Would this be a good question to ask potential attorney

[CJ2008]

And how would you ask it...

I ask because I need a personal injury / car accident attorney. Talked to 3. I'm down to choice between 2.

But I feel like I don't have a grasp on which lawyer would be the "better" lawyer, even though I've talked to them.

Internet hasn't shed much light although in general TV attorney appears more aggressive and confident, even in his pictures. But that may be just better marketing skills. (and I do realize "aggressive" is not the only skill that makes someone a good attorney).

One of the things I read is to ask how many cases like mine they took to trial recently or in the last year, as insurance companies don't like attorneys who are willing to go to trial if necessary versus the ones who always settle.

Seems like a good question because it's objective, and would give me a chance to hear their reason if they say no they haven't. But I feel like my time for asking it smoothly has passed because I didn't think of it when I talked to them

Any tips on how to word the question now, after having talked to them already?

I'm going to be working with this person and want to start things off on the right foot.

And if there are any attorneys here I'd love to hear if you think this is indeed a good question and how you would like to be asked after already having already talked to the potential client.

Thanks all!

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I'm wondering about your premise that the insurance people want to go to trial vs settlement. Often the insurer on the defendants side wants to go to trial because a Jury is unpredictable and may be in a jurisdiction where previous case rulings look to favor one side or the other.
Lawyers usually want to settle . Juries are unpredictable and it is a big undertaking.

I would call and just say that you forgot to ask this question and want to know if he looks to take cases to trial, or settle, and why he thinks that way. That shouldn't be a problem.

Annette

 

[MissGotRocks]

It is a fair question to ask and I would phrase it just as you have above. You want an attorney that has lots of experience in personal injury cases. Whether or not they go to trial in a case depends on many things. They can generally sum up fair offers from insurance companies vs. the cost of a trial - experts, doctors, etc. that might have to be paid up front by you. I of course don't know the particulars of your case but in my state they generally get a third of either settlement with insurance company and/or verdicts in trial. It is certainly within your right to ask anything you want to before you sign on with any attorney and those worth their salt won't mind answering your questions.

 

[CJ2008]

Hi,

I'm wondering about your premise that the insurance people want to go to trial vs settlement. Often the insurer on the defendants side wants to go to trial because a Jury is unpredictable and may be in a jurisdiction where previous case rulings look to favor one side or the other.
Lawyers usually want to settle . Juries are unpredictable and it is a big undertaking.

I would call and just say that you forgot to ask this question and want to know if he looks to take cases to trial, or settle, and why he thinks that way. That shouldn't be a problem.

Annette

Annette - I meant to write that insurance companies DON'T like lawyers who are willing to go to trial if necessary. Fixed it. Thank you!

 

[CJ2008]

It is a fair question to ask and I would phrase it just as you have above. You want an attorney that has lots of experience in personal injury cases. Whether or not they go to trial in a case depends on many things. They can generally sum up fair offers from insurance companies vs. the cost of a trial - experts, doctors, etc. that might have to be paid up front by you. I of course don't know the particulars of your case but in my state they generally get a third of either settlement with insurance company and/or verdicts in trial. It is certainly within your right to ask anything you want to before you sign on with any attorney and those worth their salt won't mind answering your questions.

MGR you raise good points about how each case is different, fair offer, etc. In some cases perhaps the plaintiff isn't willing to go through the hassle / time investment of a trial, etc. I think I would have felt completely comfortable asking it during the initial consult if I had thought of it but feel different now for some reason.

Glad to hear you think it's a fair question it helps. Thank you.

 

[MissGotRocks]

MGR you raise good points about how each case is different, fair offer, etc. In some cases perhaps the plaintiff isn't willing to go through the hassle / time investment of a trial, etc. I think I would have felt completely comfortable asking it during the initial consult if I had thought of it but feel different now for some reason.

Glad to hear you think it's a fair question it helps. Thank you.

When anyone is looking to make money off of your misfortune, all questions are fair. That is not meant to be a disparaging comment regarding attorneys; they have the legal education and expertise to negotiate on your behalf and go to trial if necessary. They are generally much more successful in procuring a fair settlement than we would be on our own. A settlement, of course, gives you a guaranteed payment whereas a trial might net you more or the case could be totally lost or you could be awarded less than the settlement offer so there is a bit of a gamble there. Seasoned attorneys will generally be able to know whether or not a trial is worthwhile. Think of it like paying any other professional for their services - you would ask your hairdresser questions so don't be shy with the attorneys either. You might tell them that you have been thinking about your first conversation and realized that you forgot to ask them about their experience. It is a fair question and I wouldn't hesitate to ask. Best of luck to you!!

 

[CJ2008]

Thank you so much MGR!

I like how you put it..."I've been thinking about our last conversation..."

Confession to make. One of the attorneys I haven't even spoken to directly, only his paralegal. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice to say, I'm realizing it's kind of important to talk to him directly, even though I really did like his paralegal (and I know most communications will be delegated to him, if I go with this law office.)

But yes, I think those two things would help me feel clearer about the decision - asking that question of both attorneys, and talking directly with the one I haven't talked to yet.

Thanks again.

 

[MollyMalone]

Since you didn't hire them on the spot, think you can assume that the attorneys realize you're still shopping around. And since lawyer shopping is a new endeavor for most everybody, a lawyer won't think it's weird that you've thought of additional questions since the initial phone call/in-person consult (and it's another opportunity for them to "sell" themselves). If they are put off by you contacting them with non-wacky questions like this, that's a mighty good sign you don't want to sign up with them.

A couple of additional thoughts, that may or may not have occurred to you:
* Do they keep all the clients who initially retain them or do they farm any of the cases out; if the latter ever happens, what are their criteria for handing off the case to another lawyer outside the firm, and do you have a say in it? Your reference to "a TV attorney" is what piqued my curiosity in this regard. The law firms/individual lawyers who blanket the airwaves (and the Internet) are sometimes not much more than a glorified referral service.

* What professional associations -- national, state, and local -- do they belong to; what committees or "sections" do they participate in; do they hold/have they ever held any officer or committee chair positions in the association. A plus in my book if a civil trial attorney is a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers (membership in ACTL is by invitation only; it's not matter of simply sending in a check, so you have to have earned a very good reputation among your professional peers in civil litigation). Although the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers in America) doesn't restrict membership as ACTL does, the good civil trial attorneys I personally know belong to it, value all the continuing education & networking opportunities it offers.

* Have they taught any continuing legal education programs; if so, can they give you a DVD or link to a video posted on the Internet of their CLE presentation, and if that's not possible, at least a copy of the CLE materials they prepared? Seeing how well they communicate (even if you don't have the background to understand everything that they're saying), how engaging, forthright, and generally likable they come across as being are qualities that matter to you as a client in your future dealings with them & also to a jury, should your case end up going to trial.

* Last but not least, how do they keep clients in the loop about their case, e.g., do they send out emails on a regular basis or do they want you to call them? (I personally would avoid retaining a law firm/ lawyer that is not pro-active in their client communications; I don't think you should have to chase 'em down to find out what's going on.)
Along these same lines, did either of them give you (a) a copy of the retainer agreement they'd want you to sign, and/or (b) an informative brochure or other hand-out that describes what you can expect before and after the lawsuit is initiated, the kind of timelines to expect, etc? I'd like to think that kind of informative overview in written form is par for the course, but unfortunately, that sure doesn't seem to be true.

 

[luv2sparkle]

MollyMalone, your points are spot on. We have unfortunately had a bit of experience with this. We had a very good lawyer-we were repeatedly told this by many judges, and were happy with him, but all his communications were slow in coming. It drove us crazy. The legal system moves very very slow anyway so you really need a lawyer who is on top of both your case and the communication. It also depends on how much the case is worth. Lower fees for them makes a difference on how much they want to keep you informed. One son involved in a car accident where he was ejected from the car and suffered a brain injury-it took several years to finalize. Son hit on bike-smaller payday- it's been over a year with much less communication. Son #1-judgement in the many millions. Son #2-possible 30k-(due to his less permanent and severe injuries) Same attorney.

 

[MollyMalone]

Yeppers, civil litigation, especially, seems to move towards conclusion at a glacial pace. I was with a small, civil litigation firm after graduating from law school & the "hurry up and wait...and wait" aspect of it made me nuts. That criminal cases proceed relatively quickly is one reason why I loved making the move to criminal prosecution.

We had informational materials on the criminal case process at the DA's Office for crime victims and witnesses, including activity-story books for child victims/witnesses & I know The Legal Aid Society offers comparable info to their clients, the accused. It's a concrete way of dispelling mystique, conveying "you matter" to a client, helps manage client expectations, and builds in a measure of accountability on the lawyers' end. Those are all Good Things, so I have no idea why similar pamphlets aren't commonplace in law offices in general.

