Letter to the Editor in response to an article in October 18th's issue of the AJC.
By: Robin Frazer Clark
GTLA Immediate Past President
‘Appalling’ and ‘Reasonable.’ Two completely different words with two completely different meanings. It’s not a coincidence that Progressive Insurance referred to their own conduct as 'appalling,' and then, when faced with accountability Progressive changes its tune to say their conduct was 'reasonable.'
Progressive spied on Bill and Leandra Pitts in church—in their private Bible-Study! Good Georgians trusted these people as fellow worshipers—not undercover agents sent to spy on them so that a greedy corporation could save a buck.
I applaud my colleague for representing this family. Our Civil Justice System was designed for people just like the Pitts. In a time when so many corporations are living large and reporting record-breaking profits, we need the Civil Justice System to ensure that they aren’t expanding their profit margins by swindling families and those in need. This is the only avenue to hold Progressive accountable and to send a message to other insurance companies—Georgia does not tolerate dishonest business practices. Down here, we don’t lie and spy in church.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Drought of Leadership
**Response to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on October 18, 2007.
By: Jamie Bendall
Atlanta Attorney
My patience is drying up like my drinking supply. Commissioner John Oxendine is furiously pumping misinformation from his seemingly still deep reservoir of half-truths regarding the way consumers in Georgia are treated by their insurance companies. It great that he's offended by Progressive's spying on their policy holders in bible study . It would be better if he acted to protect policy holders from these kinds of tactics. Instead he's working right now to prevent policy holders from getting the full benefit of insurance premiums they are already paying for. He's treating insurance companies like they are defenseless, endangered mussels; always seeking to keep them floating on a sea of profits. The people of Georgia are thirsty for Justice and Mr. Oxendine should use his office to see that the benefits of a just insurance industry flow in the right direction. He should support SB 276.
By: Jamie Bendall
Atlanta Attorney
My patience is drying up like my drinking supply. Commissioner John Oxendine is furiously pumping misinformation from his seemingly still deep reservoir of half-truths regarding the way consumers in Georgia are treated by their insurance companies. It great that he's offended by Progressive's spying on their policy holders in bible study . It would be better if he acted to protect policy holders from these kinds of tactics. Instead he's working right now to prevent policy holders from getting the full benefit of insurance premiums they are already paying for. He's treating insurance companies like they are defenseless, endangered mussels; always seeking to keep them floating on a sea of profits. The people of Georgia are thirsty for Justice and Mr. Oxendine should use his office to see that the benefits of a just insurance industry flow in the right direction. He should support SB 276.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Tragedy could have been prevented
Last week a Kentucky jury found in favor of plaintiff Louise Ogborn after she was sexually assusalted in a Louisville McDonalds in 2004.
Ogborn was the victim of a known hoax—that had occurred 40 times previously. At just 18 years old, Ogborn was victimized by a perpetrator impersonating a police officer. While at work, and under the perpetrator’s direction, Ogborn was held prisoner, sexually assaulted and abused for hours.
This tragedy could have been prevented.
McDonalds knew of the hoax and repeatedly ignored its duty to adequately warn the employees of at least 40 previous incidents. When McDonalds became involved in this Civil Justice case, they fought every step of the way against fair compensation for the victim.
The jury of Ogborn’s peers held McDonalds responsible for its negligence resulting in both Ogborn’s false imprisonment and sexual assault. Beyond those findings, the jury even went so far as to write to McDonalds urging that the corporation offer its employees more training concerning sexual harassment and hoaxes.
Our Civil Justice System ensures that people, like Louise Ogborn, who are the victims of the negligence or wrong-doing of others can seek justice and compensation for the harm they’ve suffered.
Louise Ogborn, now 21 years old, has decided to go law school. In a press conference it was said that she is going to law school so that she can work to right wrongs—just as the Civil Justice System promises in our Constitution—Justice for All.
