In North Carolina (and every other state), insurance companies what to screw you when you have a car wreck claim

 

Technology won't save us, but it can help us (think automation)

Technology cannot solve all our problems. I say that frequently because it's true. Technology provides wonderful tools to enhance what we are already doing by making us more efficient. It makes things faster. Rather, the things that are laborious and do not involve higher level thinking are perfect to be influenced by technology, specifically, automation. But what is automation?

Automation is "the use of machines or technology to perform simple human tasks without much human intervention."  Where we will see the benefits the most are in AI. Think fillable forms. You gather necessary information and have it populated in routine forms. 

Automation isn't new. Some of the greatest technological breakthroughs have been seemingly simple improvements such as the assembly line invented by Henry Ford. Ford installed it on December 1, 1913. It allowed for the mass production of automobiles. As a result, people all over America bought cars. Eventually the interstate highway system grew up after World War II. And now we can't imagine life without driving.

Automation through AI will be similar because it will allow us to process work faster especially in the legal field (personal injury,  M&A, workers comp, VA, Social Security disability, and wills and estates are all examples of practice areas that will benefit). We already see its benefits with forms that auto-populate, faster online systems, and self-guided systems. 

The downside for the American labor market is it could in theory take away jobs. Arguably, it will create jobs, too. Ultimately, I think it will benefit us by creating more opportunities and careers we haven't even imagined yet. 

It's nothing to be afraid of like some Twilight Zone episode.

But technology won't think for us. Rather, it shouldn't. We should still think for ourselves. In this way, technology won't solve all our problems. But it can greatly benefit it. Those who learn to use technology such as automation to enhancer their productivity will be the ones who do well in modern day America--especially in the legal field. 

People were so offended by the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics

 

Never Trust a Male Lawyer who Dyes his Hair

 

Lawyer Doddle—thoughts on class action lawyers (data breach)

Collect your $50 while lawyers make millions. 

Should judges post on social media?

No one wants a judge who is a partisan hack. I read The Appeal by John Grisham, which painted an unflattering portrait of the way appellate judges are selected and how they decide. It makes you think about what you want in a judge. The question I wonder about is: what should judges post on social media? Or should they post anything at all?

 

Judges are people. Although black robes are meant to convey majesty, that is more about the court and the power of the court as an institution. The judge an agent of that institution and the embodiment of it.

Some states elect their judges. Some states appoint their judges. In North Carolina, we elect judges. It used to be non-partisan, which was a little silly. You knew where everyone stood, but it allowed judges to have at least a little removal from politics. Not anymore.

The North Carolina General Assembly made the elections partisan after about two decades of not listing the judge’s party. This raises all kinds of questions about judges who hold certain political philosophies and how they might rule.

For example, many Republican judges come from the DA’s office. Do you want a judge who worked for the DA’s office if you are a criminal defense lawyer? Probably not. I suppose it depends on the judge. Conversely, if you are a victim of crime, do you want a judge who was a long-time criminal defense lawyer and a Democrat?

And what if you are a plaintiff’s attorney in a personal injury lawsuit, and your case goes in front of a Republican judge who worked in insurance defense his or her whole career? You may not want this judge.

The two-party divide has always existed, so, in theory, this problem has always been present. You simply learned how judges leaned and you “judge shopped” accordingly.

Lately I’ve noticed judges showing up in pictures on social media at political events for North Carolina Court of Appeals and North Carolina Supreme Court candidates and incumbents. In theory, these appellate courts could rule on opinions written by the judges attending their events and contributing to their campaigns.

It raises the question: is it proper for a judge to appear on social media in these kinds of pictures? What about appearing in pictures with candidates for various offices? Or pictures with children of major politicians? For example, what if your judge appeared with Donald Trump, Jr. in a picture at a political event? How would you feel about that judge? I suppose it depends on how you want the judge to rule, doesn’t it? If you were a Democrat, not so good. How would you feel if your judge appeared with Hunter Biden? If you were a Republican, not so good.

I don’t have the answers, but I do believe:

1. Judges should keep their social media to a minimum and keep their points of view offline. I suppose the counter argument for that is it is better to see how they really think and vote accordingly;

2. Judges should not be photographed with appellate judges who may rule on their cases;

3. Judges should not voice hyper-partisan opinions online; and

4. Judges should not voice strong opinions online about issues that may give people pause as to the judge’s judgment, for lack of a better word.