A friend of mine up in New England is a plaintiff in a personal injury case & the law firm he retained almost 2 years ago has been a veritable black hole of communication. They said they would call him "when anything happens," but I've retrieved case info & court papers for him from the court system's public database that the law firm never told him about. It's maddening.

 

[CJ2008]

Since you didn't hire them on the spot, think you can assume that the attorneys realize you're still shopping around. And since lawyer shopping is a new endeavor for most everybody, a lawyer won't think it's weird that you've thought of additional questions since the initial phone call/in-person consult (and it's another opportunity for them to "sell" themselves). If they are put off by you contacting them with non-wacky questions like this, that's a mighty good sign you don't want to sign up with them.

@MollyMalone I totally agree that it does provide them with an opportunity to sell themselves, even if I feel uncomfortable asking. My instinct tells me also that being good at selling themselves is also probably related to how aggressive they are or how skilled they are at negotiations, even if it seems unrelated on the surface. I have to say the woman lawyer did not leave me with an impression that she's going to kick butt. But it's also possible the conversation (or maybe just my case in general) just didn't lend itself to that. But that's why I'm coming to realize that speaking to other attorney directly will give me a clearer idea about this. And my so glad you think my question is non-wacky.

A couple of additional thoughts, that may or may not have occurred to you:
* Do they keep all the clients who initially retain them or do they farm any of the cases out; if the latter ever happens, what are their criteria for handing off the case to another lawyer outside the firm, and do you have a say in it? Your reference to "a TV attorney" is what piqued my curiosity in this regard. The law firms/individual lawyers who blanket the airwaves (and the Internet) are sometimes not much more than a glorified referral service.

I "kind" of knew about this - I had known to look for the disclaimer on lawyer websites that they might refer cases to "specialist" lawyers, etc. So this is an excellent point, even though I don't think it's the case here at all. This particular law firm and lawyer does handle mostly personal injury cases. And during the whole conversation with the intake person, paralegal, etc. it was said several times that I would be working with them. I also didn't see anything about this in any of their written paperwork that I need to sign. But I will look again.

* What professional associations -- national, state, and local -- do they belong to; what committees or "sections" do they participate in; do they hold/have they ever held any officer or committee chair positions in the association. A plus in my book if a civil trial attorney is a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers (membership in ACTL is by invitation only; it's not matter of simply sending in a check, so you have to have earned a very good reputation among your professional peers in civil litigation). Although the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers in America) doesn't restrict membership as ACTL does, the good civil trial attorneys I personally know belong to it, value all the continuing education & networking opportunities it offers.

I will look to see if either of these 2 lawyers belong to the ACTL organization (and will comb their profiles again for any others). This is awesome. Thank you. Just from memory I recall seeing more under the male lawyer's profile as far as associations than the woman's. But I didn't attribute much weight to professional organizations precisely because of what you said that many of them are simply send us a check, and you belong. I think the woman was previously an Assistant State Attorney.

* Have they taught any continuing legal education programs; if so, can they give you a DVD or link to a video posted on the Internet of their CLE presentation, and if that's not possible, at least a copy of the CLE materials they prepared? Seeing how well they communicate (even if you don't have the background to understand everything that they're saying), how engaging, forthright, and generally likable they come across as being are qualities that matter to you as a client in your future dealings with them & also to a jury, should your case end up going to trial.

I love you Molly this is so awesome because seeing him in "action" would be good for the reasons you mention, even if trial may never happen and even if many would think therer's no need to think that far down the line. I did a lower level version of this - I found him answering questions on a website and I read most of his answers. I liked what I read. I felt that he answered the questions clearly and directly, and some of them, were just to let people know to see a different kind of attorney. I thought there was a kindness in that, even though I do also realize that he might get "points" or more clout by answering questions, so that may have been at least part of the motivation.

* Last but not least, how do they keep clients in the loop about their case, e.g., do they send out emails on a regular basis or do they want you to call them? (I personally would avoid retaining a law firm/ lawyer that is not pro-active in their client communications; I don't think you should have to chase 'em down to find out what's going on.)
Along these same lines, did either of them give you (a) a copy of the retainer agreement they'd want you to sign, and/or (b) an informative brochure or other hand-out that describes what you can expect before and after the lawsuit is initiated, the kind of timelines to expect, etc? I'd like to think that kind of informative overview in written form is par for the course, but unfortunately, that sure doesn't seem to be true.

I'm realizing by you asking that I'm not clear on this. It seemed like there would be clear times when the paralegal would call me - whenever I go see a doctor, for example - but I am not sure how proactive they would be at other times. I will ask this. The paralegal did mention that there's usually a lot of activity in the beginning and then things slow down and so to not expect that things will be resolved quickly. But I will ask specifically at which points in the process can I expect an update.

The TV ad lawyer "intake" person gave me a packet that aside from the contracts, authorization forms, etc., did include some advice as to what to do and not do which was immediately helpful (for example, warnings about posting on social media, keeping a daily dairy, etc.) but I don't recall seeing anything in there about timelines or what to expect.

The other lawyer's office did not include any advice, just paperwork.

Thanks again for this Molly. You're awesome.

In the meantime, just curious Molly - on a scale of 1-10, I know you place proactive communication pretty high in the level of importance. Where would you place having access to the attorney rather than paralegal most of the time? (or are there too many variables to make this a black and white thing.)

 

[CJ2008]

MollyMalone, your points are spot on. We have unfortunately had a bit of experience with this. We had a very good lawyer-we were repeatedly told this by many judges, and were happy with him, but all his communications were slow in coming. It drove us crazy. The legal system moves very very slow anyway so you really need a lawyer who is on top of both your case and the communication. It also depends on how much the case is worth. Lower fees for them makes a difference on how much they want to keep you informed. One son involved in a car accident where he was ejected from the car and suffered a brain injury-it took several years to finalize. Son hit on bike-smaller payday- it's been over a year with much less communication. Son #1-judgement in the many millions. Son #2-possible 30k-(due to his less permanent and severe injuries) Same attorney.

Sorry to hear about your sons' accidents @luv2sparkle has the one with the brain injury been able to regain a normal life? (this might be too personal a question, feel free to ignore of course). I just hope he has. That is terrible.

My case won't be a windfall for them, I'm pretty sure about that, when compared to other cases they deal.

So it sounds like you place communication pretty high on the scale too. This is helpful. It's not something I gave much thought about - but because it's very easy to assume that of course they will keep you informed!

But I would find it maddening - to use molly's word - if months and months went by without any word especially if I wasn't expecting that. It would make me very uneasy, even though I understand things move slowly, that uneasiness would be much lessened by a monthly email just kind of updating, like where we are, what we're waiting for, etc., along with a timeline of expected "next" things. Communication 101.

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * @MollyMalone I totally agree that it does provide them with an opportunity to sell themselves, even if I feel uncomfortable asking. My instinct tells me also that being good at selling themselves is also probably related to how aggressive they are or how skilled they are at negotiations, even if it seems unrelated on the surface. I have to say the woman lawyer did not leave me with an impression that she's going to kick butt. But it's also possible the conversation (or maybe just my case in general) just didn't lend itself to that. But that's why I'm coming to realize that speaking to other attorney directly will give me a clearer idea about this. And my so glad you think my question is non-wacky.
* * *
* * * seeing him in "action" would be good for the reasons you mention, even if trial may never happen and even if many would think therer's no need to think that far down the line. I did a lower level version of this - I found him answering questions on a website and I read most of his answers. I liked what I read. I felt that he answered the questions clearly and directly, and some of them, were just to let people know to see a different kind of attorney. I thought there was a kindness in that, even though I do also realize that he might get "points" or more clout by answering questions, so that may have been at least part of the motivation.
* * *

In the meantime, just curious Molly - on a scale of 1-10, I know you place proactive communication pretty high in the level of importance. Where would you place having access to the attorney rather than paralegal most of the time? (or are there too many variables to make this a black and white thing.)

A couple of comments:
* There is more than one way to "kick butt." An attorney doesn't have to be theatrical or pugnacious or aggressive, as President Trump would define that word, in order to be an effective advocate in the courtroom, do well for their clients. (e.g., I'm generally a low-key, conversational cross-examiner, which one time prompted a defense attorney to interrupt and protest, "Judge, what is this, the Oprah Winfrey Show?" I'm sure the lawyer knew, as the judge pointed out, "that's no ground for objection, counselor"; what he didn't like was that his witness was letting his guard down & saying-acknowledging things that I could make use of.)
Still, I'd hate to see you second-guessing your choice of attorney from the get-go. So if she doesn't inspire your confidence, I think you should take her out of the running.

* Sure, participating in those online ask-a-lawyer forums is a way for attorneys to market themselves, raise their "presence." But it is also a form of professional service to the public. And because I think it's safe to assume that he isn't spending lots of time crafting his replies to those online queries, your positive impression of him in that venue isn't something to discount entirely.

* It wouldn't bother me if much of my contact with a firm in a case like yours is with a paralegal rather than a lawyer. But I'd sure want to be prepped for a deposition (and for trial, if there is one) by the lawyer who's going to be at the deposition or trial. Which reminds me of something else I think you'd like to know before making your decision: will they prep you for all depositions, and if so (I'd hope the answer is Yes), what does that prep consist of? Speaking from personal experience, it's weird to be a testifying witness, even when there's no reason, objectively speaking, to feel discomfited about being under scrutiny. So you don't want to go in there without a good idea of what to expect.

 

[CJ2008]

* There is more than one way to "kick butt." An attorney doesn't have to be theatrical or pugnacious or aggressive, as President Trump would define that word, in order to be an effective advocate in the courtroom, do well for their clients. (e.g., I'm generally a low-key, conversational cross-examiner, which one time prompted a defense attorney to interrupt and protest, "Judge, what is this, the Oprah Winfrey Show?" I'm sure the lawyer knew, as the judge pointed out, "that's no ground for objection, counselor"; what he didn't like was that his witness was letting his guard down & saying-acknowledging things that I could make use of.)
Still, I'd hate to see you second-guessing your choice of attorney from the get-go. So if she doesn't inspire your confidence, I think you should take her out of the running.

@MollyMalone I agree completely. Aggressive isn't the only way. As a matter of fact that's why insurance adjusters are so scary. :/ They make it sound as if you're having a casual conversation and you let your guard down for a minute and then bam. :/

That said, during conversation I guess I can say she didn't put me off nor did she inspire confidence. It was kind of neutral. I did feel a couple of times that she talked too much when answering my questions. Not every time but a couple of times. But yeah overall I felt she could have done a better job of selling herself. I can't put my finger on it.

And this is going to sound weird - but I found a few pictures of her on Facebook and she didn't inspire my confidence in the pictures either. I don't know what I wanted to see but I didn't see it.

Part of me wonders if there isn't some sexism going on from me. :/ but even if there is it's minimal because I did research both of them in the same way. But I remember thinking when I read her profile like "that's it? It's a two sentence description." It was more a resume/list of her education and where she's worked before and memberships. And where are your accomplishments? Bad marketing. But that's why it would be so much more important for her to sell herself when she does get a potential client.

For a more objective rundown so far when I went deeper into research:

TV ad attorney:

American Association for Justice - Leaders Forum Patron
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Law Firm won litigator awards one year
He is also a partner at the law firm (that's good, I'm thinking, but how exactly I'm not sure.)

Other attorney:

Member of several local Bar organizations
Member of a couple of women lawyer's organizations
Previous Assistant State Attorney for 4 years

* Sure, participating in those online ask-a-lawyer forums is a way for attorneys to market themselves, raise their "presence." But it is also a form of professional service to the public. And because I think it's safe to assume that he isn't spending lots of time crafting his replies to those online queries, your positive impression of him in that venue isn't something to discount entirely.

I agree with you on this 100% too. I do give weight to the fact that I liked his answers. In fact, I've been turned off to other attorneys based on their replies alone. I should have been more clear - the comment I made about kindness and racking up answer points was more about where his answers were just: "please see this type of attorney to help you - the tool at the top is how you can search for one." But even then - directing someone to a particular type of attorney may be beneficial if they had not realized that's the type of attorney they should see, or even if one of those types of attorneys exist. But yeah, I do like that I liked his responses. I really really wanted to see some responses from her, but did not find any. (again, I also realize not everyone is a smart brander / marketer, and that the fact that she doesn't have a presence is not directly related to her skills.)

* It wouldn't bother me if much of my contact with a firm in a case like yours is with a paralegal rather than a lawyer. But I'd sure want to be prepped for a deposition (and for trial, if there is one) by the lawyer who's going to be at the deposition or trial. Which reminds me of something else I think you'd like to know before making your decision: will they prep you for all depositions, and if so (I'd hope the answer is Yes), what does that prep consist of? Speaking from personal experience, it's weird to be a testifying witness, even when there's no reason, objectively speaking, to feel discomfited about being under scrutiny. So you don't want to go in there without a good idea of what to expect.

I'll ask this for sure.

They did say they would prepare me for conversations with the insurance adjuster (e.g., when I need to give a recorded statement, for example). BUT - the paralegal said HE would prepare me, and he would be sitting in with me during that call, not the attorney. I realize this is much less crucial than a deposition though.

(ETA: I had to look up pugnacious and discomfited. Discomfited I might not have opportunity to use for a while but pugnacious I can immediately use to refer to my DH so cool, new word!)

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * For a more objective rundown so far when I went deeper into research:
TV ad attorney:
American Association for Justice - Leaders Forum Patron
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Law Firm won litigator awards one year
He is also a partner at the law firm (that's good, I'm thinking, but how exactly I'm not sure.)
* * *

Just as an FYI: none of the above is a bad thing, but neither is any of them significant to you as potential/actual client. E.g.,
* Being an AAJ Leaders Forum Patron isn't a special achievement: it simply means your firm has made an additional financial commitment to AAJ's mission-operations by paying higher annual dues:
https://www.justice.org/leadersforum
https://justice.org/sites/default/f...m/LeadersForumApplicationForm Single Page.pdf

* Any plaintiff's attorney/law firm that's negotiated a settlement of $1 million or more, or tried a case that ended in a verdict awarding $1 million or more, can pay a one-time fee (currently $1200) & get a lifetime "membership" in the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Unlike, for example, the AAJ, MMDAF doesn't perform any service for the public, the legal profession, or even its "members" -- other than give them an unframed certificate and the privilege, so to speak, of using the the trademarked MMDAF (less than inspired) logo & slogan, The Top Trial Lawyers in America. imo it's more of a "cash cow" for the lawyer who came up with this promotional brainstorm than anything else.

 

[CJ2008]

Got it Molly - I feel privileged to know none of those things mean much.

I did send an email to the ACTL to see if either attorney is a member (I didn't see any tool to look up a lawyer).

Thanks again Molly.

 

[MollyMalone]

Good idea! (weird, isn't it, that ACTL doesn't have a Find feature)

Here are a couple more to check out:
* The National Trial Lawyers' Top 100 and Top 40 Under (age) 40 - civil plaintiffs -- for your state.
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/membership-directory/top-100-civil-plaintiff-map/
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/membership-directory/top-40-civil-plaintiff-map/
Like ACTL, these lawyers were vetted before being invited to become members.
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/about/faq/#q-2

* National Board of Trial Advocacy; am also including link to page describing criteria for civil trial advocacy certification by this non-governmental Board:
https://nbta.memberclicks.net/find-an-attorney
https://nbta.memberclicks.net/standards#Civil-Criminal

 

[CJ2008]

Good idea! (weird, isn't it, that ACTL doesn't have a Find feature)

Yes very weird.

Then again the search tools for a lot of these sites are not so great either...like you have to scroll through pages to find the names. :/

Here are a couple more to check out:
* The National Trial Lawyers' Top 100 and Top 40 Under (age) 40 - civil plaintiffs -- for your state.
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/membership-directory/top-100-civil-plaintiff-map/
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/membership-directory/top-40-civil-plaintiff-map/
Like ACTL, these lawyers were vetted before being invited to become members.
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/about/faq/#q-2

TV ad attorney is in the Top 100 list.

* National Board of Trial Advocacy; am also including link to page describing criteria for civil trial advocacy certification by this non-governmental Board:
https://nbta.memberclicks.net/find-an-attorney
https://nbta.memberclicks.net/standards#Civil-Criminal

Nothing. Neither one belongs.

I'm going to call the paralegal tomorrow to schedule a call to speak with the attorney. Can you believe I'm kind of nervous. I don't want to repeat questions I may have already asked the paralegal. And actually I think I would like the paralegal to not be present during the call I think I would relax more. Is that weird? And I feel nervous like afraid to sound dumb or to ask what seems like a dumb question. :/ I'm intimidating myself all on my own. :/

WTF.

 

[CJ2008]

@MollyMalone I heard back from the ACTL - they said their search tool is under construction/repair (I think it's more being invented lol) - but anyway, they were very quick to respond, so that's great.

Neither lawyer is a member of the College.

 

[luv2sparkle]

Sorry to hear about your sons' accidents @luv2sparkle has the one with the brain injury been able to regain a normal life? (this might be too personal a question, feel free to ignore of course). I just hope he has. That is terrible.

My case won't be a windfall for them, I'm pretty sure about that, when compared to other cases they deal.

So it sounds like you place communication pretty high on the scale too. This is helpful. It's not something I gave much thought about - but because it's very easy to assume that of course they will keep you informed!

But I would find it maddening - to use molly's word - if months and months went by without any word especially if I wasn't expecting that. It would make me very uneasy, even though I understand things move slowly, that uneasiness would be much lessened by a monthly email just kind of updating, like where we are, what we're waiting for, etc., along with a timeline of expected "next" things. Communication 101.

CJ,
It is not to personal. He spent a couple years doing all kinds of therapy. He is not the same as he was, nor will he ever be. He does think he is,however. We had problems with him taking out the car and driving it. He also has vision issues so that was scary. We definitely have a before/after life with him. For the past couple years he has lived in a group home with other brain injured men. He is not as bad as some but worse than others. He is able to walk and pretty much take care of himself. He has one hand that he can't use and weakness on that side in his leg. We bring him home for a week pretty often, every six weeks or so.
My second son was hit while riding a bike. He had some spinal injuries but is pretty much back to normal now. After the experience we had with the last insurance company (horrible), we called the lawyer just because we didn't want to deal with them.

I didn't know how difficult it would be to get information. Lawyers are busy and I don't think they give clients a whole lot of thought unless something is going on with their case, and that is some times not for stretches of time. I think it is helpful just knowing that going in. I hope everything works out well for you!

 

[CJ2008]

CJ,
It is not to personal. He spent a couple years doing all kinds of therapy. He is not the same as he was, nor will he ever be. He does think he is,however. We had problems with him taking out the car and driving it. He also has vision issues so that was scary. We definitely have a before/after life with him. For the past couple years he has lived in a group home with other brain injured men. He is not as bad as some but worse than others. He is able to walk and pretty much take care of himself. He has one hand that he can't use and weakness on that side in his leg. We bring him home for a week pretty often, every six weeks or so.
My second son was hit while riding a bike. He had some spinal injuries but is pretty much back to normal now. After the experience we had with the last insurance company (horrible), we called the lawyer just because we didn't want to deal with them.

I didn't know how difficult it would be to get information. Lawyers are busy and I don't think they give clients a whole lot of thought unless something is going on with their case, and that is some times not for stretches of time. I think it is helpful just knowing that going in. I hope everything works out well for you!

@luv2sparkle I am so so sorry to hear this. When you say that he thinks he is the same as he was, is that a good thing or bad. I'm not sure if you mean he tries to do all the things he used to and gets into trouble/dangerous situations or if you mean he's unaware and doesn't know he's different so he doesn't suffer or get depressed about the change/s. How old is he.

I am sorry to hear about your other son, too, and so glad to hear he's almost back to normal. I am so glad to hear this.

Speaking to the insurance companies has been super stressful. The whole process has been super stressful. Going through the lawyers should bring some level of relief although working with the lawyers will I'm sure bring its own issues.

I agree with you, in their day to day they're dealing with whatever NEEDS to be dealt with. So unless they need to do something with your case - a deadline, a response to a lettter, etc. - they're not thinking about your case at all. Unless it's a multi million dollar type case, I'm sure those stay top of mind much more. It's natural/normal.

I will do my part to stay proactive and ask for updates. I am very very curious as to what the actual experience and service will be like. Already yesterday no more than an hour after signing up with the law office I felt the paralegal was being unnecessarily and out of nowhere kind of curt.

So we'll see.

Thanks for the good wishes.

 

[luv2sparkle]

CJ, it has been 14 years since my oldest sons accident, so if I seem matter-of-fact about it, it is because we have dealt with it for so long. He does get depressed, and with brain injury some people have a condition that causes them to cry and not know why. Ryan has that. His accident happened when he was 18-he was a pretty cool dude then. He had just been in the process of being signed as a sponsored snowboarder. He had it going on (at least in his mind). He thinks he is way cooler than he is, and that he still has game. It can be a little embarrassing if you are with him, especially if he is around girls. LOL.
He thinks he should be able to drive a car. He thinks he should be able to live on his own. He doesn't see his limitations. He can't do those things. He has vision issues and his judgement is not good. He may know it and just not accept it. At times we all feel bad and other times we all just want to say 'suck it up, it is what it is.' I think that is pretty normal living with brain injury.

