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

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.

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.

Uninsured/Underinsured Auto Coverage

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.