Trial Lawyer Resource Center

 

Backup of firm data is another important component to your data storage plan. Recent disasters, including Hurricane Katrina, emphasize the need for a solid backup plan. The frequency with which your firm backs up its data depends on a number of factors, including the firm size and the firm’s reliance on computer data. A good policy for backing up firm data is to do it every day, so you do not lose more than a day of work in the worst case scenario. There are two components to a good firm data storage plan: on-site and off-site backup.

On-Site Backup: Like external hard drives, on-site backup is basically a process whereby changes to the firm’s network are copied every day at a certain time to backup “tapes.” The tapes should be manually rotated every day, and stored in a secure location (possibly a fire-safe). Typically, daily backup tapes are saved for a week to ten days, and you should have monthly backup tapes for about the past year.  

 

Off-Site Backup: Like on-line backup, this is a process whereby the information on your network is saved daily to a remote server, allowing access to data if disaster strikes your network or if you need to access a prior version of documents you’ve updated. Your vendor will make an exact copy of your total data, called a “seed,” and will store it on their data center. Then, once a day (typically at night), the changes made to your firm’s data are uploaded over the internet, modifying the vendors data. Your vendor will keep a regular rotation of information, so they can recreate the data as it existed in your network at specific points in the past. If you need to pull individual files, or backup the entire system, they can facilitate the process.

 

How often has our law firm need to check out our backup?  Never.  I've also never had to make a homeowner's insurance claim either.  But it is important that I stick with both.

 

 

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

The Illinois Trial Practice Weblog has a blog post last week suggesting a question to pose to experts: "What is your understanding of your role in this litigation?" 

I like this question. I’ve asked the more loaded “Why were you hired in this case?” and questions to that effect but I like the exact wording because it is a less loaded question. As Evan Schaeffer points out in his post, if you ask this question to 10 different experts, you are likely to get 10 different answers. 

Car accident lawyers who are putting up a treating doctor for deposition should remind the doctor when preparing him for this type of question that the doctor is there to talk about what happened to his patient. In auto accident cases where the plaintiffs’ doctors are typically treating doctors, the difference in the answers underscores a great advantage for plaintiffs’ accident lawyers: typically, our experts are doctors helping their patients as opposed to a hired gun offering opinions and making a great deal of money on a regular basis doing so.

Remember this is a deposition question.  It would be an awful question to ask at trial unless you got a great answer in deposition.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Illinois Trial Practice Weblog offers a tip on avoiding asked and answered objections in depositions: "The deposition has now gone on about an hour. Is there anything we've discussed so far that's refreshed your recollection as to whether there was one meeting or two?" There is a reason why on material questions lawyers often ask the same question more than once: we often get different answers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As information technology and the new economy continues to shrink the size of the world, I'm regretting not learning a foreign language. I'm reminded of this every time I take a deposition with an interpreter which is becoming a more frequent occurrence.  I wish I didn't need a translator, particularly for Spanish.  John Bratt's Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog has two posts with tips on how to make the sometimes trying process of deposing a witness through an interpreter just a little bit easier. Click on "two posts" and "tips" above for the links to the Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog entries handling interpreter depositions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog has a post on a issue that troubles many accident lawyers in our smaller to mid-sized case: how to explain to a jury the fact that the injury lawyer referred the client to a doctor. This post give some thoughts on the best way to handle the lawyer referral problem.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

I wrote a blog post this morning on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog on how to build a network of referring lawyers for personal injury lawyers.

I note that I left out one obvious piece of advice: have a meaningful blog that is of interest to other lawyers. I believe the Internet is a better vehicle for attracting referring lawyers - particularly out of state lawyers - that it is for injury victims. Referring lawyers are not going to be impressed by your explanation of the accident that occurred on your local highway last night. You need to write about something either use or interest to personal injury lawyers. Another piece of blogging advice I have is stay on message. Keep the focus narrow. No one really cares about your view on whether Obama should take Clinton as his vice-president. When I found myself doing this, I started the Maryland Lawyer Blog which allows me to randomly muse about whatever off topics I want to talk about. But you main blog should stay on the subjects of interest to injury lawyers.