Ogborn was the victim of a known hoax—that had occurred 40 times previously. At just 18 years old, Ogborn was victimized by a perpetrator impersonating a police officer. While at work, and under the perpetrator’s direction, Ogborn was held prisoner, sexually assaulted and abused for hours.
This tragedy could have been prevented.
McDonalds knew of the hoax and repeatedly ignored its duty to adequately warn the employees of at least 40 previous incidents. When McDonalds became involved in this Civil Justice case, they fought every step of the way against fair compensation for the victim.
The jury of Ogborn’s peers held McDonalds responsible for its negligence resulting in both Ogborn’s false imprisonment and sexual assault. Beyond those findings, the jury even went so far as to write to McDonalds urging that the corporation offer its employees more training concerning sexual harassment and hoaxes.
Our Civil Justice System ensures that people, like Louise Ogborn, who are the victims of the negligence or wrong-doing of others can seek justice and compensation for the harm they’ve suffered.
Louise Ogborn, now 21 years old, has decided to go law school. In a press conference it was said that she is going to law school so that she can work to right wrongs—just as the Civil Justice System promises in our Constitution—Justice for All.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Half-truths and Lies in AJC Letter to the Editor
By: Joe Watkins
President of GTLA
**NOTE** The AJC printed a letter, from an Atlanta area doctor, full of half-truths and lies. Joe Watkins, the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association responded.
Dr. Stephen D. Leonard, who, according to state records, is not on the staff of any hospital and works in the hair replacement field, paints a dishonest picture about the reality of medical malpractice in the Labor and Delivery Room. He states that doctors are performing C-Sections because they are fearful of a malpractice suit. Absent from Dr. Leonard's accusations is the truth. He fails to mention that a lawsuit will never see the light of day without the testimony of a qualified physician who states, under oath, that the physician involved violated the standard of care. Our law also limits the amount of damages which may be recovered in malpractice suits. Perhaps this doctor from New York should familiarize himself with the Georgia Code before politically spouting his views at the expense of real families dealing with real hardships as the result of medical negligence.
President of GTLA
**NOTE** The AJC printed a letter, from an Atlanta area doctor, full of half-truths and lies. Joe Watkins, the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association responded.
Dr. Stephen D. Leonard, who, according to state records, is not on the staff of any hospital and works in the hair replacement field, paints a dishonest picture about the reality of medical malpractice in the Labor and Delivery Room. He states that doctors are performing C-Sections because they are fearful of a malpractice suit. Absent from Dr. Leonard's accusations is the truth. He fails to mention that a lawsuit will never see the light of day without the testimony of a qualified physician who states, under oath, that the physician involved violated the standard of care. Our law also limits the amount of damages which may be recovered in malpractice suits. Perhaps this doctor from New York should familiarize himself with the Georgia Code before politically spouting his views at the expense of real families dealing with real hardships as the result of medical negligence.
Monday, October 1, 2007
AAJ demand FRA withdraw preemption language from new railroad safety regulation
Immediate Release
American Association for Justice (AAJ)
Proposed Rule Endangers Public by Preempting State Tort Laws,
Eliminating Victims’ Access to Justice
Washington, DC— The American Association for Justice (AAJ) today demanded the Bush Administration halt its effort to prohibit railway accident victims from pursuing legal action against railroad companies responsible for their injury or death.
Addition of this preemptive language by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to a pending safety regulation is yet another example of the Bush Administration’s catering to corporate interests while further endangering the public’s health and safety.
“Once again, the Bush Administration has come down on the side of corporate irresponsibility against consumer safety,” said AAJ CEO Jon Haber. “This is a cynical attempt to allow railroad companies to evade accountability in the courts when people are killed and injured by their negligence and wrongdoing.”
Members of Congress also demanding the removal of the pre-emption language include House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents the Southern California district that suffered a major commuter railroad accident with multiple fatalities in 2005.
The FRA relies upon Section 20106 of the Federal Rail Safety Act to claim that its rule preempts any state law governing railroad safety, despite the fact that Congress specifically reiterated that the provision does no such thing less than two months ago. According to the Congressional Conference Report the provision, “does not preempt State law causes of action where a party has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care.” The FRA’s attempt to claim otherwise is tantamount to an Administration declaration of the power to regulate with the force of law without regard to the will of Congress.
