Trial Lawyer Resource Center

One of the significant problems with running a plaintiff's practice is managing cash flow. Any fees earned are usually contingent fees, and cases are not always resolved in such a way and a such a time to meet professional and personal financial obligations.

There are at least four different ways to address this issue. First, you can visit your friendly banker and arrange a line of credit that you dip into went you need to meet payroll, significant expert expenses, etc. This is probably the most common way of handling the situation.

Second, you can do business with a company that provides funding for plaintiff's lawyers. Here is an article describing what these companies do and what they charge. There are several different models out there and the interest rates for each of them are much higher than you would expect to pay a bank.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here is a tip that will improve the quality of your law practice and your life - look at the law first.

Oh, it is different in the run of the mill auto case or other cases that you routinely handle. And it is different if you have recently handled a case that presented the same issues. But unless the new case you have just been offered falls into one of the above senarios take a little time and confirm (or enlarge) your understanding of the law before you accept a new matter.

Why? The law changes - Tennessee appellate courts issue over 200 tort opinions a year. Moreover, as we get older and busier, our memory of what we think the law is can sometimes be just plain wrong. It is far better to spend a little time examining the law before we accept a case than it is to be surprised by a motion to dismiss.

In fact, I can say that one of two things is almost certainly true when a lawyer is surprised by a motion to dismiss. First, the lawyer did not do his or her homework. If a plaintiff's lawyer is "pushing the envelope" he or she should not be surprised by a motion to dismiss and indeed should welcome it. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The "smoking gun" document does not do you any good unless you can find a way to get it introduced in to evidence. You have to determine what foundation must be established to introduce the document into evidence, call the witness or witnesses necessary to establish that foundation, and be able to link the document to your theory of the case as set forth in the complaint (to establish that it is relevant).

Here is an  article by Leslie O'Tool and Wendy Sexton, two defense lawyers, which explains how your opponents intend to try to keep that smoking gun document out of evidence.

The article appeared in the Fall, 2005 edition of FDCC Quarterly, PDF page 79.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here is a great case out of Illinois that reminds us of the importance of asking each fact witness about whether they have made any personal notes concerning the event at issue.

In Cangelosi v. Capasso, No. 03--L--392, (Ill. Ct. App, 2nd Dis. June 30, 2006), plaintiff asked that a nurse who made personal notes about treatment made within a day of the event at issue be compelled to produce them in litigation.  She resisted that effort, saying that she made the notes in contemplation of litigation. At her deposition,  the nurse "testified that her notes memorialized factual things that she saw, factual things that she did, and factual things that she saw other people do. The notes include things that the doctors may have said during her shift regarding plaintiff's care. After completing her notes, defendant nurse] placed them in a folder in her kitchen cabinet. "

The court ordered production of the notes, saying that they were not protected by the attorney - client privilege because they were not a communication to an attorney for purposes of securing legal advice.  Nor were they protected by the work product doctrine, because " they do not 'contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party's attorney.'"

I have been in cases where a nurse or other fact witness went home after the event and made personal notes about what occurred.  The information contained in those notes is often very helpful to the case.

Read the decision here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The key to making a decent living (and maintaining sanity) as a plaintiff's lawyer is knowing when to turn a case down.

Our law firm’s work usually comes from other lawyers. These lawyers often have a conflict or have an inquiry about a case in an area outside their expertise.  Most  frequently, however, the referring lawyer has a case that will require the investment of either a considerable sum of money or time and the risk of loss of  represents too  great of a risk for them to handle the case on their own. 

We recently turned down a case for one lawyer because we did not think it could be won. He was disappointed--the damages in the potential case are huge and the clients are wonderful people.  But I did not think that the case could be won even one out of ten times before a jury.  The referring lawyer thought we should be more aggressive, more willing to assume risk. I went off on a gentle rant with him; that rant gave rise to an entry in my blog (www.dayontorts.com) and, now, an expansion of those ideas are set forth in  this paper. 

As plaintiffs’ lawyers, we are in the risk business. We work for free -- unless we win. We advance the costs -- sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single case--and don't get it back unless we win.  If you are not willing to accept some risk, you need to do something else. 

I am not risk-adverse.  That being said, I don't play blackjack, I don't shoot craps, and I don't play poker. I am a plaintiffs’ lawyer. Simply put, gambling is my vocation, not my avocation.   I like a little more control over the outcome of any event other than the flip of a card or a roll of the dice.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks