculous. Who is the government to give a person or group a year to adapt to a rule that violates their very moral and/or religious beliefs?

For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t care if you are pro-choice or pro-life. This is an issue of pro freedom from government interference in your life. The very thing that pro-choice advocates claim to have fought to achieve they are now conceding and welcoming because they see it as a benefit to them.

Court allows Drunks to reduce how much they pay

2011-07-12T13:22:00.003-05:00

Texas Supreme Court allows drunk drivers and others who cause car wrecks to reduce how much they will have to pay. Drunk Drivers get benefit of your premiums for health Insurance by getting credit for the negotiated rate.

This should have been front page news in papers across Texas this past week as our Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Haygood v. Escabedo. Did you see a single paper discuss this ruling? Have you heard any of the radio or TV talk shows discuss this case? Why not? Where is the outrage?

I hear comments from people every month who call me about a workers compensation claim, medical malpractice or other issues. I tell them I can’t handle it because the law has made it almost impossible. They almost invariably tell me that it wasn’t supposed to impact their case only those frivolous ones. When I ask them why they weren’t mad and outraged when the laws were being passed or the Supreme Court was “interpreting” them, they always say it didn’t impact me so I didn’t pay attention. The only outrage about our rights being taken away nationally and in Texas seems to be coming from the trial lawyers. I am proud to be in the outraged group.

So what has the Texas Supreme Court done in its latest piece of judicial activism? Their twists and turns distort the law so much it would make a contortionist envious.

The Court's decision in Haywood v. Escobedo allows the person or company who harms you or your family to benefit from the health insurance you have paid premiums for all these years.

The Court argues there ruling is necessary to prevent a “windfall” to the claimant (that would be the person injured, maimed or killed by the drunk or other reckless driver to us normal people).

They also argue they are just interpreting the law as the Texas legislature wanted. Hard to believe that is the case when the legislature actually tried to repeal the law they are “interpreting” the session after they passed it as they realized what it truly was -- which is a windfall for the drunks, reckless drivers and their insurance companies. However Governor Perry vetoed the repeal of the bill so it is still on the books.

So here we are with an Activist Court that needs to protect the drunks and insurance companies, but how? They have already overturned virtually every jury verdict for any Plaintiff that comes their way. So rather than wait until a jury hears all the evidence and votes to compensate the injured person, they have decided to limit what the jury can hear so the compensation will be even lower and the insurance companies will have to pay less, make more profits and be able to contribute to all the expensive political campaigns.

Here is how the Court accomplished this with their latest decision: Let’s start with a situation where you are hit by a drunk who has a policy of $50,000.00. You are taken by life flight to the hospital where you stay for a week. You then have to go through rehabilitation. After about four months you are mostly better. You missed a month of work and still can’t do everything, but hopefully you will get where you can sleep through the night and play with your kids without having to tell them Daddy needs to rest. You have worked hard for years and paid for your health insurance at the cost of some vacations you wanted to take, but you knew how important it was for you to provide coverage for you and your family in case a situation like this happened. The medical bills were over $100,000.00, but because of your group plan they managed to reduce the total to $35,000.00 and since you met your deductible earlier in the year, you don’t owe anything else.

You send the bills to the drunks’ insurance carrier and ask that they pay the $50,000.00 policy limits because your medical bills alone are over $100k. Pretty straight forward right? You shouldn’t even need to get an attorney to settle this case. The operative word there is shouldn’t.

The reality is the insurance company will tell you we don’t owe $100k in medical because we get to take credit for your health insurance premiums and negotiated rate so all we will owe is $35k and we don’t think all of that is related because we know you hurt your neck 15 years ago when you were putting in fence posts and saw a chiropractor one time so we think all your neck issues are related to that and not this head on collision. So with the paid amount being $35k and us taking out some of the neck issue which we believe is not related (and because we can), we are willing to settle your case for $28,500.00.

What gives them the right to get the benefit of your paying premiums all those years: “Home Office” which is what they consider the Texas Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t they? They have won virtually every case that makes it there. Now the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the only evidence a jury may consider in determining medical expenses are those amounts which were actually paid or will be owed by the person injured. So all those years of paying premiums and making sacrifices for you and your family to be covered is now benefitting the person who caused the wreck. The jury is not allowed to hear about how the bills were over $100k and because you had insurance it was reduced to $35k. They are not allowed to hear about the premiums you have paid to make that reduction possible. They may not even be allowed to hear about the deductible if it was met before this wreck. All because our Supreme Court has determined that it would be a “windfall”. How is it they never seem to be have a problem when insurance companies have a windfall of profits.

So if you happen to serve on a jury or hear about someone on a jury who talks about how this person was in a wreck but only had xxx in medical you can be fairly certain that it is at least 3x that amount of actual medical charges.

For my lawyer friends we know there are also significant issues regarding how Section 18.001 will be impacted and other battles over what constitutes paid --Is a deductible to be considered? Co-pay?

Some of you may know that I spent my senior year of high school attending gymnasium in Germany (which is the German equivalent of our U.S. high school). One of the things required in history classes was a complete study of the Nazi takeover both in political and military terms, which included the apathy and violence. The rational was if you never forget you will never repeat. If you were to ask someone who lived through that time how they could let it happen they would tell you it was not a sudden change. Rights were taken away one by one and it always was something that didn’t concern them. If someone was complaining about this or that they didn’t care because it didn’t impact them. Until one day it did. Then it was too late. Everyone asked how could “they” let this have happened? And then it became clear they were the “they” who allowed it.

As always I welcome comments.

TWIA Wins Texans Lose

2011-07-07T10:35:00.000-05:00

Our Texas governor determined that an emergency session was necessary to get legislation passed which limits the amount of damages TWIA will have to pay. The main arguments they made to take away Texas citizens’ rights were:

first — the insurance company needed to be able quantify how much they would owe and they couldn’t do that under the current laws second – to keep premiums affordable.

The problem is the first issue (while true) is not a legitimate reason to take people’s right to recover their damages. If TWIA would have done the job they were supposed to do they would have been able to quantify how much they would have owed for claims. The problem is they denied legitimate claims which resulted in their policy holders having to file suit to recover the damages they were legally entitled to recover. That included recovering the damages for attorney fees and damages to punish them for their misdeeds. Those damages and fees were required by law when the company violated their duty to their policy holders.

So what do our current elected officials do to correct this violation of public trust and dishonesty by the TWIA? They protect them from legitimate claims by limiting their exposure, in effect they told them — we know you lied, cheated and stole from your policy holders, but we want to make sure that you are protected from having to pay for the mess you caused.

The only time people hire a lawyer is to help them with an insurance claim is when the company isn’t doing what they should. So your insurance company is not taking care of your claim (the claim your premiums have been paid to handle) you have to hire an attorney, you prove your case, and recover damages.

Now because of this “emergency” legislation, the damages the jury determined to be fair might be reduced. The only cases it will impact are the legitimate cases – it like all the other “tort reform” legislation has absolutely no impact on the so called frivolous cases.

The second claimed reason to keep premiums affordable is laughable.

The governor signed his “emergency” legislation and less than 24 hours the TWIA raised premiums 5% for its policy holder which is the maximum allowed. So the TWIA now has been able to limit their exposure for their own misdeeds, which increases their profits and at the same time have raised the premiums their policy holders have to pay increasing the profits even more.

Hopefully all those who determined this was an emergency have been properly rewarded for their work for TWIA.

It is unfortunate that the individual policy holders who have been and will be impacted by this legislation did not have a lobbyist, but they do have a vote and hopefully will remember how you treated their concerns and rights.

Jury Duty

2011-02-16T16:44:00.002-06:00

When I was kicking around blog topics with different people, I was provided with several great topics. The one which gets today’s effort is jury duty. Why you ask, did jury duty rise to the top of all the other topics? That is easy. A Judge suggested I should write about jury duty. Judge wins. Jury duty is it.
Jury duty is really an honor and privilege that we have. Yet it is constantly being attacked. You have no doubt heard the arguments about how a “crazy jury” awarded x amount of money on some case. But never do you hear from the actual jurors who heard the evidence and came up with their verdict. I am a firm believer in the jury system and have found they usually end up doing the right thing. Understand this is from one of those rare lawyers who has actually won and (gasp!!) lost cases at trial. Based upon the ads I see and talk around the Courthouse, I may be one of only a handful of lawyers in the Fort Bend, Brazoria, Harris, Galveston, Matagorda, Waller, (or for that matter all of Texas and the U.S.) to have ever lost a case. It is also strange that some people believe that juries should be done away with completely in personal injury cases where a person’s livelihood is on the line, but firmly believe in juries deciding whether a person should spend the rest of their lives in jail or be executed. Maybe it’s just me but I believe a jury panel which could decide if I live or die is capable of deciding if the person that hurt me in a wreck should pay for my damages.
So—let’s talk about jury duty.
Why did I get this notice (summons) and what am I supposed (have) to do?
State law sets the process for selecting potential jurors. In Texas, each county gets a list from the State of people who are registered to vote, have a Texas driver’s license or a Texas identification card. You do not need any special skills or legal knowledge. People are then chosen randomly from that list. You may or may not get additional information with the summons such as a questionnaire requesting some basic information to fill out and bring with you or mail back ahead of time. Some counties have I-Jury Online Impaneling (it is the selection process – not being made part of a wall) and if your county has that you can respond on line and potentially save yourself a trip to the Courthouse.
What if I just don’t answer summons?
Bad idea. You can be subject to a contempt action that can result in a fine of not less than $100.00 or more than $1,000.00. (Texas Gov’t Code – 62.0141)
Ok. Got the summons and I will show up. Does that mean I will be on a jury?
No. There are still several things which have to be determined to see if you are qualified to serve as a juror. The first step outlined above gets you in the selection hopper; the following are REQUIRED to qualify you as a juror.
1. Must be at least 18 years of age;
2. Be a citizen of Texas and of the County in which you are to serve as a juror;
3. Must be qualified to vote in County in which you are to serve as a juror, you do not need to be registered, just qualified (you could legally vote if you wanted);
4. Be of sound mind and good moral character;
5. Be able to read and write;
6. Not have served as a juror for six days during the preceding 3 months in County Court or during the preceding 6 months in District Court;
7. Not have been convicted of, be under indictment or other legal accusation for, misdemeanor theft or a felony.
If you meet all the above requirements, you are qualified to serve as a juror, but there are some exemptions which you may claim. You may choose to serve even if any of the following apply, but you are not required to:
1. Over the age of 70;
2. Have legal custody of a child younger than 10 and serving on the jury would leave the child without adequate supervision;
3. Are a student at a public or private secondary school;
4. Are enrolled and in actual attendance at an institution of higher learning;
5. Are an officer or an employee of the senate, house of representatives, or any department, commission, board, office or other agency in the legislative branch of government;
6. Have served as a petit juror in the county during the 24 month period preceding the date you are required to appear for this summons. (Only if county has at least a population of 200,000)
7. Are the primary caretaker of a person who is an invalid and unable to care for himself (does not apply to healthcare workers); or
8. Have been summoned for service in a county with a population of at least 250,000 and you have served as a petit juror in the county during the 3 year period preceding the date you are to appear for jury service.
Jury Selection:
If you made it through the qualification process and have no exemptions (or have chosen not to take them) that still does not mean you will actually serve on a jury, but you will be able to be on a jury panel from which the actual jury will be selected. The selection process is usually a day or less, but in some rare cases can take several days. You and your fellow panel members will be taken to a courtroom where the judge, lawyers and parties will be able to ask questions to determine if you are the proper person to serve as a juror in that particular case.
Juror Oath:
At some point in the process all prospective jurors are given an oath in which they swear or affirm to tell the truth when answering questions. If there is a question which you would be embarrassed to answer or is extremely private, you can ask to go up the judge to give your answer, but you need to answer it truthfully. I usually ask jurors if they would want someone like them being on a jury which was judging a case where they were the party. Not answering questions truthfully and completely generally can not only be grounds for contempt, but may actually get you on the jury. I realize that some people try to get out of jury duty by lying. You don’t have to lie. Tell them the Judge and lawyers the truth and you will probably scare them enough to not select you.
Jury:
Make it through the process and are selected to be on the actual jury. Don’t be upset. You should be proud that you were one of only a handful of citizens who were chosen out of the entire county to be able to decide a case which will impact the lives of all those involved. Thank you for taking your responsibility and duty seriously.

Veterans Benefits

2011-01-19T16:47:00.002-06:00

Carpenter & Carpenter is proud to announce that Brent Carpenter has received his accreditation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of General Counsel as an attorney for the preparation, presentation and prosecution of claims for veterans benefits before the VA. It is a shame that our country does not take care of our veterans without forcing them to go through a battlefield of regulations. They already went through a real battlefield which is why they need the benefits.

Jury Selection - Really Deselection

2010-12-09T10:33:00.006-06:00

You get a letter in the mail and it informs you that you need to be at the courthouse on a certain day and time to serve as a juror. You win!!! Make sure you show up on the right day and on time. It is also a good idea to take a book or something to do while waiting. It is a great thing in our country that we have the chance to serve as a juror and if you have ever been involved in a case it can be down right scary as to how the actual jury which hears the case is determined. First of all it is called jury selection, but that is completely wrong. It is actually jury de-selection. Attorneys get to argue to the Court that certain potential jurors are not suited for this particular case and they can be excused. They also get to strike (get rid of) a certain number of potential jurors just because we don't like a particular answer they gave or attitude even if there is not enough grounds to get rid of them for cause (evidence that they can't be completely fair in this trial). What does that mean -- fair? Not have any bias or prejudice. Not much help huh! The problem is it depends on the each case. A person may be a great juror in one case and terrible in another. If you had been robbed and were called to be a potential juror in a robbery case you might not be able to be unbiased, but in a business dispute it might be fine. What happens when you show up for jury duty? I can give you some information about Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria, Wharton and other counties in Texas (as well as some other states), but most are fairly alike. You are generally initially selected by driver’s license and/or voters registration. You show up and they ask you to verify the information they have and fill out some more information which will be provided to the attorneys if you make it that far. They first qualify you which means they make sure you still live in the county, are not disqualified (not a felon or medically unable to participate) and do not choose to take a waiver (young children at home, student, etc.) Once you get that done, you wait. As the Courts need jurors they call names out and those people leave and go away?? Where? What happened to them? Is it better that you are still there?? If you are never called you are excused and get to leave. If you are called you are taken to one of the Courts where you will form the jury panel. It could be a criminal or a civil case which you find out when you get to the Court. The attorneys will have had about 5 seconds to review all the information that every potential juror provided as the Court explains a little about the case who the attorneys are and what will happen. Still in the dark, not surprising! At this point the attorneys begin vor dire. They get to ask you questions to see if you are the right person (in their mind) to serve on the jury. What each party really want is every juror to believe them and rule in their favor, but what we hope for is a jury that can be fair. How do we get there? We ask questions which we hope will allow us to learn a little about you to determine who we need to get rid of. We don’t get to select who we like. We get to get rid of some - ask the Court to get rid of some - and the first 6 or 12 (depending on Court) people left after all sides are done make up the jury. So in reality if you are on the jury it is because there was no good reason to get rid of you. I know you really want to know how to improve your chances of not ending up on the jury.
First – Do not just sit there quietly hoping no one will notice you. They won’t which means no reason to strike you and you end up on the jury.
Second – Tell the truth and answer the questions that are asked. If you do that and you end up on the jury it is a good thing and you will appreciate it if you ever have to be in a trial as that is the type of person you would want.
Third - If you are not comfortable with being a juror in that case let the attorneys know why. If it is personal ask to go up to the bench for a private conference with the judge and jury. No one wants a person on the jury who should not be there.
Question I have heard from potential jurors (not about me- I hope.)

Why do lawyers ask such stupid questions? Not a clue. Sometimes they have a reason for a question that doesn’t make sense at the time, sometimes it is just stupid.

Why do they argue with me about my answer? I really don’t know. Not only is it not smart, but it doesn’t get you any useful information. If I don’t agree with an answer a juror gives, I just make a note of it and move on.

Why won’t they answer my questions about… insurance, police report, etc. There are specific rules as to what attorneys are allowed to discuss and what we can’t. In an injury case we are not allowed to discuss anything about insurance, whether it exists (auto or health) what discussions, if any went on, etc. The police report and what they found may or may not come in depending on several issues. So if a lawyer will not answer you or avoids the question, it is probably because he is not allowed to discuss it.

Finally, don’t try to get off a jury panel. It may backfire. I have had jurors flat out lie and everyone knew it. Had an astronaut claim he wasn’t one and just an engineer. Everyone in the courtroom knew him and that he was an astronaut, but he kept swearing he wasn’t. The court called the lawyers up and said he didn’t know why he would lie, he was going to excuse him but also had lost all respect for him. We saw him the next morning on TV doing an interview. I also had a man claim he was a welder, but had a manicure and didn’t know much about the ins and outs of welding. Turns out he owned several welding companies and wanted to get on the jury to “stop the crazy verdicts”. He was struck. But how do you think he would have felt if his company was sued and a juror lied to get on to “make sure he lost”. He would be rightfully furious, but saw nothing wrong in his actions. I have also heard of jurors getting off a panel which would have been only a 1-2 day trial only to end up on a month long murder case. So tell the truth and generally it will all work out as it should. Hope this helps in jury de-selection understanding. If you have any other questions, about jury selection let me know. Next time we will talk about things that happen in trial.

Let me know your experiences with jury duty or jury selection?

Voting - parties - judges

2010-10-27T14:08:00.001-05:00

You still have a few days left for early voting. The lines are small and the weather is great so no excuse. Voting early is easy. Voting is your right and duty, so get out there and do it! Take action on who will be in charge of your community, state and country. The Democrats and Republicans parties are out doing what they should which is pushing for their candidates and a straight ticket vote. I don’t vote straight ticket because neither party has every candidate that I support. To be clear, I am fed up with both of the major parties. On the state and national level, each party talks about how the other will destroy the country, taxes will go up, morals will collapse, etc., etc. but it appears what the parties really want is to continue the status quo of making sure they get in office and stay in power. If the politicians are really serious about doing what is best for our country they should do what all of us have to do - don’t spend more than you have –period. Further if you pass a law you should have to live by it. You want new health care for the country? Great! Dissolve your current government provided plan you enjoy and live under the program you enacted into law. You want to change retirement fund regulations? Then do the same for your plan. Don’t tell us we have to cut back and be more conscious of our environmental footprint and then hop on your jet and fly around the country. How about calling Southwest and booking a flight like the rest of us and really saving some money? They won’t even charge you for all that baggage:>) They will even set you up with a rapid rewards number where you will get to fly free after a few of your vacations- sorry fact finding missions.
So what does all this mean to us voters? Look at the person not the party. How many times to we have to see someone elected who is not qualified just because he or she is in the --------- party? We have lost great people because they were voted out on a sweep in the judiciary by one party or the other. I have heard people say that I don’t agree with everything they are doing, but they are better than the other party. Stop!! Why are we settling for they are not as bad as the other instead of demanding the best from our elected officials. So when you are voting, before you pull that straight ticket - just think and look down the list. Then ask yourself: Do I want this person to decide my JP case? Do I want this Judge to be the one to decide my family’s case? Who is this clerk and what do they want to do or change and what are their qualifications? This brings me to Judges and their election.
In Texas we get to vote for our judges. I am a firm believer that is the right way to go. But it means you have to actually do some thinking before you vote. Judicial candidates are almost always associated with some political party. However; I suspect most of them would prefer to just run on their qualifications if they could. So each election we get to select judges based upon ----what?? If you don’t practice in front of them and/or know them you may get a sound bite here or there or a five minute speech at a meet the candidate event. I have had the great privilege of being a trial lawyer for almost 25 years and have had cases before Courts around the country and specifically Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria, and Wharton Counties. There are some great judges and some great candidates for judges in races in these counties. But how do you know who to vote for? Ask a trial lawyer. We are before the judges on a fairly regular basis and if we don’t know a judge we call around to anyone we know who has been before them before we go to a hearing or trial in that Court. Why wouldn’t you do that before you vote to have someone make decisions which will impact you and your family for years to come? I am constantly amazed when one of the parties put up a candidate who is technically qualified in that they are a licensed lawyer, but has virtually no trial experience. Every lawyer has to start somewhere and get experience. I am all for that and court room experience is something that can only be gained through time. However we are not talking about hiring a lawyer. We are talking about voting for a judge. I firmly believe a candidate should have trial experience and should have practiced in the court (district, county, jp) that they hope to be elected to. What do I look for in a judge?
If the candidate is an incumbent I want to know how they have ruled on motions. Do they follow the law? Do they treat lawyers, court personnel, witnesses, juries, etc. with respect? Do they move their dockets, but understand that justice can require continuances to make sure all the parties have adequate time to gather their evidence? Do they treat all parties equally? Do they use common sense along with the law? Do they allow lawyers to do their jobs representing their clients while following the rules of procedure? What do other lawyers say about the judge? Finally what is it about the current judge that causes you concern about their ability to continue? If they are doing a good job why would you replace them simply to put someone from a different party in office?
If the candidate for judge has not sat on the bench previously I want to know how much trial experience they have? Who knows them and what do those lawyers say about them? How are they perceived by the lawyers they have tried cases against? Do they know what they are doing? If they tell you something can you believe them? Do they have an agenda i.e. do they believe all personal injury cases should be thrown out or conversely that all personal injury claims are valid and should result in a recovery? Do they believe that anyone charged with a crime is guilty and should be convicted or alternatively that most persons charged are probably wrongly charged and should be dismissed? I believe judges should follow the law and apply it to the case in a fair and impartial manner.
Finally what is the candidate’s qualification to be a judge? The fact that they have not been one before is not an issue. Obviously until they are elected (or appointed) they will not have had that experience. If you take all the other information gathered from lawyers that have been against them or worked with them you should have a good idea of their ability and qualification to be a judge.
In all this ranting, information, questions, etc. about how to select a judge did any of it come down to what their political party platform states? Why not? Because I want a judge who is impartial and not going to decide a case on the party stance on an issue, but on the law and do so impartially and fairly It seems kind of simple to me, but I am just a small town lawyer, what do I know. Let me know your thoughts.

Free Speech is Never Free

2010-10-05T15:47:00.001-05:00

As I was preparing to write this weeks’ blog I had intended to write about how much is a life worth and methods courts, juries and attorneys can use to try and explain how to calculate compensation for a family who has lost their loved one. Then last night, I learned of a young navy seal Lt. Brendan Looney, 29, a native of Silver Spring. that died in a helicopter crash while serving our country in Afghanistan. He was an Annapolis graduate and married and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. His mother is a friend of my sister-in-law and he has family in the Maryland area. His is a story of courage and sacrifice. A story of fighting for our freedoms including freedom of speech and that is where this blog comes in. A group showed up to protest the war carrying signs and trying to yell out “comments” about the family and solider that died for his and their country. This group has chosen to protest the war not at the White house or Pentagon but at funerals of our fallen soldiers. The group has been sued before and was ordered to pay several million dollars in damages for this same type of action, but continue to exercise what they claim is their free speech. That case has been appealed and is scheduled for oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court tomorrow. A copy of the complaint can be found at http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf and the issues before the Supreme Court can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/09-00751qp.pdf.
The question is how free is free speech? Should a person be allowed to protest at a funeral? What about on the way to the funeral? Can they hold signs, but not yell? What if they are a mile away, but on the route to the cemetery? Should it matter if it is a private person vs. a public person? Are there certain areas which should be free from all protest and how do you determine what those areas should be and how near/far from them? The irony of this discussion and what makes me proud is that those who are fighting and have fought for our freedom to have these arguments are also some of the strongest supporters of the right of the protestors – not the appropriateness of the action – to protest.
Back to Lt. Looney and his funeral. The protestors were there with their signs and trying to yell at the family. What are they hoping to gain by protesting at a funeral? Are they really expecting change of policy or just publicity for their own selfish gains? Here is an idea how about the media just doesn’t cover the protestors. Don’t quote them, don’t take any pictures, and don’t even mention that they were there. They are only a story if the media makes them one.
There are heroes in this story. They include the Looney family and all the others who have paid the ultimate price for freedom. They also include Clyde Fleming and others around the county who attend the funeral of our fallen soldiers. We saw them here in Sugar Land escorting home a local solider who was killed overseas. They have been in attendance at funerals across the United State and they were there again at Arlington Cemetery for the Looney family.
Michael E. Ruane staff writer for the Washington Post reported on the events in his story which can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/04/AR2010100407104.html Clyde Fleming and others (vets and non-vets) went to Arlington on motorcycles and placed themselves between the protestors and the family procession and as Mr. Ruane reports “Moments before the funeral procession appeared, the bikers arrived with a roar, several flying large American flags from their motorcycles. As they lined up and revved their engines to ear-splitting levels, occupants of cars in the procession gave a thumbs-up sign.” "I'm a vet myself, and I think what these people over here are doing is horribly wrong," said motorcyclist Clyde Fleming, 62, who said he lives on the Eastern Shore. "If you want to protest a war, you do it with government officials, not with the soldiers who died for you," he said. "You don't disrespect them and their families with such hatred." “He (Clyde Fleming) said the church "absolutely" had a right to its protest - "just as we have a right to block their noise and their rhetoric."
Free speech wasn’t free for the Looney family and the hundreds of thousands of others who have given their lives for this country. My thanks and prayers go out them and all the other families who have sacrificed to allow us to have these discussions. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the legality of this type of protest, but we have the freedom to speak out against it and to show up and support our troops and their families when they need us most. We have the freedom to do like Mr. Fleming and the thousands of other riders across the country to show up and support the family of our fallen heroes and shield them from this type of abuse. So the next time you hear about a solider being brought home, say a prayer for them and their family, but also make the time to go and show your support and thanks for all they have sacrificed for you.

Where did our premiums go?

2010-09-30T21:03:00.001-05:00

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) is in court in Galveston attempting to convince the Judge to order the Plaintiffs attorneys to turn over the total amount of fees they have made in representing people who had their hurricane claims denied or underpaid. The TWIA has already tried to set the stage against the “greedy” plaintiffs lawyer. There has also been talk about the legislature needing to know the amount of fees so they can possibly do something about them. Here's another crazy idea TWIA -- evaluate the claims fairly and pay them timely and guess what there would be NO attorney fees. What a novel idea. An insurance company actually paying a claim. I realize it is a shock to the insurance world that someone would ever suggest that they do anything other than collect premiums, but normal people actually expect to be covered in exchange for all the money they have paid over the years and they get a little upset when after having their $150,00.00 home destroyed that you want to write them a check for well below the value or that you tell them that the fact that their roof blew off is just a coincidence that it happened after a hurricane.
Sorry I drifted off into the world of how normal people think and not the land of insurance where intelligent life is scarce. So instead of just paying the claims and avoiding the lawsuits and attorney fees completely, the insurance companies whine and moan about how much money the attorneys who are representing their insured’s are making. They want to start an investigation into the amount of fees and make it all public. What they really want to do is create a smoke screen where they can hide. They want to use their same old “greedy lawyers” argument and hope that it gets people to forget that they have made millions (if not billions) of dollars off the people of this state in premiums and then refused to pay the claims.
The only time you generally need insurance is when something bad happens. The only time you generally need a lawyer is when someone has done something they shouldn’t have. I see a correlation here. It does not seem to be apparent to the insurance industry. So why should that surprise us? Instead of hearings on attorney fees paid out, how about hearings and an investigation into how to prevent this type of abuse by the insurance companies in the future. Make the failure of an insurance company to pay a valid claim a claim in which not only can the person who paid their premiums get their attorney fees and the real value of the claim, but punitive damages or an automatic 10x the claim value. Maybe that will get the insurance companies to do what is right in the first place.
I do have some questions of my own: How much did the insurance companies make off of Texans in the last 10 years? How much did they make off of interest in the premiums they have kept and money they have not paid out for the hurricane claims? How much do they pay their lobbyists and others who try and convince our representatives to “protect” them (in other words don’t make us actually pay any claims or worst case let us delay them for years and then only pay the very minimum)? Which representatives received money from the insurance companies and how much?

responsibility

2010-09-16T17:52:00.003-05:00

Toyota admits that its black-box recorder readers have a software error that can cause wrong speed readings.

SUV’s have warnings that state avoid sudden turns, but don’t define what that is or how you are to avoid them if someone pulls out in front of you, or if a child runs out in front of your car.

Child safety seats were found to be incorrectly installed 75% of the time by NHTSA in 2009.

What do all these have in common? The manufacturers know of a defect or problem, but rather than fix the problem and save lives they continue to try and blame the driver and parent.

The buzzwords “personal responsibility” is something that manufacturers love to throw out when they are discussing a case. The driver needs to take responsibility. The parent needs to take responsibility.

I have an idea. How about the manufacturers start taking responsibility and fix the problems instead of spending millions of dollars on lobbyist, defense attorneys and advertisements in trying to shift the blame. They have known of the problems for years and yet do nothing about them. Stop blaming your customers and look in a mirror. If any other business was having 75% of their customers not using a product correctly they would probably get the hint that they need to change something. The problem for drivers and parents is that the manufacturers are able to blame them because a jury generally only sees that one case, and not the hundreds or thousands of other claims or lawsuits regarding the same issue filed across the country. The manufacturers can imply this was just a freak accident or this one driver just failed to handle the situation. In those rare instances in which the Courts allow the jury to know about the other incidents the juries usually award significant damages. Does the manufacturer admit they did something wrong and vow to correct the problem and apologize to the family? Do they thank the plaintiffs and jury for helping them become aware of a dangerous defect which is maiming and killing people? No. They generally talk about how the jury was misguided and they how they will appeal this miscarriage of justice. Here’s a solution. Take some responsibility, fix the problem, save the families from having to deal with the sorrow of their children, parents and other family members being injured or killed because you choose to ignore a problem.

Thanks to my partner for the idea for this blog post.

Facebook, myspace, etc.

2010-09-08T22:41:00.001-05:00

I love Facebook and Myspace, but maybe not for the reasons you think. Yes I do have a facebook account and probably spend too much time reading about what is going on and checking out the photos, but the real reason I love them is because they provide great information for cross examination in lawsuits (and unfortunately sometimes against me). There is the old saying that don’t say anything you wouldn’t want written in the paper, now it should be don’t take, or be in a picture you don’t want to be brought up in a trial, job interview or just used to embarrass you. I have seen such things on profile as swinger, escort, weekend drunk, and photos that make for great exhibits in cases. I know you some of you are thinking whew, it is a good thing I have my privacy settings so only my “friends” can see that stuff. Well it might not be so secure. Maybe the picture of you drinking several beers on the weekend are in your friends pages or friends friends and they are not protected. It might it also be that one of your “friends” is not really a friend (or is also friends with the person you are against or interviewing with) and turns your information over. You get asked in a deposition or interview did you drink anything over the weekend, you answer no, but there is a picture of you with a beer in your hand surrounded by empty beer bottles. Again the solution is simple. First don’t put yourself in a bad position and second don’t lie about it.

OK Mr. and Ms. professional, I only put professional stuff on facebook, see above, you never know who took what pictures where you were in maybe without you even knowing about them. There is this thing called tagging, not sure what it is, but my daughters do and it gets you tracked down. Now the others Linkedin, etc. these are professional sites and surely can’t be a problem. Generally that is true as long as you follow the tell the truth. It is useful to find out the background on a person, who they worked for, how long and who they are linked to, but here is another useful piece of information. Say you as a lawyer are trying to determine who to depose at the other parties company in the lawsuit. You send discovery asking for the person with knowledge regarding the topic, they give you a name and/or produce someone OR you get on linkedin and do a search for that company and see who all is listed and what their job titles are. Sometimes they are pretty interesting such as risk assessment and management, operations security, safety training and enforcement. These people may know more and be more interesting to depose than the people they offer.

So the moral of this blog is don’t be stupid as it will show up somewhere sometime on social media and don’t lie about it if asked because you should assume if they (attorney, job interviewer) are asking the question they already know the answer. If your company is sued you should review your own employees social sites, including linkedin to see what they have listed as their jobs and descriptions of job. This may help you determine who may be deposed and help prepare them (and you) for questions. Finally never assume that just because you deleted it that it is gone. It seems like the worse the picture, statement, or information the more somebody wants to keep it around.

Trial lawyer

2010-09-02T09:38:00.000-05:00

I am a trial lawyer. I try cases. Not a hard concept to grasp, but apparently it is beyond the comprehension of some who try to use the term as some type of attack. Case in point. Houston Chronicle article today by Peggy Fikac which discusses the $2,000,000.00 judgment against the Republican Governors Association (RGA)for violating state law relating to donations made to Rick Perry in 2006. The RGA’s spokesperson, Mr. Schrimpf who was quoted in the article is really fond of the term trial lawyer. (As you can see I am kind of fond of it myself) He describes the suit as being brought by a “Democrat trial lawyer” and later said “Unfortunately, this junk lawsuit has gone on for four years, and to the Democratic trial lawyers’ dreams, will likely go on two or three more.” Wow it must really be tough to try and get “trial lawyer” into every sentence while still throwing in junk lawsuit and managing to avoid the issue that your organization was found to have violated Texas law. You do manage to state that you will immediately appeal. Let me help you out here. The lawyer you used during the trial of the case was (I would hope) a “trial lawyer” and now you will probably hire an “appellate lawyer” unless your trial lawyer is also your appellate lawyer. I wonder if you would have preferred using an auto mechanic to try your case, or maybe a surgeon, baker, banker or candlestick maker. It appears that your focus groups have convinced you that the term trial lawyer will cause ordinary people to suddenly lose all sense of justice and blindly ignore what your organization did in trying to buy an election. Trial lawyers try cases. We also advise clients to resolve claims and disputes, not file cases if there is not a claim and not file frivolous (you apparently know the it by the term “junk”) lawsuits or defenses. Trial lawyers understand this. Maybe you should have hired a trial lawyer, or better yet just not violated the law. Wow what a concept, then you wouldn’t have needed that evil trial lawyer.

Arbitration - mediation

2010-02-03T09:55:00.001-06:00

Arbitration is evil. Mediation is good. Is that clear enough. In arbitration you are putting your legal issues before a person(s) who charge a bunch of money and make a decision which you can not appeal, which may be wrong, and may not even follow the law. While it may be the only time you are before that arbitrator the other side may have been before them several times and as arbitrators can be stricken by a party how would you feel knowing that the decision on your case will be made by someone who knows that your opponent will be back in the future and he may never see you again.

Mediation is a voluntary settlement conference where both parties meet with a neutral person in an attempt to come to an agreement. Neither side can be forced to settle and the mediator does not make a decision which can be forced on you. If you don’t settle the case in mediation, you can continue on to trial and nothing is allowed to be discussed about the mediation, what was said or done. It is as if it never happened. Mediation has about a 85% success rate for settlement.

Texting while Driving

2009-10-21T16:45:00.000-05:00

Texting while driving can lead not only to injury but death. How many times have you seen someone driving while checking their text messages or actually sending a text. Some believe they can do it and still be safe. The reality is that you can end up killing someone and destroying several lives including your own. Take the time and look at the video links below. One is a story about a young man who was texting while driving and the other is a public service campaign It may save you or someone you love from horrible consequences.

http://ut.zerofatalities.com/#texting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5NIE3osZEs

Tort Reform v. Responsiblity

2009-10-07T09:37:00.002-05:00

Tort Reform ads are once again appearing on the radio and news. The argument is that we need to limit damages to protect nursing homes and doctors and lower costs. Texas passed limitations on damages years ago and I have yet to see costs go down. The tort reform crowd argues that damages should be limited to prevent frivolous lawsuits. That is a just a lie. The only time the limitation applies is after a case has been tried and a jury has determined not only that there was negligence on the the part of the nursing home or doctor, that their actions harmed the plaintiff and the damages are in excess of $250,000.00. The effect of the tort reform is to allow those who have already been found to have harmed someone to only pay for a part of their harm. This is after the plaintiff has provided expert reports and had a judge rule that there was enough credible evidence to even get to trial. The frivolous lawsuits are thrown out at the first step when the judge determines there is no credible expert opinion to support the claims. Tort Reform is simply an excuse to escape taking responsibility for the actions which hurt others.

Texas Super Lawyer

2009-09-28T14:08:00.003-05:00

http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/09/29/40865

September 29th, 2009 | by FortBendNow Staff | Published in News |

Sugar Land Lawyer Named “Super Lawyer” For Seventh Year

Sugar Land attorney Brent Carpenter has been named a “Super Lawyer” for the seventh year in a row. Carpenter is Board Certified in personal injury trial law and certified mediator. His Sugar Land firm, Carpenter & Carpenter, P.C., specializes in personal injury and business matters.

Super Lawyers is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Lawyers enter the candidate pool by being formally nominated by a peer; identified by the research department in the “Star Search” process or informally nominated. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement.

“The fact that the selection process includes not only vetting by the research department, but selection by other attorneys makes this a very special honor,” said Carpenter.

Super Lawyers magazine, featuring articles about attorneys named to the Super Lawyers list, is distributed to all attorneys in the state or region, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and the ABA-approved law school libraries.

The other side of Tort Reform

2009-09-11T11:17:00.002-05:00

I have not written in a while as I have been traveling and work keeps getting in the way. One of my trips was to Louisiana for a funeral of one of the strongest people I have ever had the privilege of knowing. She was injured in a SUV rollover several years ago and paralyzed from the neck down due to the roof crushing in on her. Before the injury she was a teacher, cheerleader coach, mother of two and wife (among many other titles). After the injury she was confined to a wheelchair and needed constant help and care, BUT because of her strength (and that of her family) she fought to get back to teaching, she was the mother to their children and wife to her husband. She demanded excellence from everyone around her including herself and put her family and students first. She was told several years ago by one of her doctors that she could extend her life expectancy by quitting teaching and spending less time in the wheelchair and more in bed. Her response was that she would rather die teaching than live in a bed. Those that support tort reform would have the damages to this woman and family limited or have the manufacture immune from being sued despite their defective roof. When those that cause harm and injury are immune from paying for the damages they cause, or the damages are limited to some arbitrary amount, who will pay for this expensive care? Everyone. The reason the civil justice system was created was to allow a means of compensation from those who caused the harm. I wish everyone could have know my client and friend. Her life made any difficulties we have seem laughable, her strength gave everyone around her strength to do what was right regardless of the cost and her smile made everyone smile.

Health Insurance

2009-08-26T15:21:00.002-05:00

The debate over health care rages on. What exactly is being proposed, how will it work, who will implement and supervise it, how much will it cost? Has anyone been able to answer these basic questions? After spending over an hour on the phone trying to get an answer from Medicare on how much they are claiming from my client, and then spending the next several months trying to get it finalized, I am concerned about any additional government run health care. If you have an injury claim and have any health insurance (group, medicare, medicaid, etc.) you may have to pay them back any money they paid on your medical care. The terms you may hear are subrogation or lien. What it generally means is they get their money back from any recovery you get from the party that injured you. What this means to you is that you should not base your settlement on your co-pays or out of pocket only. Submit the entire amount of your medical expenses to the insurance company, not just the co-pays. That way when your health insurance asks for their money back you will be ok.

Jury Duty

2009-08-20T16:55:00.002-05:00

Jury duty can be a pain. You have to go down to the courthouse, verify your paperwork and then sit around for hours waiting to be called (and hoping you're not). If you are called you get herded over to some courtroom where you are asked a bunch of questions about yourself and your beliefs (you try to keep a low profile so no one asks you questions) and then hopefully you will be excused and not have to serve. Sound familiar? A couple of friends (non lawyers) and I discussed this very topic this morning. They were upset with the amount of wasted time in the process and in some cases the attitude of the lawyers. I have been on the other side where we have waited for days to get a jury panel because not enough people showed up to serve. How can we make the process more streamlined, more pleasant and enjoyable? If you have gone to jury duty post a comment and let me know your experience good, bad or indifferent and any suggestions you have to make it better.

Where is my party?

2009-08-13T08:31:00.003-05:00

Politics are something that is generally avoided in legal blogs so as not to offend anyone, but sometimes not saying anything is more offensive. Republican or Democrat does it really matter. Both parties are spending us into bankruptcy and blame the other. They talk about representing the people and not special interest, but who are these "people" because it is not anyone I know. One claims they want free market to decide whether a company succeeds or not, but then reward certain companies with bids, bails out certain companies while allowing others to go under and institute legal "reform" to protect others when they injure someone or cause economic harm. Our soldiers are getting killed taking showers due to faulty wiring, and their families can not hold the company responsible. The other party is claiming that they will provide health care "reform" and virtually no one has even read the bill which will change our options and choices of medical care. I was raised and believe that you do what is right and if you mess up, you take responsibility and try to make it right. Work hard and help others who need help. I believe that and want a party who believes it as well. I hear people say neither party is perfect, that is true, but I would settle for honest. My party seems to have disappeared. If you happen to find it let me know.

Medical Authorization - Don't Sign it.

2009-08-05T16:20:00.003-05:00

When you are involved in a car crash the insurance company for the other driver will normally ask you to sign a medical authorization to allow them to gather all your medical bills and records to help evaluate the case for settlement. DO NOT SIGN IT. They do need to get the records and bills to allow them to evaluate the claim and you should provide those items to the insurance company, but do it yourself. Get the actual bills and medical records, delete your social security number and any other private and non-related information and mail them to the company. I know you are asking, but if they will do it why should I go to all the trouble. The reason is because the authorization they will ask you to sign will almost always not be limited to the time frame after the crash and will allow them to speak to your doctors directly. Why would you want your personal information which has nothing to do with the crash discussed and turned over to the insurance company? You can prevent it by just getting the relevant information yourself and providing it to the insurance company. They get what they need, you do not have your entire medical history from birth forward and they should be able to evaluate the case for settlement. If they continue to demand you produce records prior to the wreck you may as well prepare for a lawsuit, because they are more interested in defending the case than in evaluating it for settlement.

Allstate - Good Hands Drop Insured in Grease

2009-07-30T10:21:00.004-05:00

Allstate spends millions and millions of dollars in advertising to convince people that they are there for them when they are needed. The good hands people. My experience is that Allstate continually denies or undervalues valid claims which results in their insured being sued. If that is not bad enough, many times they file answers which deny facts that their own insured later admits in their sworn testimony. The sad part is that this is so common that most attorneys are not even surprised at the tactic. This action not only results in their insured being sued for an accident which everyone knows was their fault, causing them to miss work and go through the stress of litigation but can result in the Allstate insured potentially being personally liable for a large verdict in excess of the policy limits. That is exactly what happened in Houston this week.
A young girl was hit by a man who ran a red light. He was insured by Allstate. The police listed him as the cause of the crash. She had over $16k in past medical and needed additional medical care which would cost $22,500.00 which was undisputed. The Allstate insured only had $25,000.00 in insurance coverage which the girl offered to accept. Allstate refused. Their insured gets sued, has to answer discovery, give a deposition, miss work and stress over this lawsuit. The day the trial is to start the lawyer for the young girl offers again to settle for the policy limits which would not only end the lawsuit, but protect the Allstate insured from any risk of an excess verdict. You would think they would jump at the chance to settle and protect their insured. That is why we pay premiums and they are the "good hands" company. Allstate instead choose to offer $12, 500.00, which was refused. Jump to the next day, the jury returns and find the man 100% at fault and a verdict against in for $202,942.70. Now he faces the possibility of being personally liable for almost $200,000.00 all because Allstate decided to refuse to settle a claim that anyone who has any sense knew they owed. If you are in a wreck, never assume that your insurance company is going to do what is in your best interest. Require them to copy you on all letters and offers. In the last few years we have had more and more situations in which we have represented the insureds personally to make sure the insurance company did what they should to protect their insured. Will Allstate take notice and begin to fairly evaluate claims to protect their insureds from being sued? I doubt it. Based upon their history, I would expect them to just increase the advertising budget, blame the juries, judges and lawyers. Anything but take responsibility. Why should they when they can just drop their insured in the grease. Let me know your comments.

