Jackson & Wilson's...

California Trial Lawyer Blog

Catastrophic Injury, Wrongful Death and Business Litigation Blog

What Exactly is an "AV" Rating?

In this video, Mr. Jackson explains what an "AV" rating is and why your attorney should have one...


 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

How To Do a Background Check on Your Lawyer- Video...

It's important to know as much as you can about the attorney you hire.  In this video, Mr. Jackson gives you four good ways to easily and quickly do a background check on your lawyer...


 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

We are the new slaves, enslaved by the Corporate King...

From Gerry Spence’s blog, “We are the new slaves, enslaved by the Corporate King. The king disguises itself as our democratic government. But it lies to us and betrays us. The king owns our minds.We are the new slaves, enslaved by the king’s propaganda and lies. We are told we are free. But money controls all, and the people have little. The money I speak of buys elections and lying politicians who are the minions of the Corporate King…”

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Arbitrary "Time" Trial Orders

Arbitrary "Time" Trial Orders

A Los Angeles attorney recently contacted me about a pre-trial order requiring her to try the plaintiff’s portion of two combined and complicated civil rights cases consisting of both state and federal claims, in 19 hours.  The issue is up on appeal.

What a ridiculous, unfair, unnecessary, and arbitrary order by the trial judge.

The fact of the matter is that in many cases, it can take a year or longer to get to trial.  The parties to a case are required to invest their time and lives in protecting their respective rights.  In fact, in one of my cases last year, it took almost 5 years of litigation before we were able to finally be assigned a courtroom to start trial.  After all the time and effort it takes to reach trial, shouldn’t the plaintiff and defendant each have the right to have their cases properly and completely heard before a jury of their peers?

I guess the bottom line is that a trial is everyone’s last opportunity to seek justice.  It’s a civilized way for Americans to resolve important disputes and to protect their civil rights.  

Random time limits, for any reason, have no place in a court of law.  Do you agree or disagree that each case is different and that the parties and their lawyers should be allowed a reasonable time to select a jury and present their evidence and cases?

For more on consumers and trial, visit our Facebook Trial Tips Fan Page at:  http://bit.ly/TLT-Fan
Also visit our main site at www.JacksonWilson.com

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Why We Need Trial Lawyers

FEBRUARY 23, 2010, 6:40 P.M. ET
Why We Need Trial Lawyers

Toyota is only the latest example of lethal defects gone unaddressed by
regulators.  By Mark Robinson and Kevin Calcagnie
[as printed in today's Wall Street Journal]

The alleged need for "tort reform" has become a refrain in American
political life. Yet for all the demonizing of trial lawyers, the
reality is that product-liability litigation has become an ever more
important means of keeping consumers safe.

Case in point: the current Toyota Motor Corp. recalls, with their
attendant revelations of corporate obfuscation. This is only the most
recent situation in which lethal defects have gone uncorrected for
years at least in part because of insufficient government oversight.

In model after model, as we've now learned, car owner complaints were
either minimized or ignored altogether by Toyota and by the regulatory
agencies that were supposed to police the company. In one review of
federal records, the Los Angeles Times found 2,600 complaints of sudden
acceleration from 2000 to 2010 by Toyota and Lexus owners. And
according to CBS, recently released internal company documents indicate
that as far back as 2005 Toyota was tracing its sudden acceleration
problem to its software—not to floor mats.

Yet for nearly a decade, neither Toyota nor federal regulators
aggressively addressed the problem. Toyota is now likely to face a
rising tide of class action lawsuits as consumers look to their
historic fallback: the courts.

Regulation is crucial to the creation of a level playing field for
consumers, particularly in this era of growing corporate power. But
regulation alone has never been enough. Federal agencies such as the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have
long been swamped by large work loads. And lobbyists are adept at
weakening and fending off regulations.

The laissez-faire policies of the Bush administration only further
weakened regulatory agencies by cutting funding and personnel, since
such agencies were viewed as an impediment to private-sector growth.
Government watchdogs soon found themselves so overwhelmed and
undermanned that they could scarcely do their jobs.

Consider the FDA. By the mid-2000s, the FDA's caseload extended to more
than 11,000 existing drugs, some 100 new drugs a year, and a breadth of
products from food to vaccines to medical devices that comprise
approximately 25% of all consumer spending.

Resources were stretched so thin that a 2006 report on drug safety by
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies found that the FDA
simply couldn't ensure the safety of new prescription drugs. The
reasons given? Inadequate funds, cultural and structural problems, and
"unclear and insufficient regulatory authorities."

The FDA is just one example. Until April 2009, federal motor vehicle
safety standards were so weak that many vehicles could comply and still
sustain severe roof collapse from a force equivalent to a 5 mph parking
lot collision. Similarly, drivers and passengers are far too frequently
ejected in rear-end collisions because the minimum standard for
automobile seatback strength is so low that many folding lawn chairs
can pass the test.

The recession threatens to further starve the agencies responsible for
consumer safety, even as the tough economic climate subjects
manufacturers to brutal competition and discourages them from investing
in product safety on their own.

As a result, consumers are increasingly left with the courts not only
to compensate them when the regulatory system fails to protect them,
but also to deter manufacturers from cutting corners in the future.
Product liability lawsuits have played a crucial role in ensuring
public safety, encouraging—and sometimes compelling—manufacturers to
put safety first. A 1988 survey of 264 CEOS of manufacturing companies
found that a third had improved their product lines as a result of the
threat of litigation, 35% had improved product safety, and 47% had
improved warnings to consumers.

