litiGator
New York, NY
Male, 34
I represent all types of accident victims who have suffered injuries through the fault of others. Whether it's a motor vehicle accident, trip/slip and fall, injured on the job, wrongful death, products liability, toxic torts and many more, I help my clients receive compensation for their medical bills, lost time from work and the pain and suffering they have endured and will continue to endure from their accident.
I think it really depends on the person. I, for example, do not take offense. I take it with a grain of salt and just laugh at it. However, there are attorneys out there who are highly offended by it. The main reason is that “ambulance chasing” really isn’t as prevalent as it once was. Back in the 70's and 80's, there were a lot of “runners” employed by firms who had hook-ups at hospitals and police stations that would alert them to potential cases (this is where the term came from). This is highly unethical and illegal. Now, however, it’s more about the advertising, which is completely ethical and legal. So some attorneys do get offended since that’s really not the way the business is run anymore.
Share Answer: 
I can only answer this question for New York. Every state has their own laws, and in some states, where there is tort reform, my answer would be completely different. However, in New York, I am content with the current state of medical malpractice. What some people don't realize when they hear about multi-million dollar med mal verdicts is that alot of that money is going to future medical care and not in fact going into the pocket of the injured. These verdicts simply account for the amount of money that will be necessary to care for the injured party for the rest of their life. Obviously, the more seriously injured they are, the more care they will need, the higher the verdict will be. To limit the amount of recovery to the injured party is simply a travesty of justice. In my prior post I mentioned the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee". I am mentioning it again here because one of the stories they talked about was tort reform in Nebraska. A jury found that as a result of a doctor error, and brain damaged baby would need a bare minimum of $5.65 million simply for living expenses and to care for the child for the rest of his life. However, due to the tort reform mandated caps on damages in Nebraska, the family could only collect $1.25 million. This means that through no fault of their own, this family will no longer be able to care for their own child because they won't afford to pay for it. The family was forced to go onto medicaid to cover his health care, which means now the tax payers of Nebraska, instead of the insurance company for the doctor who was at fault, are now paying for the child's care. So yes, I am very happy with the current state of medical malpractice in the state of New York where there are no mandated caps on damages. For a brief synopsis of "Hot Coffee", go to this link: http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html
Share Answer: 
I think it's a little bit of both. She defnitely has a cause that she believes strongly in and loves fighting for. And she has had some high profile cases that made her well known and thus was sought out by television stations. But I also feel that any well known attorney has to be a little bit of a publicity hound. It's the old chicken and egg story. Did Gloria Allred become a publicity hound because she became well-known and was thus used by television stations or did she become well-known because she was a publicity hound? I definitely don't think she sought out to be a publicity hound, but her career path may have led her to that
Share Answer: 
No, we do not do that. It's not worth the risk (insurance fraud, destroying credibility of your client, etc). Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for everybody. I once heard a story about a plaintiff who was using a cane at his deposition. The defense attorney asked him about it and he said that it was given to him at the hospital and that because of his injuries, he's had to use it everyday since the accident (at the time of the deposition, it had been about 2-3 years since the accident). The defense attorney then asked him if he ever had to get a new cane and the plaintiff responded no, that he had been using the same cane everyday for 2-3 years. The defense attorney then asked to see the cane and he noticed that the bottom of the cane was brand new, without any wear and tear, scratches or any other kind of indication that the cane had ever been used prior. That plaintiff's case was immediately destroyed. As far as i'm concerned there's just no reason to work up injuries. The injuries are what they are and you have to work with what you have and simply try to maximize the value of your client's injury instead of trying to make the injury worse.
Share Answer: 
Stand-Up Comedian
Did your career blow up after you performed on the Tonight Show / Conan?
Casino Marketer
What's the most unethical thing you've seen casinos do to "part you from your dollars?"
Day Trader
What's the difference between a trader and a hedge fun guy?
I was sitting through another boring business class in college when our business law professor assigned the class to read "A Civil Action." It's a book based on a true story about cancer clusters in Massachusetts caused by contaminated drinking water (similar to "Erin Brokovich"). After reading the book cover-to-cover quicker than I had any other book, I knew what I wanted to do professionally with the rest of my life.
Share Answer: 
I don't know if this would fall under the category of frivolous since the woman had a legitimate claim, but it's definitely the case that made me feel the most uneasy about what I do. A woman was at a church watching a Christmas pageant when she was struck in the head by a mentally handicapped person sitting behind her. We sued the church for failing to provided adequate security for the guests at the play. Every time I was in court on the case, I felt extremely self-conscious about my peers hearing the details of the case.
Share Answer: 
It really depends on the type of case you're talking about and why the evidence wasn't uncovered initially. Most likely, no, you won't be able to re-open your case and you would be SOL. However, if you find out that the opposing side was intentionally withholding the information, you may be able to get a judge to re-open the case, but again, it depends on the type of case and in what manner the case resolved. If you lost the case, you can always appeal with the new information. In civil cases (personal injury lawsuits), there is actually a motion called a "motion to renew" which is brought when one side uncovers new information. But if you settled your case, it is more difficult to re-open the case.
Share Answer: 
-OR-
Login with Facebook (max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
Register with Facebook(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
Browse Jobs
Host a Q&A
Search
Submit Your Question
Host a Q&A
Last 7
