It’s Primary Time for the Elections!! So let’s talk Judges, Justices, D.A., and Clerks

It is fitting that early voting for the party primaries begins right after Valentines because it seems that some candidate’s whole campaign is essentially – I love you best. I will be the toughest on crime, I believe in same sex marriage, I will stop frivolous lawsuits, I will make sure to protect “x” or protect you from “x” … (fill in the blank) because I’m I your guy/girl. Really! Believe me. Here is who I am supporting in the contested repbulican judicial races, D.A., and the race for district clerk: Chief Justice, Supreme Court: Robert Talton Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6 Jeff Brown Justice, Supreme Court Place 8 Sharon McCally Justice 1st Court of Appeals, Place 3 Dan Linebaugh District Judge 268th Brady Elliott District Attorney John Healey County Court at Law #1 Chris Morales County Court at Law #4 R. H. “Sandy” Bielstein District Clerk Annie Rebecca Elliott I haven’t listed the Court of Criminal Appeals as I do not practice before them, but welcome suggestions from my friends who are prosecutors and defense attorneys. So how do you know who to vote for even in your own party? Here are some suggestions: First: Ask attorneys who practice before the Judges and Justices and who have to deal with the clerks on a weekly basis. These are people who have a working knowledge of what is good and/or bad and deal with the consequences of both. They should be able to tell you who they would support and why. Second: Read their propaganda (I mean mailers). Any decent ones are going to list the candidates’ accomplishments and biography. Here is what sends up red flags for me. Any candidate who touts that they are going to be tough on criminals, get rid of frivolous lawsuits, be more republican or democratic than their opponent, etc., etc. I know that political parties are a necessity for the backing and support of candidates (including judges and clerks) but I want an elected official who is fair to all. I want a judge who is going to have one job and that is to enforce the laws as they exist and treat everyone equally. I want a judge who believes in the innocent until proven guilty and not one who brags about putting people in jail or being tough on crime. If you enforce the law then usually the right thing happens, if you have an agenda then run for congress and not the bench. I want a clerk who makes the filing and handling of document for litigation as easy as possible and is helpful when you have questions. I believe the people who I support are the best choice for the job. To answer a question that some will undoubtedly ask: Are you supporting the judges because they rule for you? No. In fact one of them, despite my brilliant argument, ruled against me on every motion I had recently before the Court. I support these individuals because I have practiced before them, seen their work, read their opinions (or those of whom they are running against) and want the best judicial branch of the government we can get. I want a judiciary which treats everyone as equal and not as a statistic to appease their supporters and donators.

CEO vs. Plaintiff Lawyer

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

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???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.