“President Bush is blatantly ignoring the law passed by Congress just weeks ago,” said Haber, “Unless stricken from the final rule, this preemptive language will only serve the interests of corporate wrongdoers looking to evade accountability for risking the lives of millions of people on our nation’s railroads.”
A copy of AAJ’s Petition for Reconsideration and the Congressional letters demanding the removal of the pre-emption language are available upon request.
###
Contact:
Bill Schulz
202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)
AAJ Press Room
American Association for Justice (AAJ)
Proposed Rule Endangers Public by Preempting State Tort Laws,
Eliminating Victims’ Access to Justice
Washington, DC— The American Association for Justice (AAJ) today demanded the Bush Administration halt its effort to prohibit railway accident victims from pursuing legal action against railroad companies responsible for their injury or death.
Addition of this preemptive language by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to a pending safety regulation is yet another example of the Bush Administration’s catering to corporate interests while further endangering the public’s health and safety.
“Once again, the Bush Administration has come down on the side of corporate irresponsibility against consumer safety,” said AAJ CEO Jon Haber. “This is a cynical attempt to allow railroad companies to evade accountability in the courts when people are killed and injured by their negligence and wrongdoing.”
Members of Congress also demanding the removal of the pre-emption language include House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents the Southern California district that suffered a major commuter railroad accident with multiple fatalities in 2005.
The FRA relies upon Section 20106 of the Federal Rail Safety Act to claim that its rule preempts any state law governing railroad safety, despite the fact that Congress specifically reiterated that the provision does no such thing less than two months ago. According to the Congressional Conference Report the provision, “does not preempt State law causes of action where a party has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care.” The FRA’s attempt to claim otherwise is tantamount to an Administration declaration of the power to regulate with the force of law without regard to the will of Congress.
“President Bush is blatantly ignoring the law passed by Congress just weeks ago,” said Haber, “Unless stricken from the final rule, this preemptive language will only serve the interests of corporate wrongdoers looking to evade accountability for risking the lives of millions of people on our nation’s railroads.”
A copy of AAJ’s Petition for Reconsideration and the Congressional letters demanding the removal of the pre-emption language are available upon request.
###
Contact:
Bill Schulz
202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)
AAJ Press Room
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Ill-conceived insurance industry proposal is 'bad public policy'
For Immediate Release:
September 27, 2007 from the American Association for Justice.
Washington, DC— A groundbreaking new report on health courts by Case Western Reserve University professors Max Mehlman and Dale Nance finds that health courts would be burdensome, prohibitively expensive and would come at the expense of injured patients. The report prepared under a grant from the American Association for Justice Robert L. Habush Endowment, finds that health courts would require the creation of new and costly bureaucracies that would be controlled at every level by the insurance industry. For more information, see the full Executive Summary. View the Health Courts fact sheet.
Proposals to create special “health courts” are the latest in a series of attempts to eliminate or drastically reduce the rights of injured patients. “This report exposes the health insurance industry’s latest attempt to deprive patients of their rights,” said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. “Not only will so-called health courts force patients to seek compensation from bureaucracies dominated by unaccountable insurance companies, but they will also drive up costs. In the end, patients will not be safer and negligent hospitals and doctors will not be held accountable for medical errors.”
The report finds many critical flaws in the health courts concept, including:
The authors conclude the health courts concept is misguided and encourage proponents to abandon it as “bad public policy.”
###
Contact:Bill Schulz 202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)240-678-9398 (Cell)AAJ Press RoomNew Report Says “Health Courts” Bureaucracies Offer Big Financial Burdens and Loss of Patient Rights
September 27, 2007 from the American Association for Justice.
Washington, DC— A groundbreaking new report on health courts by Case Western Reserve University professors Max Mehlman and Dale Nance finds that health courts would be burdensome, prohibitively expensive and would come at the expense of injured patients. The report prepared under a grant from the American Association for Justice Robert L. Habush Endowment, finds that health courts would require the creation of new and costly bureaucracies that would be controlled at every level by the insurance industry. For more information, see the full Executive Summary. View the Health Courts fact sheet.
Proposals to create special “health courts” are the latest in a series of attempts to eliminate or drastically reduce the rights of injured patients. “This report exposes the health insurance industry’s latest attempt to deprive patients of their rights,” said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. “Not only will so-called health courts force patients to seek compensation from bureaucracies dominated by unaccountable insurance companies, but they will also drive up costs. In the end, patients will not be safer and negligent hospitals and doctors will not be held accountable for medical errors.”
The report finds many critical flaws in the health courts concept, including:
- The new health courts bureaucracies would place a massive financial burden on taxpayers and the employers and employees that pay for health care insurance.
- The decision making process would be controlled at every stage by the insurance industry.
- A health courts bureaucracy would not be affordable without substantial increases in doctors malpractice premiums.
- Patients would be forced into the bureaucracies without any choice, and many claims would be arbitrarily limited or barred altogether.
- Patients would have to prove the “avoidability” of their injuries and even those successful in their claim would be under-compensated.
- Wrongdoers would not be held accountable, and the deterrent effect of the civil justice system would be eradicated.
The authors conclude the health courts concept is misguided and encourage proponents to abandon it as “bad public policy.”
###
Contact:Bill Schulz 202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)240-678-9398 (Cell)AAJ Press RoomNew Report Says “Health Courts” Bureaucracies Offer Big Financial Burdens and Loss of Patient Rights
Monday, September 17, 2007
Mom and child kicked off airplane
Tune in to Dr. Phil tomorrow, September 18th at 5:00 pm to hear more about the case of a mother and child who were kicked off an airplane because of a flight attendant’s intolerance.
Kate Penland and her 19 month old toddler, Garrin, both from Atlanta, set out to visit Kate’s father in celebration of Father’s Day on June 16th of this year. After sitting through a nearly 11 hour weather delay in Houston, they boarded their last leg, a Continental Flight to Oklahoma City. Garrin, the toddler, was understandably a bit irritable and tired. His mom, Kate attempted to divert his attention by pointing out the plane next to them through the window. As they pulled from the gate, Garrin said, “Bye-bye plane,” several times.
According to Ms. Penland, the flight attendant, Erika Sikorski, told Kate that she needed to "shut your baby up." Ms. Sikorski made it clear that she didn't want to deal with Garrin for the hour-flight to Oklahoma City. When Kate said she would do the best she could to quiet the child, Ms. Sikorski responded by saying, "It’s called Baby Benedryl!" Kate told the flight attendant that she was not going to drug her child. Ms. Sikorski said that they were bothering the other passengers. When the passengers disputed this, Ms. Sikorski said that the plane was "her plane" and she was in charge. She then apparently reported to the pilot that Kate had threatened her and needed to be removed from the plane.
With absolutely no investigation or verification by the pilot, it was announced that they were returning to the gate and that Kate and Garrin would be removed from the flight. The mother and her toddler were taken from the plane and stranded, again, in Houston until the next day. Ms. Penland said that she requested to retrieve her checked baggage so that she could provide care to her toddler and to herself and was refused.
Kate Penland attempted to contact Continental Airlines several times and was ignored. She then asked for help from GTLA member Steve Goldman and he is now representing her. Tomorrow on Dr. Phil, Kate Penland will tell her story.
When this story first broke, similar stories began to emerge about Passengers' Rights on an airplane-- especially in this post 9-11 world. For more information regarding what is being done on Federal level to address these concerns visit The Coalition for Airplane Passenger Rights.
Kate Penland and her 19 month old toddler, Garrin, both from Atlanta, set out to visit Kate’s father in celebration of Father’s Day on June 16th of this year. After sitting through a nearly 11 hour weather delay in Houston, they boarded their last leg, a Continental Flight to Oklahoma City. Garrin, the toddler, was understandably a bit irritable and tired. His mom, Kate attempted to divert his attention by pointing out the plane next to them through the window. As they pulled from the gate, Garrin said, “Bye-bye plane,” several times.