One thing that troubles me is how so many judges are drawn from the DA’s office. How is a judge who comes from the DA’s office qualified to hear anything but criminal cases? Wouldn’t you want a judge who understood criminal law and civil law? Those are questions for another day.

I’m not sure what judges should do about social media, but I do believe they should at least appear to not be a partisan hack. Right now, some try harder than others. 

But it raises the question: if judges conduct themselves as political animals, can you go after them like any other political candidate? I think you can. And you should. 

Plaintiff's Lawyers Fight Uphill Battles--the Only Way to Fight

As a lawyer, my two greatest pleasures are: 1) Fighting hard for my clients. They are real people who inspire me. 2) Fighting back for my clients against other people, insurance companies, former employers, the government, and whoever else goes after them. My clients deserve someone who will fight hard for them, which is what I try to do.

If I am guilty of one thing as a lawyer (and as a person), it is that I do not tolerate jerks (Normally, I'd say assholes, but this is LinkedIn, which requires more decorum). Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am usually kind, courteous, and polite. I learned to have good manners and be respectful to people. I am. When others are nice. Even when they are not nice, I am sill nice. Usually.

However, when people are mean just to be mean. Lawyers, business people, politicians, or anyone else. Then, I hit back. And I hit hard. 

And I have a long memory. This means I am constantly in search of rectifying what I think is wrong. 

It isn't easy. But it is worth it.

Standing up for others and for yourself requires risk. But most things do. Most things worth doing expose us to risk. 

Plaintiff's lawyers must not be afraid to offend people or upset them. We are at a disadvantage. We are fighting against corporations with limitless funds, who do not see our clients as real people. They dehumanize and disparage our clients when they choose to fight back. And they have lobbied for decades to poison the well against winning in court. 

It's called "tort reform," and it worked. Unfortunately. Why has it worked? Money. Lobbyists. Pitting real people against each other and laughing at them. Laughing to the bank.

Wolves in sheep's clothing. Insurance companies and other corporations have all the money. They are the bullies because they can be. And they want to keep their money. They certainly don't want our clients to have it. Especially when our clients deserve it.

What is the best way to describe corporate America when it comes to how they treat our clients--the real people in America? It's pretty simple. JERKS.

Like I said, I don't like jerks. I'm mean back to jerks. That's who I am. I'm just glad I've found a profession that allows me to be who I am while fighting hard for my clients. 

My clients deserve the best. And I will do all I can to give it to them.

Legal Sharks: Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Make the Lawyers (on both sides) Lots of Money and do Little for the Clients

Data breach class actions are a racket. California is the epicenter of this plaintiff's legal fee bonanza. The passage and subsequent amendment to the CCPA fueled this legal juggernaut. While the CCPA does provide greater protection for victims of data breaches, in reality it means consumer victims of data breaches really only get at most $750 while the lawyers make hundreds of thousands if not millions in fees. 

The way it works is enterprising plaintiffs' lawyers scour the internet daily searching for data breaches where consumer personally identifiable information (PII) is compromised. In the health care context, it is know as protected health information (PHI)  Note: a favorite website of lawyers is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) where massive health care breaches are announced as required by law, often months after they occur giving the victims little chance to mitigate their damages. 

If the breach is big enough and affects a California consumer, then the law firm drafts a blog post to their website and purchases advertising. They try and reel in a plaintiff. Once they have one they information is plugged into a canned complaint, and they file the lawsuit in federal court--hoping to be the first firm to file. Almost all of these firms are in California, which is a litigation paradise for this legal cottage industry.

If you are the first law firm to file, then you get to be lead counsel, which means--if the case isn't dismissed--you will make more in fees than the other circling shark lawyers. Many of these settlements are in the millions, and law firms take between 33% and 40%. Or the case is up to those percentages, but the billable time for several hundred hours is billed out between $700 to $1000 per hour. When I handled these cases, my time was around $700 per hour. 

On one case I billed 76 hours. $53,200 in fees. You can see how lucrative it can get just on billables. If it is based on percentages, then it came be in the millions. And most of the time you don't even need to take depositions or barely even conduct depositions. It is largely complaint (the lawsuit) and brief driven. If you make it past a low level motion to dismiss, then the case will almost certainly settle for a ton of money.

God forbid these lawyers ever had to go to trial. They wouldn't know what the hell to do. 

Oh...and there are mediations that take place where the pie is carved up. And the mediator (there aren't many who do it) charges between $11,000 and $15,000 for a one-day mediation. I shit you not. This is all while the defense lawyers, who have billed as many hours if not more than the plaintiff's attorneys, are billed out at $800 or $1000 per hour. 

But, hey, the class members get maybe $750? Does this sound like justice to you? Don't tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that because they all talk about "justice," which is a total crock of shit. 

In my opinion, many of the plaintiffs' lawyers who do these cases are no better than ambulance chasers and so-called Walmart lawyers. I don't do these cases anymore, and I've had time to think about it. I regret ever doing them, quite frankly. Perhaps in time I will wash the slime off of my body from this sleazy nature of these cases. But it will take a while. 

Lawyer doodles

 

Dallas Loved the Ladies

Dallas loved the ladies. Ladies loved Dallas. His parents named him after the city of his birth. Not very original. But most names are not original. When they are, they aren't well received. Better to blend in. Blending in is safe. But Dallas never blended in the same way a giant rooster can't go unnoticed. 

Dallas crossed the street one day and caused several wrecks in the process. This happened on more than one occasion.

He stood several inches taller than most men. His biceps pulled at his short sleeves. His chest muscles rounded under his shirt. Of course he had a flat stomach. But that wasn't it. 

Not a bad looking guy. But was no Elvis. However, he did have great hair. He wore the hair a little long. Not long, in the "Point Break," Patrick Swayze quaffed way. But it was still a mullet. It was long and greasy, like it had been dipped in bacon grease or chicken fried. He was like Tim McGraw with good hair. And, as is the case with Tim McGraw, women often said, “there's just something about him.” 

And his smile. It drew women in like a tractor-beam.

That something about him meant had many things about him. And these things, these attributes, made life easier for him. And harder. 

Harder in the sense that these attributes sometimes got him in trouble. 

Dallas rarely had to work because he always had a sugar-mama or a few sugar-mamas. Dallas really was a good guy, so his popularity wasn't confined to women. Men liked to hang out with him because he always had great stories, and subconsciously, men wanted to be him.

Not everyone felt so positively about Dallas though. One night Dallas went home with a woman named Shelia after knocking back a few Buds at the roadside bar, Honky Tonk Angel. He didn't see a ring on her finger. Shelia left it home that night.

How was a guy to know? Not that it ever stopped Dallas before.

"What’s he doing in my bed?"

The male voice roused Dallas from sleep. But he couldn't make out the words.

“Don't blame him, he didn't know."

"How did he not know you were married? Where's your ring?"

Her truck-driver-husband, Archie, got home early from a cross-country haul.

Shelia mixed up her arrival dates. Dallas stared at the cuckolded husband, who was momentarily paralyzed. Archie regained his composure and swung clumsily at Dallas. He missed. Dallas scooped up his clothes and shoes off the floor. He lit out like he had a fire under his ass. He never did get the husband's name. A few months later, Dallas was drinking a Bud at Honky Tonk Angel, when a process-server slapped him with a summons. Elmwood Jones. was suing him. 

 "Who is Elmwood Jones?” Then he read further. It was Shelia's husband. Archie wasn't his real name. Mr. Jones was suing him for alienation of affection. of affection, an antiquated cause of action for cuckolded husbands and jilted wives.

Dallas retained a lawyer paid for by one of his sugar-mamas. The case went to trial. 

Dallas took the stand. "I didn't know she was married." He spread his hands. "I'm sorry. I didn't mean nothing by it." 

Female jurors and male jurors nodded sympathetically. Women smiled at him. Some even licked their lips, a sign Dallas knew to look for when chasing women.

The jury came back with a $1 verdict against Dallas. After the trial, Jones's lawyer asked a few of the jurors why they didn't find more damages. There were ten women jurors and two male jurors, a dead give away to any good lawyer. But Archie couldn't afford a good lawyer. He got the town drunk, who somehow managed to not get disbarred. 

A sweat little old lady "he reminds me of my grandson.” 

Another juror said, “I watched Law & Order once, and they said something about mens rea being necessary. Dallas didn't have that. Besides, he is a good old boy, and I wouldn’t mind knocking back a few Buds with him."
 

Jones saw a pretty blonde named Crystal slip Dallas her phone number as the two walked out of the courthouse. "That bastard.” Archie would never get it.

Keep all the nasty emails