I was sitting at the breakfast table on a recent Sunday morning reading through the New York Times and came across a feature article in the business section about the nationwide battle being waged between the various states trial lawyers associations and the vast conglomeration of pro-business interests seeking to restrict injured citizens access to our Court system.
This is yet another chapter in a battle that has been raging for more than 20 years as national Chamber of Commerce organizations, multi-national corporations and insurance industry insiders decided that their bottom lines would improve if they could somehow avoid costly lawsuits from people who are seriously injured when their products or actions cause harm.
Arguably, some states have had a history of wildly outrageous jury verdicts - but that was a long time in the past and certainly not in Colorado. It is also irrefutable that certain bad elements among the trial lawyers have tarnished the good work that the rest of us try to do on a daily basis. However, the fact is that the insurance industry is trying to push the bar further away from being equal and fair to all parties to the point that small people like you and me will never face a fair playing field in the event we are injured and have to sue a large corporation.
The current method of restricting your rights is to try and push for legislation to limit the amount of attorney's fees that us trial lawyers can charge when we take on a case on a contingency basis. It is a great approach. Lets face it, on the surface it sounds like it will benefit the accident victims more than anyone else. However, in reality, serious restrictions in the amount of fees charged by attorneys will severely limit injured persons' choices when hiring a lawyer.
Accident law is a business. Even us trial lawyers have to be able to make a profit on what we do. What makes us trial lawyers unique is the extremely high degree of risk that we have to assume on behalf of our clients. In nearly all accident cases, a lawyer does not get paid until and unless he or she gets a recovery for their client. If there is no recovery, then the attorney will not be paid for the hundreds or thousands of hours that they can spend working on a complex case.
Additionally, an attorney will spend his own money to prepare the case for trial. These trial expenses can be tens of thousands of dollars on even a simple auto accident case. In large products liability cases, such as cases against drug manufacturers, the expenses can run into the millions. If a lawyer's ability to be compensated under a contingent fee agreement for assuming this risk is limited by state legislation, the simple fact is that fewer attorneys will be able to handle these types of cases on a contingency basis - and this is what the business interests really are seeking to accomplish.
The business lobby hopes that the state legislatures will start restricting the contingency percentage that an attorney can charge to the point that it is not economically viable for a lawyer to take an injury case on a contingency.
They say that we can still charge our clients an hourly fee to work on the case therefore nobody will be harmed by these types of laws. However, the reality is that very few accident victims can afford to pay an hourly fee and certainly cannot do so if they have suffered a catastrophic injury, are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care and cannot work.
I find it ironic that the business lobby is saying that we trial attorneys make too much money in a time when executive compensation packages at large corporations are going through the roof. It disgusts me to think that a CEO of a large company can make millions of dollars per year and even be entitled to million dollar buyout packages when they run their companies into the ground. How much do they really care about you and I when they plunder their employees' pension funds to support their bad business decisions yet still collect such exorbitant salaries?
Let me be clear that I, as a personal injury lawyer, certainly do have cases where I am handsomely compensated for my time. However, I also have cases where I barely break even, or even lose money. These are the risks I take. If I find I can make more money charging an hourly fee in another area of law - I will be forced to do it. I, and the other trial attorneys throughout the country will be fine regardless. The injured people will be the ones left holding the bag and nothing would make the business and insurance lobbyists happier.
American Trial Lawyers Association
As a soldier cannot go into battle wearing flimsy, inappropriate apparel, the lawyer cannot also go into court to win a client's lawsuit decked out in inappropriate get-up.
In court, the opening statements and first instances of arguments serve as a rich venue for the arbitrators, juries and judges to observe the lawyer and form their initial impressions of him and the case he is representing. Given this reality, a trial lawyer must be adept in putting up an appearance and demeanor that will possibly generate the most positive influence to form such first impressions.
In the beginning, if a lawyer presents an appearance of being offensive, his image more or less becomes tarnished for the rest of the proceedings. In the eyes of those observing the lawyer, he already has a lower ethos. However persuasive his arguments may be, these may also be affected by the initial appearance he has shown.
There is an existing diversity in dress standards for every part of the country. In the western part, the code of apparel is far more casual and relaxed compared to some sections in the East Coast.
There is no given recommendation on the standards of dress codes. However, every lawyer must see to it that his way of dressing and overall appearance does not radically oppose or offend the general dress standards in the particular area where he will appear for a trial. Lawyers must also be aware of their audience expectations or standards on how an attorney at law ought to look.
According to Paul Mark Sandler in The Daily Record http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage , many trial lawyers tend to avoid using bow ties because of the belief that juries are not inclined to trust someone wearing bow ties. On the other hand, lawyers who are going to argue appeal cases or are representing cases with no jury trial does not hesitate to use bow ties.
Although a lawyer may prefer colorful or more casual attires, traditional suits remain largely as a good manifestation of professionalism and competence, and thus most recommended.
For trial lawyers going into court, they must appear conservative in a certain way that is well matched to the attire they are most comfortable with. His whole get-up must also be consistent with his regular personal style and adaptable to the expectations of the audience.
In accessorizing, the lawyer must be careful in choosing jewelries to match with his outfit. While there is no code regarding wearing of flashy or sparkling jewelry, it could become a distraction, and thus, quite inappropriate in the courtroom.
There is a theory that opulent jewelry worn by a lawyer could cause some rift between him and the jury's perception of his arguments. The jury would fail to identify with the lawyer's case since they perceive a certain extravagance due to the show of jewelry.
Aside from a trial lawyer's mode of dressing and accessorizing, here are other equally decisive factors that influence the jury or judge's perception of the lawyer and his client's suit:
-The way a lawyer arranges his documents and materials on the table. If a lawyer wants to convey the aura of being well prepared, organized and in-control, he must strive to maintain a neatly arranged table during the course of the trial.
-It is adequately helpful for a trial lawyers to learn about the judge's preferences in the conduct of the trial. This would avoid him from suffering unnecessary embarrassments.
- To gain more impact in a closing argument, it is advisable for a lawyer to move along each juror and make eye contact with him or her. These gestures instill a powerful impression for each juror, implying that he cares about every one of them and that he is speaking sincerely, rather than saying a piece of memorized script.
-The trial lawyer's delivery of his arguments must not be wrought with overly dramatic facial expressions and motions, although making eye contact is recommended.
Every trial lawyer may have different views on how to appear, stand and deliver in court. The general principle is for them to appear comfortable, natural and reliable in order to exude confidence and positive influence.
Both Jason Crawford & Lala C. Ballatan are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Jason Crawford has sinced written about articles on various topics from Legal Matters, Legal Matters and Cars. For more information please visit:website: blog:. Jason Crawford's top article generates over 90500 views. to your Favourites.
Lala C. Ballatan has sinced written about articles on various topics from Legal Matters, Mortgage and Car Accidents. Our lawyers are experienced in . We have the special skills. Lala C. Ballatan's top article generates over 301000 views. to your Favourites.
Best Free Classified Ads You can also super-charge your article. Ill talk about that in one of my next ezines