According to Ms. Penland, the flight attendant, Erika Sikorski, told Kate that she needed to "shut your baby up." Ms. Sikorski made it clear that she didn't want to deal with Garrin for the hour-flight to Oklahoma City. When Kate said she would do the best she could to quiet the child, Ms. Sikorski responded by saying, "It’s called Baby Benedryl!" Kate told the flight attendant that she was not going to drug her child. Ms. Sikorski said that they were bothering the other passengers. When the passengers disputed this, Ms. Sikorski said that the plane was "her plane" and she was in charge. She then apparently reported to the pilot that Kate had threatened her and needed to be removed from the plane.
With absolutely no investigation or verification by the pilot, it was announced that they were returning to the gate and that Kate and Garrin would be removed from the flight. The mother and her toddler were taken from the plane and stranded, again, in Houston until the next day. Ms. Penland said that she requested to retrieve her checked baggage so that she could provide care to her toddler and to herself and was refused.
Kate Penland attempted to contact Continental Airlines several times and was ignored. She then asked for help from GTLA member Steve Goldman and he is now representing her. Tomorrow on Dr. Phil, Kate Penland will tell her story.
When this story first broke, similar stories began to emerge about Passengers' Rights on an airplane-- especially in this post 9-11 world. For more information regarding what is being done on Federal level to address these concerns visit The Coalition for Airplane Passenger Rights.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Oxendine Should Support Consumers
By: Joe Watkins
President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
The case of a couple whose own insurance company, Progressive, sent undercover Private Investigators to spy on them at private Bible Study is heartbreaking to say the least—but, sadly, not all that surprising, given the antics of some insurance companies. In this case, rather than paying out the UM insurance coverage for which the couple dutifully paid premiums every month, Progressive engaged in reprehensible measures in an attempt to save a buck.
What is surprising is Commissioner John Oxendine’s condemnation of Progressive’s conduct. He was quoted on 8-30 in the AJC to say, “Georgia policyholders should expect an open and honest relationship with their insurance company…We have to act promptly to protect the consumer.”
While we applaud Commissioner Oxendine’s stance, in this instance, concerning Progressive’s obviously inappropriate conduct, the Commissioner, unfortunately, is not always so supportive of Georgia’s consumers. Indeed, Commissioner Oxendine is adamantly opposed to a bill to protect consumers who elect to purchase UM coverage.
SB 276, authored by Senator Cecil Staton (R), allows for the stacking of elective UM coverage on top of liability insurance when you are in a serious accident. Consumers think that the premiums they pay on this optional insurance already do that, like they do in 23 other states.
But here in GA you don’t always get what you pay for.
SB 276 would ensure that you do.
Commissioner Oxendine opposes SB 276 and instead sides with the insurance industry. I hope that during this upcoming legislative session he will reflect upon his words “Protect the consumer,” stop protecting the ruthless insurance companies, like Progressive, and stand up for the people of Georgia, as an elected official should.
President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
The case of a couple whose own insurance company, Progressive, sent undercover Private Investigators to spy on them at private Bible Study is heartbreaking to say the least—but, sadly, not all that surprising, given the antics of some insurance companies. In this case, rather than paying out the UM insurance coverage for which the couple dutifully paid premiums every month, Progressive engaged in reprehensible measures in an attempt to save a buck.
What is surprising is Commissioner John Oxendine’s condemnation of Progressive’s conduct. He was quoted on 8-30 in the AJC to say, “Georgia policyholders should expect an open and honest relationship with their insurance company…We have to act promptly to protect the consumer.”
While we applaud Commissioner Oxendine’s stance, in this instance, concerning Progressive’s obviously inappropriate conduct, the Commissioner, unfortunately, is not always so supportive of Georgia’s consumers. Indeed, Commissioner Oxendine is adamantly opposed to a bill to protect consumers who elect to purchase UM coverage.