 

[drk14]

OP, sorry about your predicament. You may be too far along in your search for this tip to be of any value, but I just wanted to share that I've found the website http://www.avvo.com very helpful for finding and comparing lawyers. The site features reviews by clients, and it also has a section where lawyers answer legal questions posed by users of the website -- which can serve as a gauge for the attorneys' approach and disposition. Good luck!

 

[CJ2008]

CJ, it has been 14 years since my oldest sons accident, so if I seem matter-of-fact about it, it is because we have dealt with it for so long. He does get depressed, and with brain injury some people have a condition that causes them to cry and not know why. Ryan has that. His accident happened when he was 18-he was a pretty cool dude then. He had just been in the process of being signed as a sponsored snowboarder. He had it going on (at least in his mind). He thinks he is way cooler than he is, and that he still has game. It can be a little embarrassing if you are with him, especially if he is around girls. LOL.
He thinks he should be able to drive a car. He thinks he should be able to live on his own. He doesn't see his limitations. He can't do those things. He has vision issues and his judgement is not good. He may know it and just not accept it. At times we all feel bad and other times we all just want to say 'suck it up, it is what it is.' I think that is pretty normal living with brain injury.

Thank you so much for explaining.

I have never been through anything like that so I can't even imagine. But I understand and realize that at some point you have to accept reality if you want a chance at feeling content. I hope your son can get there one day even if not fully that his depressed days are many many less than his OK days.

Thank you for stopping in reading and sharing your advice.

 

[CJ2008]

OP, sorry about your predicament. You may be too far along in your search for this tip to be of any value, but I just wanted to share that I've found the website http://www.avvo.com very helpful for finding and comparing lawyers. The site features reviews by clients, and it also has a section where lawyers answer legal questions posed by users of the website -- which can serve as a gauge for the attorneys' approach and disposition. Good luck!

Thanks drk14! I actually did run into that site. This is another one: https://answers.justia.com/

 

[CJ2008]

So a quick update...

And Molly I hope you check back in because I'd love your insight on some of the things that I'm wondering about.

So...I hired the TV ad lawyer. (I haven't told rainwood yet but I will. )

I liked him when I spoke to him. He was personable and communicated well with me. He answered my questions clearly and directly. The first question I asked him threw him off a little bit but he recovered quickly and confidently. He didn't skip a beat.

And he gave the "right" answers - including some of the questions I picked from Molly's list.

So here's what I'm wondering...

1. Would it be OK to send the attorney a brief summary of our conversation highlighting the things we discussed. Aside from coming through as overly cautious and possibly mistrusting would it flag me as a problem client. Plus is it silly to do after some days already having passed, and after already having signed the dotted line. Some things we discussed are kind of significant though and in a way "promises" for things will be handled.

2. I find myself liking having access to the paralegal for quick questions and guidance - and have found his answers to make sense/feel right - but for other things I find myself wanting confirmation that the attorney has reviewed the work. Example: amending a release I needed to sign. Paralegal said something to the effect of "he's just going to give it right back to me anyway" (in what sounded and felt to me like an annoyed tone.) I don't know which situations truly warrant the attorney's time and which ones I should just trust that the paralegal knows what he's doing and / or that the attorney has reviewed the work.

3. I find myself wondering about certain things like attorney/client privilege and where the paralegal falls in there. I did some research and haven't found a clear answer.

4. And relating to #3 above I'm also wondering about things I want to hand in that I want to protect from being shared. Things I want to tell my attorney but wouldn't want anyone else to see or find. I find myself feeling uneasy emailing. Yet is it worth printing all this stuff and personally dropping it off especially when some things may be ongoing notes.

Am I being overly and unnecessarily cautious.

 

[Austina]

I hope you don't mind me butting in, and this is not specifically relating to your issue, but I think it's always a good idea to put things in writing if only to clarify what you 'thought' you'd discussed and agreed, versus what they 'thought' you'd discussed and agreed. It's a point of reference should there ever being any misunderstanding in the future.

I'm so sorry to read what you've been going through, and I do hope you get a satisfactory resolution.

 

[CJ2008]

Thanks so much @Austina.

I know you're right.