Car Crash Basics Part II

2009-07-15T09:43:00.003-05:00

When you go to the doctor or hospital, ask for a copy of your medical and billing records for your file. Keep all your documents relating to the crash in one place for easy reference and to make sure you are not missing anything later when you are in a position to settle your case. A couple of other items which you should try and get as soon as possible are the crash report and 911 tapes. You should have received some case information from the police officer who came to the scene. That will give you the information you need to order a copy of the report. When you order it (you can usually go down and pick-up a copy) make sure you pay the dollar or so extra and get a certified copy. When you get it make a copy and keep the original safe. When you are ordering the crash report ask for a copy of any 911 calls for your wreck. Generally they are only kept a short time, so do this early. The last thing for this segment is to go take some pictures of the scene where the wreck happened to show what it looked like. Also look for any skid marks, etc. on the road and take pictures of those as well. Next time we will discuss what information you can get from the crash report and 911 tapes and how to use them.

Car Crash Case Basics - Part 1

2009-07-08T09:37:00.003-05:00

If you are in a wreck here are some things to consider. First, get the names, addresses and phone numbers of everyone involved and any witnesses. Ask to see the drivers license to verify they are who they claim (some people will lie). Ask to see a copy of insurance information and write down all information. Take pictures of the vehicle positions, roadway and damage. No camera, use your cell phone. If you are injured get to a doctor. Do not give any statements (except to the police). If the other drivers insurance company asks you for a statement, I would suggest you ask them what their driver is claiming, if it is not what happened, they are probably preparing a defense and will ask questions designed to hurt your case. If their driver agrees with your position, why do they need your statement. Do not sign any authorizations. You can provide any medical records and bills they need and there is no reason for them to get access to your entire life history. If you have any questions call a lawyer, the consultation is usually free and you can get some piece of mind, in addition to good information.

Drunks, Legislature, Governor & Insurance

2009-06-10T09:23:00.008-05:00

In the Houston Chronicle there was an article about the large number of drunk driving fatalities. The list and stories are heartbreaking as are the hundreds of other stories which were not included of families devastated by injury or death because someone choose to drive while drunk. What is even more upsetting is how the families are being treated by our Courts, legislature and Governor. If the family that is injured has health insurance, the drunk gets to use that to their advantage. All they owe is what is paid by the group coverage. That is referred to as paid vs. incurred. The legislature realized it was unfair and voted to change it but Governor Perry vetoed it at the last possible minute last session, why? Why should a family pay all those premiums so that a drunk can use it to reduce what he has to pay.
If the drunk had little or no car insurance, the family of the injured person own uninsured or underinsured car insurance may be needed to help pay medical bills, but after all the years of paying premiums the insurance company can deny the claim, why, because our Texas Supreme Court decided it wasn't fair for the insurance company to pay the claim which they were paid premiums all those years for until a final civil judgment and damages have been found against the drunk. That means that even though the medical bills may be more than the policy and the drunk is convicted and in jail, the families own insurance can make them file a lawsuit, spend all the money on experts, medical records and attorneys to prove the case that everyone knows the outcome. And what happens when the jury returns a verdict in excess of the policy limits? The family who has had to live through the agony of the crash and injuries can only get the policy limits which they paid for in the beginning, no attorneys fees, no expenses, nothing else, all because of our Texas Supreme Court. The Court argues that it is a contract action so it is fair, but it is the only contract action which they do not allow for attorneys fees or additional damages. Why? Who benefits from these decisions? Who do you think! It is time for the people who drive safe, pay the premiums for their insurance and do what is right to be the main concern and not the drunks and insurance companies. Let me know your thoughts.

Supreme Subversion

2009-04-29T06:25:00.002-05:00

In a recent trial, the jury sent out a message wondering what is the most they could award. The attorneys for Ford decided to settle rather than wait for the verdict. This happens quite often that cases resolve based upon impressions attorneys get from the jury questions. Sometimes you guess right sometimes not. I have had a similar question "Can we award more than the Plaintiff requested?" the case did not settle and the jury awarded less than we asked for. When I asked them why they sent out the question they said it was just something we wanted to know. It has always been a risk to try a case, but the Texas Supreme Court has taken another major step to subvert the role of the juries in Texas. After Ford agreed to the settlement they spoke to the jury and discovered they probably would have won the trial. Did they chalk it up to a bad decision on their part and move on? No they appealed the case claiming possible juror misconduct or jury tampering. These types of claims are generally desperate laughable attempt to cover up the misjudgment by the party or attorneys, in this case even though the trial court and Corpus Court of Appeals found no basis to allow Ford to explore and make these claims, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously agreed to allow Ford to pursue their claims.

It is disturbing that this is the same Court which is arguing that Texas should to do away with elections for their positions because it would do away with the appearance of being swayed by contributors. Is it an appearance and who are their major contributors? I think you can guess.
How would making them less accountable to the citizens of Texas improve the Court?

What if the roles had been reversed? Does anyone believe that if the Plaintiff had settled for a minimum amount because the jury in the same case sent out a note asking if there was a minimum they had to award and they later learned that the jury verdict would have been for several million dollars that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way.

Let me know what you think.

Supreme Court - Result Driven

2009-04-14T22:26:00.002-05:00

In June 1997, Mr. Mendez was driving his Mazda minivan carrying six passengers on Interstate 25 in New Mexico. The left rear tire, a steel-belted radial tire manufactured by Cooper Tire, lost its tread. Mendez lost control of the vehicle, and it rolled several times, ejecting six passengers. Four of the passengers died at the scene or shortly thereafter. The jury heard from three separate experts presented by the Mendez family, Mr. Milner who is a professional engineer with degrees in metallurgy and engineering. Mr. Grogan who authored a book entitled An Investigator’s Guide to Tire Failures and numerous articles on tire failures and Mr. Crate who has a degree in chemistry. After a long and detailed trial in which the judge ruled that the experts were qualified and the jury heard from experts and witnesses for both sides, they found in favor of the Mendez family and held that the Cooper tire had a manufacturing defect which caused the tire to fail and and the van to roll over.
Almost a decade later, in January 2006 the Texas Supreme Court determined that all three experts testimony was inadequate to support the verdict. This despite the undisputed evidence and testimony that the tire lost it tread while driving down the road in a normal manner. The jury heard all the evidence and could judge the credibility of each witnesses with their own eyes and hear the truth in their words with their ears. Yet, the Supreme Court years later determines that the trial judge was wrong in letting the testimony in, that the jury was wrong in deciding the case after listening and evaluating the evidence and only they who have not seen or heard any of the actual testimony can determine who is qualified and who is telling the truth. Is it any wonder our Supreme Court wants to do away elections for their positions and wants to reduce the juries ability to decide cases? It is so much easier just to decide what the result should be.
On the next blog, we will look at another case in which the Supreme Court threw out the work of the trial judge and jury and reversed the case. In that one, they even changed the rules of the trial after the trial was over.

Texas Supreme Court

2009-04-09T21:20:00.007-05:00

Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson -- Texas Bar Journal April 2009
“I am concerned by the public’s perception that money in judicial races influences outcomes.” “Polls asking about this perception find that more than 80 percent of those questioned believe contributions influence a judge’s decision.” “Justice must be blind – it must be as blind to party affiliation as to the litigant’s social or financial status. The rule of law resonates across party lines.”

The Chief Justice is recommending that we do away with elections of judges and let the governor or some other politician decide who should become judges. I disagree. Texans are independent, strong and smart. We do not want anyone deciding what is best for us,especially some politician. It doesn't matter to me if it is a Democrat, Republican or Independent that would be the appointing the judge, in my opinion it is wrong. It is strange that this argument only comes up when one party senses that the other could sweep elections and get rid of those elected. I have seen excellent judges from both parties voted out of offices simply because they had a D or R designation and it would be good to do stop that, but doing away with elections is not the way.