SB 276, authored by Senator Cecil Staton (R), allows for the stacking of elective UM coverage on top of liability insurance when you are in a serious accident. Consumers think that the premiums they pay on this optional insurance already do that, like they do in 23 other states.
But here in GA you don’t always get what you pay for.
SB 276 would ensure that you do.
Commissioner Oxendine opposes SB 276 and instead sides with the insurance industry. I hope that during this upcoming legislative session he will reflect upon his words “Protect the consumer,” stop protecting the ruthless insurance companies, like Progressive, and stand up for the people of Georgia, as an elected official should.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Civil Justice System Works
Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Media Release
(404) 376-3495, Rebecca DeHart
Atlanta-- The administrative law judge, Roy Pearson of Washington DC, who sued a drycleaners over a pair of lost pants—lost in court today. He was ordered to pay all of the court costs that the owners of the drycleaners incurred throughout the ordeal.
This news comes as no surprise to the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA), Joe Watkins. “Just as we anticipated, the Civil Justice System worked. The Judge presiding over the case ruled in favor of the drycleaners—and against the man at the center of this ridiculous business dispute.”
Pearson filed suit against the drycleaners for $54 million after alleging that they lost a pair of his pants. “The suit itself was ludicrous. As an attorney for 30 years, I am aware of the dangers that this type of sensationalism can generate. The general public cannot help but be engrossed in its details. Now that the decision has been reached, the general public can bask in what is just another example of the Civil Justice System accurately and fairly working for us all,” said Watkins.
The attorney representing the drycleaners was Chris Manning, a member of the American Association for Justice (AAJ), the national affiliate of GTLA. AAJ has been sharply critical of Judge Pearson’s lawsuit. In April, AAJ CEO Jon Haber called on the District of Columbia Bar Association to conduct a disciplinary investigation of Judge Pearson for his conduct in this matter. Haber and AAJ President Lewis “Mike” Eidson pledged to support the defendant’s defense fund and encouraged the AAJ membership to also contribute.
Judge Bartnoff, who presided over the case, ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of the drycleaners.
“It is our hope that the resolution of this case garners as much media attention as it did when it was filed. The public deserves to know how the Civil Justice System works on their behalf,” said Watkins.
# # #
Media Release
(404) 376-3495, Rebecca DeHart
Atlanta-- The administrative law judge, Roy Pearson of Washington DC, who sued a drycleaners over a pair of lost pants—lost in court today. He was ordered to pay all of the court costs that the owners of the drycleaners incurred throughout the ordeal.
This news comes as no surprise to the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA), Joe Watkins. “Just as we anticipated, the Civil Justice System worked. The Judge presiding over the case ruled in favor of the drycleaners—and against the man at the center of this ridiculous business dispute.”
Pearson filed suit against the drycleaners for $54 million after alleging that they lost a pair of his pants. “The suit itself was ludicrous. As an attorney for 30 years, I am aware of the dangers that this type of sensationalism can generate. The general public cannot help but be engrossed in its details. Now that the decision has been reached, the general public can bask in what is just another example of the Civil Justice System accurately and fairly working for us all,” said Watkins.
The attorney representing the drycleaners was Chris Manning, a member of the American Association for Justice (AAJ), the national affiliate of GTLA. AAJ has been sharply critical of Judge Pearson’s lawsuit. In April, AAJ CEO Jon Haber called on the District of Columbia Bar Association to conduct a disciplinary investigation of Judge Pearson for his conduct in this matter. Haber and AAJ President Lewis “Mike” Eidson pledged to support the defendant’s defense fund and encouraged the AAJ membership to also contribute.
Judge Bartnoff, who presided over the case, ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of the drycleaners.
“It is our hope that the resolution of this case garners as much media attention as it did when it was filed. The public deserves to know how the Civil Justice System works on their behalf,” said Watkins.
# # #
Monday, June 25, 2007
A Lost Pair of Pants
By: Joe Watkins
President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Reading and hearing about the D.C. Administrative Law Judge who is suing his dry cleaners over a pair of lost pants is distressing, to say the least. It's obviously ridiculous, but this lawsuit is not only silly -- it's dangerous.
Cases like this give lawyers a bad name. Big Business and others who are out to dismantle the Civil Justice System jump all over these tabloid-like stories as proof of why we need to eliminate corporate accountability. They say our legal system is out of control. One lawsuit like this one automatically makes every lawsuit "frivolous." And nothing could be farther from the truth.
As an attorney for 30 years and as President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, I am aware of the dangers that this type of sensationalism can generate. The story is so far-fetched that the general public cannot help but be engrossed in its details.
What the public does not get to hear enough about are the everyday cases that go in front of judges and juries that uphold the Constitution's promise of justice for all. More truly newsworthy are cases that have assisted in pulling dangerous pharmaceuticals off the shelves of drugstores, cases that have forced clothing manufacturers to discontinue flammable children's pajamas, and cases that led to greater ingenuity in auto manufacturing when side-saddle gas tanks were found to be explosive. These are just a few instances among many where the Civil Justice System protects us all.
The public also rarely sees stories about the lawyers who are compassionate and generous community leaders. For example, Scott Delius, an Atlanta trial lawyer, is voluntarily serving in Afghanistan and assisting in the building of a criminal justice system there. He also has begun a charitable donation effort to collect clothes and toys for the Afghan children he has met. Gary Hays, another Atlanta trial lawyer, has done incredible fundraising for cancer research through his "I Will Make A Difference Campaign." Giving back to the community -- wherever that may be -- is a proud tradition of our profession.
The case of the missing pants most likely will continue to get press in the weeks to come as it awaits a hearing. When this ridiculous case gets before a judge, I am confident it will be dealt with in a manner that will make us proud of our Civil Justice System. Let's hope the media fully reports the result in this case, so that all can see, accurately and fairly, how our Civil Justice System truly works for us all.
President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Reading and hearing about the D.C. Administrative Law Judge who is suing his dry cleaners over a pair of lost pants is distressing, to say the least. It's obviously ridiculous, but this lawsuit is not only silly -- it's dangerous.
Cases like this give lawyers a bad name. Big Business and others who are out to dismantle the Civil Justice System jump all over these tabloid-like stories as proof of why we need to eliminate corporate accountability. They say our legal system is out of control. One lawsuit like this one automatically makes every lawsuit "frivolous." And nothing could be farther from the truth.
As an attorney for 30 years and as President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, I am aware of the dangers that this type of sensationalism can generate. The story is so far-fetched that the general public cannot help but be engrossed in its details.
What the public does not get to hear enough about are the everyday cases that go in front of judges and juries that uphold the Constitution's promise of justice for all. More truly newsworthy are cases that have assisted in pulling dangerous pharmaceuticals off the shelves of drugstores, cases that have forced clothing manufacturers to discontinue flammable children's pajamas, and cases that led to greater ingenuity in auto manufacturing when side-saddle gas tanks were found to be explosive. These are just a few instances among many where the Civil Justice System protects us all.
The public also rarely sees stories about the lawyers who are compassionate and generous community leaders. For example, Scott Delius, an Atlanta trial lawyer, is voluntarily serving in Afghanistan and assisting in the building of a criminal justice system there. He also has begun a charitable donation effort to collect clothes and toys for the Afghan children he has met. Gary Hays, another Atlanta trial lawyer, has done incredible fundraising for cancer research through his "I Will Make A Difference Campaign." Giving back to the community -- wherever that may be -- is a proud tradition of our profession.
The case of the missing pants most likely will continue to get press in the weeks to come as it awaits a hearing. When this ridiculous case gets before a judge, I am confident it will be dealt with in a manner that will make us proud of our Civil Justice System. Let's hope the media fully reports the result in this case, so that all can see, accurately and fairly, how our Civil Justice System truly works for us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)