By Robert I. Feinberg | Published October 14, 2016 | Posted in Personal Injury | Comments Off on Confusion, Complication, and Delay
What I have learned over the years from representing injured victims is that the old maxim of “keep it simple” makes a lot of sense. It should be followed. We, as plaintiffs, when presenting a case, want a very clear, coherent presentation of that case. I find that the other side, the defense, really the insurance company, has another view of things.
One of the most famous quotations in movie history is from Cool Hand Luke where the brutal prison warden says to the Paul Newman character, Luke, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Actually I believe what it might have been is, “What we got here is a failure to communicate.” Whether it was “have” or “got,” the point is that communication is key. Certainly in the attorney-client relationship, communication is of paramount importance.
You know the old expression “If I had a nickle for every time . . .,” so on and so forth. Well I wish I had a nickle for every time in the past several decades that I have told clients, and actually other lawyers, that bias is always relevant. And just why do I say that? We are often confronted with witness statements or anticipated testimony of a person who has a bias.
I have certainly blogged about the contingent fee system, a uniquely American approach. It has been called the “poor man’s key to the courthouse.” Why is that? Because supposedly the poor man is not able to put up money for hourly fees or for a large retainer. Why is personal injury conducive to a contingent fee agreement?
Well it certainly is a competitive legal market and that especially concerns the personal injury legal field. Clients or would-be clients are seeking the right match in retaining an attorney to represent them in their personal injury case.
The rules regarding jury selection in Massachusetts for civil and criminal cases are ever changing. About a year ago, the Massachusetts courts began a process called voir dire which allows more questioning of jurors. Many of you may wonder how intrusive the questioning will get?
This blog focuses on the very sharp differences in the knowledge of the parents who suffered the tragic loss as compared with the landowner, in this case, the corporate giant Disney.
Today’s blog topic will be on witness recollection. I do exclusively personal injury cases so I will speak about witness recollection in that context. But you should keep in mind that this has a broader application than just in personal injury cases.
How do I put a case together? How do I present it in a comprehensive and thorough fashion to get the best result that I can for my personal injury client? Having done this for a number of years now, I have very strong feelings about how to answer those questions. It really involves a multi-disciplinary approach. I have recently blogged about brain injuries so I will focus on that injury in describing to you how I think your case should best be presented. The lessons can be applied to all forms of injury law.
We have been talking about brain injuries and particularly diffuse axonal injuries or shear injuries. These injuries are verified through technology and, in particular, a sophisticated form of MRI. I really want to bring the point home about technology. Technology frustrates a lot of people and its ever changing nature can be especially frustrating.