While I applaud your efforts to bring honor to those of us who practice in the court room I am equally disappointed by your slants that those that seek reform or our imperfect system or those that may defend the claims of your members clients have no say in the manner in which the system operates.
What the Trial Lawyers seem to ignore is that our work does inflict a cost. These costs are far reaching and affect us all. Yet when those that have been paying these costs for so many years seek to have their concerns heard they are accused of buying the system. Not to long ago I defended a small business owner in an age discrimination claim. My client was new to running her business and times were slow. The last thing she needed was to be paying my fees. The man that sued claimed she made statements about his age that she denied. The proverbial question of fact existed. When plaintiff produced what he proclaimed was an original of an audio recording of the conversation he was ready to proclaim victory. When we discovered that the “original” recording was on a tape that was not manufactured until a year after the purported discussion we turned the tables.
My client was confronted at that time with the dilemma that many defendants are confronted with. We could try the case, probably win, and then seek sanctions under our states frivolous action statute. My client had incurred greater than $10,000 in fees at that time. To get to the post trial proceedings would have cost her an additional $5,000 to $10,000 in fees. The plaintiff was uncollectible and of course there was no guarantee the trial court would award the attorneys upon the likely win at trial. She made the business decision to accept his dismissal with prejudice and go home.
While the trial lawyer would say she should be happy with this result she is not. She had to defend a frivolous claim. She endured the stress of false accusations. She incurred the cost of attorney fees she should not have. She saw a man with nothing to lose take a shot, miss and walk away with no repercussions. In short she had no justice.
Unfortunately this story repeats itself day in and day out. Until Trial Lawyers are willing to step up and acknowledge this form or injustice, and to take steps to find compensation for these defendants who have been wronged don’t expect the public and business to stop their calls for reforms. If Trial Lawyers are truly interested in justice for all they will be the ones to find a solution to these cases.
William J. Brickley
Garan Lucow Miller, P.C.
I have to congratulate you on the first publication of The Trial Lawyer. I have not been able to put it down since.
I got it. It is high quality, informative, timely and very well done.
You guys did an excellent job! I’m looking forward to the next edition. You’ve provided a much needed perspective.
The Cochran Firm
I received your copies of The Trial Lawyer Magazine. Thank you very much for sending. I’ve passed them around the office for everyone to read. I really like the look overall and the articles were great. I especially liked the articles beginning on page 10 about the benefits of advertising, on page 100 about Slater Gordon going public and on page 121 which provided a quick reference for pharmaceutical mass torts.
Congratulations on this inaugural issue and I’m very much looking forward to reading future issues.
Robert D. Beeson
MCM Services Group, LLC
Since my article entitled “Pain Patches May Cause Death, Fentanyl Pain Patch,” which ran in the fall issue of The Trial Lawyer more lawsuits against manufacturers of this dangerous and often lethal opioid pain medication have made the news.
On October 28, a Sanford, Florida jury awarded over $13 million to the family of 34-year-old Susan Hodgemire, who died while wearing a Duragesic patch in 2002. Then on November 17, a Chicago jury awarded $16.5 million to the family of Janice DiCosolo, a 38-year-old woman from Cicero, Illinois, who died from wearing a defective Duragesic patch in 2004. My firm, Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei handled the Chicago case against Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. and ALZA Corporation. This verdict was the largest to date against any manufacturer of a fentanyl pain patch.
Although no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a loved one, due to the horrific nature of these tragedies, I believe justice was served in these two unprecedented cases.
Angel L. Reyes, III
I received your fall issue of The Trial Lawyer which is so left wing that it puts the New York Times to shame.
In particular, I find the article, Mainstream Media is Dead, which favors the fairness doctrine and criticizes lower estate, capital gains and corporate taxes which, to put it kindly, is disingenuous.
The fairness doctrine is an abridgment of the constitutional right of free speech and ignores the fact that all three major TV networks are ‘left leaning’ in their reporting and news analysis.
As to lower estate taxes, there will always be extreme examples to point to such as the estates of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for example. However, it forgets the mass majority who have worked and saved all their lives to amass an estate of several million dollars resulting in government being the primary heir. Let us not forget that the assets were accumulated with after-tax dollars.
As to capital gains taxes, capital is the lifeblood of business. Taxing capital gains means there is less capital available for investment, not to mention the fact that capital gains on long-held assets are phantom gains resulting from inflation.
As to corporate taxes, the article fails to mention that the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, promptly many multinational corporations to locate facilities in foreign countries where the tax rates are much more favorable, resulting in higher unemployment in our country.
If the political positions in the article were adopted, it would severely unfavorably impact the freedom and economic future of the country.
Consequently, please remove my name from your mailing list as any future issues sent to me will be relegated to the trash can. Thank you.
Anthony S. Guido
Hanak, Guido & Taladay
Congrats on your new magazine! It is the best magazine I have ever read, and the first magazine I have ever read from cover to cover. Keep up the great work.
Paul Henry Abram
I have just had a opportunity to read the first version of your magazine. I have one word to describe it: tacky. Shouldn’t we have at least the pretense of fairness: while I agree that George Bush, Carl Rove and Tom Donahue are dicks, the same should not be said about Ralph Nader. What was his affront…not being a democrat?
C. Stephen Bassinger
Just wanted to thank you for the article by Dr. George Carlo in the last issue of the magazine — (cell phones.) VERY WELL DONE! Dr. Carlo deserves the Nobel Prize.
I reviewed the Fall 2008 magazine entitled The Trial Lawyer, including all its articles and commentaries. This magazine and its articles were very well written and very informative. I commend the authors for writing these articles and putting the truth in
print regarding Karl Rove and the manipulation of the U.S. Justice Department. (I used to be the Assistant Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorneys Office in Houston and I believe everything stated in these articles.)
John T. Johnson
I have enjoyed very much your first issue of the magazine The Trial Lawyer. Your article titled “Load-Lines of Credit for Case Expenses” mentions one word of caution, but ignores another one.
The Florida Bar has issued an ethics opinion that suggests that it is unethical to “pass on” to the client interest charged for financing litigation costs in cases if, as almost universal in Florida, the contract with the client provides that the client does not have to reimburse the costs if the case is ultimately lost. The Opinion suggests that this may be true in other states also. Perhaps another word of caution should suggest to the inquiring attorney that state ethical restrictions be matched against the proposed financing arrangement.
Very truly yours,
Wagner, Vaughan & McLaughlin