I couldn't agree more with the Chief Justice that something should be done to stop the influence of money in decisions, but the solution is not to do away with electing judges. A better solution is to provide information to the public regarding the judges, their voting records, where they get their contributions and money and finally do away with party designation on the ballots or election materials.
If the Supreme Court truly wants to do away with the perception of money influencing their decisions, here are a few suggestions: 1st turn over all financial records relating to who has contributed to you in any manner, 2nd stop pandering to those whose purpose is to do away with the justice system, 3rd try defending the justice and jury system which holds people and corporations accountable for their actions instead of finding/creating new ways to excuse their actions.

In the next few weeks I will be looking at the some of the Supreme Court decisions over the last decade or so and present some issues and see what you would decide and compare it to what was actually decided by the Court. As always I welcome any and all comments and opinions, let me hear from you.

Texas Supreme Court protects drunk drivers

2009-03-26T21:44:00.002-05:00

Texas Supreme Court protects drunk drivers. Shocked you should be. Here is how they do it. You work hard, pay your taxes, insurance premiums including uninsured/underinsured coverage. You are driving along and suddenly a drunk driver going the wrong way on a one way road hits you head on, or hits you from behind while you are stopped at a red light, or runs you down in a parking lot. The drunk is arrested and taken to jail, you go to the hospital and thousands of dollars later (not to mention the pain) you find out the drunk either does not have insurance or not enough. What do you do, you do what everyone would do you make a claim on that insurance you have paid for all those years. I mean that is why you have paid the insurance company thousands of dollars for just this type of thing. What does the insurance company do? Pay the claim which they know they owe, of course not. Thanks to our Texas Supreme Court they deny the claim because the person injured by the drunk has not had a Court determine that the drunk was a fault and what the damages are. Understand that your insurance is essentially now the drunks since they had none or not enough, and even though the drunk is arrested (and maybe even already convicted) and you have proven thousands and thousands of dollars in medical bills, they get a free pass to delay your claim for potentially years thanks to our Drunk and Insurance protecting Supreme Court. Isn't it time that the citizens of Texas who do work hard, pay their bills, drive responsibly and pay for insurance coverage come first? I am sick and tired of having to tell families who have had their lives destroyed by these drunk drivers that now their own insurance company with the blessing of our Supreme Court can force them through ligitation just to get what should be paid without even having to hire a lawyer. What's your thought?

Paid v. Incurred

2009-03-18T08:51:00.002-05:00

Why should the people who cause injury get the benefit of all the money you or your company has paid for your health insurance? That is what happens under the current law in Texas which allows defendants (i.e. drunk drivers) to get the benefit of having to pay only the amount of your reduced bills that your group coverage has contracted. The legislature realized the unfairness of this last session and changed the law, but Governor Perry vetoed the bill at the last possible minute so they could not take it up again. The same bill is before the legislature this session and hopefully the Governor will do the right thing and not protect the drunks and their insurance companies.

Chase Bank v. FB Austin ProGrad

2009-03-10T22:09:00.002-05:00

What do you call a Bank that gets BILLIONS of dollars from the government, but refuses to refund $10,000.00 to a group of high school seniors when the Bank allowed unauthorized wire transfers of their Account? Chase Bank. It has been over 2 weeks since the bank allowed two separate transfers which totaled almost $10,000.00. Who supposedly authorized the transfers, where were they sent, when will the money be returned and what is the status of the "investigation" would all seem like relevant questions which Chase would be willing to share with their account holder whose money was taken, but they instead have refused to answer any questions, refused to refund the money and refuse to provide a time frame as to when their "investigation" may be completed. The Austin H.S. seniors have worked hard to raise the money for the ProGrad party and the Banks action (or lack thereof) is causing a delay in ordering items and scheduling. Several newspapers attempted to get answers today and received the same double talk that ProGrad has heard. Hopefully Chase will do what is right and refund the money to the students. It's not like they are completely incompetent and need to get billions from the government because they can't run their business or figure out how they lost $10,000.00 of their account holders.

AIG- An Incompetent Group

2009-03-03T09:53:00.003-06:00

AIG is pleased to announce we have changed our name to 21st Century Insurance. That is the message which was heard when they were called to discuss a case in which a family was run over by a drunk. While I am sure they are pleased to announce the change in name. It would be better if they announced a change in attitude and policy. Their policy holders pay the premiums and hope to never have to make a claim, but when they do make a claim on their own policy due to a wreck in which the other driver has no insurance or inadequate insurance what happens? You would assume that AIG would take some of the thousands of dollars in premiums paid by the policy holder and resolve the claim, or perhaps they would use some of the tens of billions (that is hard to write) they have received from their policy holders and the rest of the citizens of the United States. That is what a reasonable company would do. They collected premiums for years for just this situation. AIG chooses a different option they make a "offer" to settle the case for less than half the policy limits. They realize that they can keep all the money and make their policy holders hire an attorney to file suit and after spending significant time and money to get to trial and receive a verdict; they will only have to pay what they should have paid in the first place. (See UM blog 2/4/09) So they keep the money paid to them in premiums and they have all the billions which we have provide them in the stimulus package and force their policy holders to file suit to receive the very benefits they have paid for. What are they doing with their policy holders money and the billions of dollars they have received? While it is especially galling that AIG who has received billions of dollars in addition to the premium payments, they are not alone. Virtually every auto insurance company in Texas has the same attitude because they are allowed to by our Supreme Court and Legislature. If you want it to change let your representatives know. As always, I welcome your comments.

Arbitration

2009-02-25T19:14:00.001-06:00

Arbitration – “till death do you part” may apply in marriage, but does not apply in arbitration. On February 13, 2009 our Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion (In Re Labatt Food Service, L.P. – No. 07-0419)which held that an arbitration provision in an agreement between a person who died on the job and his employer was binding upon his heirs even though they did not sign the agreement. The court concluded that the arbitration clause was binding and the decision as to whether even the agreement itself was enforceable would have to be decided by the arbitrator. The original concept of arbitration was one of cost savings in terms of reducing the expense of lawyers, discovery and time to get an issue resolved. It has instead proven to be as, if not more expensive and take longer than litigation without any of the safeguards built into our civil justice system. I am a firm opponent to arbitration and have huge concerns regarding the uneven playing field before a single arbitrator or panel that is selected by the parties. One concern is the appearance of bias when one party regularly appears before the arbitrator and the other has only one case. Also the decision of the arbitrator is generally final without recourse or appeal, whereas in trial you present your case to a jury from your jurisdiction. That jury’s decision is based upon the law as administered by the Court and if warranted either side can appeal the decision. My advice is not to agree to arbitration. If arbitration language is included in an agreement strike it out before signing and if the other side insists on the arbitration language you have to decide if it is worth the loss of your rights under our justice system. Also ask yourself if they want arbitration so bad, they must have a reason to believe it will benefit them and not provide an equal playing field. The time to deal with an arbitration clause is before you sign the agreement because, as our Supreme Court has held, even death can’t get you out of them once it has been signed. As always I welcome your comments.

Trials Part 1

2009-02-18T20:36:00.004-06:00

As you may have noticed from the in trial this week, I am in trial. One issue which has come up in this trial and virtually every trial which concerns personal injuries is the use of affidavits to prove up medical records and billing. While it is specifically allowed under 18.001, the affidavit must track the language as set out, if not you may not get your bills or records into evidence. We have noticed that several hospitals and doctors instead of returning the affidavit we send filled out, they choose to either send their own or change the language. This could result in the affidavit being found defective and the your evidence excluded. So the moral of the story is once you get your affidavits back and make sure you read them to determine they are correct. Give yourself plenty of time to get them corrected before the filing deadlines. All our medical was admitted, but some of the bills were initially incorrect, but my co-counsel Sharon Steckler had them redo in the correct form and did so in plenty of time to get them filed timely. If you have questions or comments, let me know.

Uninsured/Underinsured Auto Coverage - Part 2

2009-02-10T13:29:00.005-06:00

Uninsured or Underinsured claims, in addition to what we discussed last week, have some other issues which can be become problems. One of them could prevent you from recovering under your own policy, despite all the money you have paid in over the years. You must get written permission to settle and release the other driver from your carrier before you settle your case. To illustrate this let's take a basic rear end collision. You are hit from behind by a driver insured with DenyAll Insurance and your insurance is Regressive. The other drive is ticketed for the wreck and your medical expenses are over $35,000.00. The other driver's coverage through DenyAll is only $25,000.00. They provide proof of the policy only being $25,000.00 and send you a check and release to sign. Putting aside all the issues with medical bills, etc., you sign the release and take the money. You may have just cut off any recovery you may have against your own company to recover your additional damages because you did not get their written permission to settle and release the other driver. The real kicker is that there is no requirement that your insurance company tell you about the requirement. The moral of the example is what should be simple is filled with traps and before you settle any case, make sure you know who it could impact other issues. As with any legal discussion, this is just general information and not specific legal advice for any case.

Uninsured/Underinsured Auto Coverage

2009-02-03T22:12:00.005-06:00

Did you know that the auto insurance that you have paid for all these years can refuse to pay even if it is clear that you were injured through no fault of your own? Let me give you an example. You are stopped at a light and a drunk hits you. You go to the hospital and everyone knows you are seriously injured. The drunk is arrested and taken to jail for causing the wreck and your medical bills are increasing daily. You learn that the drunk has no insurance, so you make a claim on your insurance under the uninsured portion of your policy. That is why you have been making those payments all these years. You submit all your bills and even send them the police report. You then get a letter stating that they do not have to pay anything until the drunk is found liable and the damages are established. Your medical is now over $40,000.00 and your uninsured coverage is only $50,000.00 clearly they will pay it and not make you hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit right. Wrong. The Texas Supreme Court has expressly permitted this very action and the insurance companies are taking full advantage of it. You may now have to hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit and incur all the cost of filing fees, depositions, etc. to "prove" the drunk was at fault and what your damages are, and once you do all that and get a verdict, you would think you would get the policy limits ($50k in our example), plus your expenses and attorneys fees because you paid those premiums to get treated fairly, but that is not the case. In our example, let's say the jury finds the drunk at fault and awards $150,000.00. The Supreme Court has held that if the policy limits are tendered timely (within 5 days) of the judgment, all they owe is the policy ($50k), no attorneys fees or expenses. So why would an insurance company ever settle an uninsured case for the full value when they know they can make you spend time and money and ultimately will get less. If you think this is wrong, you are right. Let me know your thoughts.

Ethics and the Texas Supreme Court

2008-12-08T10:28:00.002-06:00

For the last decade in Texas it has generally been understood by trial attorneys that no matter what evidence the jury hears or the trial Court admits (or withholds); the Texas Supreme Court will protect the insurance companies, home builders and other big business. To do this they have had to create new law and disregard Texas law that has been in effect in some instances for decades. On of our justices has been publicly reprimanded and others have had issues raised, but through it all they continue to dish out their brand of justice. In most cases this means overturning a jury verdict and an appellate court. A jury who heard all the evidence and were able to evaluate the witnesses, hear the testimony and see the expressions of the witnesses, and review all the documents. The appellate court then reviewed the evidence to determine if there was any reason to overturn the verdict based on a legal issue. The case then arrives at our Texas Supreme Court who have almost in every instance sided with the insurance companies, home builder, or big business over the small business owner or individual. The rulings have also been applied retroactively where the original case was tried under one understanding of the law and they decided that even though that may have been the law, it is now changed and the case is now lost because of this new law. It is like playing a game and after you have won they decide that the rules are different and you now lose (even though you played by all the rules at the time). Why are they voting the way they are? Look at who are the major contributors to the campaigns, compare it to the vote and you decide. Why has it not changed? Unfortunately, it is not a big issue until it impact you personally and then it is often to late. As citizens of Texas everyone should be upset by what is happening in the Supreme Court. If you would like information on specific cases and how they have eliminated or reduced, contact me for more information.

Thanksgiving

2008-11-25T20:44:00.003-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving to all and a special thank you to all the court personnel, sheriffs and judges who allow us to have a safe and fair venue to present our legal issues.

Trials this week

2008-11-19T17:19:00.003-06:00

I am working on a new section which you will find on the bottom right. With the great assistance of the courts, I will attempt to post whatever trials are taking place in Fort Bend County each week. It is our great right to be able to have our disputes resolved by a jury of our peers when other attempts of resolution fail. Trials are generally open to the public and if you have never seen a real trial, I would suggest that you take some time and just stop in and watch one.

Responsiblity

2008-11-15T10:00:00.004-06:00

As many of you know, we represent both individuals and corporations in a variety of legal issues, but the overriding issue is responsibility. Taking responsibility and in some cases (with the help of the jury) getting others to take the responsibility for their actions when they will not do so voluntarily is one of the fundamental basis for the legal system. Currently we are involved in a case in which two people were killed in a parking lot at a local business. I have already received messages stating that this is the problem with the justice system that we are attempting to blame the business instead of the killer. That is a misunderstanding of the situation. We want (and are doing everything in our power to help the authorities) the killer to be brought to justice, but by the same token we believe that a business that knows of an on-going crime problem, including a prior murder should take some action to protect the people who are paying their hard earned money to shop there. If you follow the logic of some of the messages I have received no business would be responsible for maintaining their property or taking reasonable measures to keep it safe. Their only responsibility would be to collect the money from the customers without care for their safety. The families that went to Kroger that night to buy groceries did their jobs, they drove to the store, brought their money and were ready to buy the groceries. They were not warned about the dangerous nature of the area, they were not provided with any security, the store did not invest in any cameras outside, did not increase lighting nor patrols outside, instead they left it to the criminals and the criminals took advantage of it. Should a business be held responsible for criminal activity when they know it has been going on for sometime? Should they compensate the victims whose only mistake was choosing to shop at this complex? Should the killer be punished? It is my position that the answer to the questions is the same --yes. Let me know your thoughts.

New Court of Appeals Justice Appointed

2008-11-07T14:08:00.000-06:00

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry has appointed Kent C. Sullivan of Houston justice of the 14th Court of Appeals for a term to expire at the next general election. The court represents 10 Houston area counties.

Sullivan is the first assistant attorney general of Texas and past presiding judge of the 80th District Court in Harris County. He is a member of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee and Houston Bar Association, member and past director of the State Bar of Texas Texas and Houston Bar Foundation fellow. He is also a past member of the Houston Society of the Performing Arts Board of Directors, Downtown Association, and Texas Public Policy Foundation. Sullivan received a bachelor’s degree and law degree from the University of Virginia. He replaces Wanda Fowler of Houston.

Lampson Deserves our Thanks

2008-11-06T19:56:00.002-06:00

Now that the election is over and Pete Olsen has been elected (I have almost gotten over the sign theft) I think everyone should thank Nick Lampson for all he has done for our county. While the republicans are congratulating themselves on electing Mr. Olsen, I would like to point out what we have lost. We have lost a representative who had seniority. We have lost a representative who was on the major committees which impacted our community and his constituents. We have lost a representative who met with more of his constituents in two years than his predessor did in his entire tenure. We have lost a representative who had the ear of the leadership. What was his failure, other than apparently having a D next to his name? The biggest complaint I heard was that he voted conservative, and (gasp) he voted as his constituents wanted. The comment was that it was all part of some big plan to keep him in office. I always thought that was what our representatives were supposed to do. So regardless of your party affiliation or who your "guy" was, I think we all should thank Nick Lampson for all he has done over the last two years. As for our new representative, Mr. Olsen, my hope is that you can keep the same lines of communication open with your constituents, but be careful, voting as your constituents want can be hazardous to your re-election.

The Vote is in

2008-11-05T09:27:00.002-06:00

The two District Judges in Fort Bend County Judge Vacek of the 400th and Judge Shoemake of the 434th retained their positions. I would like to congratulate both of the Judges and also both of their opponents. Mr. Flick and Mr. Hollan in running great campaigns. All the candidates should be congratulated on their ability and willingness to serve the public and a very professional and ethical campaign. We are fortunate in Fort Bend County to have such qualified people willing to work for all our benefit.

Election signs

2008-10-26T18:53:00.003-05:00

I have been robbed. As you know from my prior posts, I support candidates from both parties. We have signs outside our office for Nick Lampson (D) and the two district judges mention previously (R). Well someone stole the Lampson signs about a week ago, so we replaced them and they were stolen again yesterday. I am all for a reasonable discussion, but is the fear of losing so great that someone has to resort to theft.

Judicial Races

2008-10-21T21:55:00.000-05:00

As early voting begins I am often asked who am I voting for in the judicial races. I am not a straight ticket person and firmly believe the person selected to sit in judgment should be above party politics and be dedicated to applying the law in fair and equal manner. In Fort Bend County we are fortunate in that I believe all the candidates fit that definition; however in the contested races for the 400th I support Judge Vacek and for the 434th I support Judge Shoemake. Being a trial lawyer, I am in courts across the country and these two judges are some of the finest I have had the honor of appearing before. They do not always rule as I would like, but they have always ruled in a manner which is consistent with the law. They both happen to be Republican, but as you can see from my Supreme Court recomendations below, I am not a vote Republican no matter what person.
The Texas Supreme Court has three positions up this year and I believe the more qualified canditates are for Cheif Justice, Jim Jordan; for Place 7, Sam Houston; and for Place 8 Linda Reyna Yanez. All three will bring a fairness to the Court which has been sorely lacking over the last few years. They are jurist who will apply the law, not rewrite or contort it to suit any special intrest groups and just happen to all be Democrats. Texas needs these type of jurists, both Republican and Democrat, from the local level up the the highest court.
It is your responsibility and your duty to vote. Educate yourself about the races, in judicial races ask lawyers who know the judges who they are voting for and why. In judicial races specifically, vote for the person who will make the best judge, not for the person who just happens to be in a particular party.