Anyway, read the post (click here) and let me know your thoughts. As long as it is, I threw it up rather quickly so if anyone has an suggested additions or changes, let me know. I'd like to keep adding to it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

We received an interesting motion to compel a few weeks ago. Defendant's medical malpractice lawyer is seeking a 2 hour interview from Plaintiff with Defendant's vocational rehabilitation expert. In his motion, the defense lawyer argued that because the vocational rehabilitation expert interviewed the Plaintiff, the Defendant is being put at a disadvantage.

The problem is that the Plaintiff has already been deposed. If the Defendant's lawyer had questions related to her disability, couldn't he have asked those questions in deposition? Our view is that the defendant's lawyer is essentially asking the Plaintiff to give a second deposition.

You can find our response to the Defendant's motion here in the event that you are ever faced with a similar issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dave Swanner, the co-founder of the Trial Lawyer Resource Center, has a blog post this month on his much praised South Carolina Trial Law Blog discussing the efficacy of Facebook for lawyers.

I’m not sure if it is an effective resource for injury and malpractice lawyers but it sure is pretty cool way to keep in touch with people and follow what they are doing. Most of my Facebook friends are former students of mine from the University of Baltimore School of Law.  It is great to see people you taught in the classroom getting great jobs and joining the legal community. While I admit that I do not keep my Facebook friends up to speed on what is going on in my life, I enjoy following the updates of those who do post about that what is on their personal and professional plate.

If you want to add Ronald V. Miller, Jr. as a friend, click here The more the merrier. My only requirement for adding you as a friend is that you have a pulse (and I would consider waiving this requirement).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The National Law Journal published a story last month on what is increasingly becoming a battle with defendants' lawyer in Maryland and apparently nationally over the terms and conditions of defense medical exams.” Accident lawyers in Maryland are beginning to realize that allowing the plaintiff to submit to an IME is a bargaining chip to require examining doctors to comply with their obligations to produce their relevant financial information.

You can find the entire National Law Journal article here which includes a quote from me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Wall Street Journal Health blog reports that more than 100 traffic or personal injury incidents have been linked to the smoking cessation drug Chantix, according to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Researchers theorize that visual disturbances that may be caused by Chantix are causing these accidents. Patients on Chantix are reporting convulsions, seizures, blackouts, or spasms that could be the cause of injuries with Chantix users.

The report said that 86 cases of convulsions Chantix have been reported since 2006. These numbers are vastly underreported according to Thomas Moore, one the researchers at the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Moore told The Wall Street Journal he and his fellow researchers were very conservative in the estimates they made in this study.

Pfizer says that there were only three seizures reported with Chantix in the pre-market studies that were conducted before Chantix went on the market. The problem is that Pfizer pressed the FDA to rush Chantix onto the market. When you add "rushing to the market" and "drugs that alter brain chemistry" together, is there any great surprise when the sum equals problems?

Consider this: approximately 4,500 people took Chantix during the development of the drug, with about 450 people getting treatment for at least six months and another 100 for a year. Most of the pre-market study groups were given Chantix for 12 weeks or less. Since then, more than 6 million people have been prescribed Chantix, many of which are long term users.

Again, can we be surprised to learn that we have not flushed out all of the potential problems with Chantix? Lawyers handling Chantix cases were already investigating the suicide risks that have been reported to be associated with Chantix. Now, lawyers are looking at a potential class action involving these Chantix injuries that appear to be caused by these visual disturbances as well as other side effects being discovered such as potentially lethal cardiac rhythm disruptions, acute myocardial infarction, seizures, diabetes, and psychosis. Chantix has also been previously linked in a small number of cases to Stevens Johnson Syndrome, a potentially deadly skin disease.

The FDA has egg on its face again with Chantix. Yet, the Supreme Court is telling us that the FDA should be the sole watchdog for medical devices and perhaps even all pharmaceutical drugs and it will be if the industry has its way in Wyeth v. Levine this Fall. Coming on the heels of debacles with Medtronic leads and Heparin, both cases where the vigilant FDA could have made a difference, you can expect victims' advocates in Congress will have a lot of ammunition to take this ball away from the Supreme Court on the question of preemption.

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