At the same time, such lawsuits have provided important assistance to
agencies overseeing product safety. Litigation involving defective
products has increased access by regulators and the public to critical
safety information about particular products. This has resulted in
stronger regulations, safer new products, and the removal of dangerous
products from the market. Just last year, in Wyeth v. Levine, the
Supreme Court noted that state tort suits "can serve as a catalyst" for
regulatory action.

Litigation has not only advanced public safety, but has encouraged
improvement in products almost too numerous to mention: air bags, seat
belts, child safety seats, tires, minivan doors, hot water vaporizers,
children's pajamas, farm machinery, firearms, building materials,
tobacco products, intra-uterine contraceptive devices, tampons,
sleeping pills, anti-depressants, pain medication, appetite
suppressants and many more. Toyota is just another sign of how much
work remains to be done.

Strong product liability laws remain vital to public health and safety—
no matter how passionate the political debate on tort reform.

Mr. Robinson, managing partner at Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson in
Newport Beach, Calif., has represented plaintiffs in the Ford Pinto,
Vioxx, major tobacco and other cases. Mr. Calcagnie is a senior partner
at the firm.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

The Three Cs of a Good Witness

Always prepare your witnesses for cross-examination.  Remind them that if the other attorney causes them to get angry or mad, the other side will have won the battle.

If you're a party or witness in an upcoming trial, you need to know and understand this information. 

To read this interesting post and to learn more proven trial techniques, visit www.TrialLawyerTips.com

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Anthem Blue Cross- State Regulator Finds More Than 700 Violations

Anthem Blue Cross- State Regulator Finds More Than 700 Violations.

California's insurance regulator said Monday his office has found more than 700 violations by the state's largest for-profit health insurer, including late payment of claims, giving misleading information to consumers and failing to cooperate with regulators.

Make sure your insurance company is putting your best interest before its own.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

What Are Contingent Fees and Why are They Good for Consumers?

What Are ContingentFees and Why are They Good for Consumers?

A contingent fee is a fee for services provided where thefee is only payable if there is a favorable result.  The law defines a contingent fee as "afee charged for a lawyer's services only if the lawsuit is successful or isfavorably settled out of court...contingent fees are usually calculated as apercentage of the client's net recovery."

For many injured consumers, the contingent fee is their keyto the courthouse.  It makes it easierfor people to protect and pursue their civil rights—especially in personalinjury and wrongful death cases.  If theright attorney is selected, a contingent fee is an excellent way to hire one ofthe best lawyers in your state without having to pay his or her up front retaineror hourly fee.  Truly a win-win for theconsumer.

Because of the high risk involved, few attorneys will takecases on a contingency basis unless they feel the case has good merit.  And when you think about it, that makesperfectly good sense.

The Contingent FeeStructure-  A client is not chargedattorney fees if he or she loses the case. If the client recovers damages fromsettlement or a favorable verdict, the attorney receives a previously agreed tofee from the recovery.  The attorney'spermitted fee varies depending on the country, and even local jurisdictions.The percentage allowed is subject to the ethical rules of professional conduct,and in many circumstances, statutory limitations.  Depending on the age of the client and typeof case, this range is normally someplace between 25% to 40% in the State ofCalifornia.

 The Advantages of a Contingent Fee Structure-  A contingency fee arrangement provides accessto the courts for those who cannot afford to pay the attorneys fees and costsof civil litigation. Contingency fees also provide a powerful motivation to theattorney to work diligently on the client's case. In other types of litigationwhere clients pay the attorney by the hour for their time, it makes littleeconomic difference to the attorney whether the client has a successful outcometo the litigation. Finally, because lawyers assume the financial risk oflitigation, the number of speculative or unmeritorious cases may be reduced.

In the United States, contingency fees are the standard inpersonal injury cases and are less common in other types of litigation.  Most jurisdictions in the United Statesprohibit working for a contingent fee in family law or criminal cases, as madeclear in Rule 1.5(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the AmericanBar Association.

It’s interesting to note that in addition to the UnitedStates, contingent fees are also allowed in many other countries such asAustralia,Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, France, Greece, Ireland,Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Watch the video and more info at http://jacksonwilson.law.officelive.com/ContingentFees.aspx

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Don't Be a Bunny Rabbit in a Cage with a Full Grown Mountain Lion

 
Claims adjusters received hundreds, and sometimes thousands of hours of training about how to best negotiate claims.  They are trained to minimize the amount of money they pay out on claims and are taught how to maximize the profits their insurance companies earn each year.

In this video, Senior Partner, Mitch Jackson, shares his thoughts about why trying to handle your own claim is like putting a baby bunny rabbit in a cage with a hungry full grown mountain lion.  The outcome is going to be obvious.

You must have an experienced lawyer help you with your personal injury or wrongful death claim negotiations. More info at www.JacksonWilson.com or call 1-800-661-7044.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

Drug Avandia linked to tens of thousands of heart attacks

The diabetes drug Avandia is linked with tens of thousands of heart attacks, and drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline knew of the risks for years but worked to keep them from the public, according to a Senate committee report released Saturday.

This information would not be coming out if it were not for the American Trial Lawyers.  See more at www.JacksonWilson.com and the complete article at http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/20/avandia.study/index.html?hpt=Mid

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg