Atlanta, Georgia Personal Injury Lawyer
As reported in the AJC, last Wednesday a Texas appeals court overturned a multimillion-dollar verdict against Merck & Co. in a case involving the painkiller Vioxx.
In 2006, a Texas jury awarded the widow of 71-year-old Leonel Garza $32 million for his wrongful death. However that verdict was later reduced to $7.75 million under Texas laws capping injury damages.
Three weeks ago, the Texas Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling that the plaintiff’s family failed to provide evidence that Mr. Garza’s heart disease could not have caused the heart attack that killed him in 2001. Mr. Garza died of a heart attack after taking Vioxx for only a few weeks.
During the trial, lawyers for the pharmaceutical firm argued that Garza's heart attack was the result of chronic heart disease.
Merck pulled the painkiller off the market in 2004, after the company's internal research showed the painkiller doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes. That action triggered many lawsuits against Merck, which has a $4.85 billion settlement pending. If you have a question about a harmful drug, email us at the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff.
In 2006, a Texas jury awarded the widow of 71-year-old Leonel Garza $32 million for his wrongful death. However that verdict was later reduced to $7.75 million under Texas laws capping injury damages.
Three weeks ago, the Texas Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling that the plaintiff’s family failed to provide evidence that Mr. Garza’s heart disease could not have caused the heart attack that killed him in 2001. Mr. Garza died of a heart attack after taking Vioxx for only a few weeks.
During the trial, lawyers for the pharmaceutical firm argued that Garza's heart attack was the result of chronic heart disease.
Merck pulled the painkiller off the market in 2004, after the company's internal research showed the painkiller doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes. That action triggered many lawsuits against Merck, which has a $4.85 billion settlement pending. If you have a question about a harmful drug, email us at the Law Offices of Michael L. Neff.
Labels: appeal, damages, lawsuit, settlement, tort reform, vioxx, wrongful death
In 2005, Ms. Kathleen Donovan was stopped in traffic north of Ventura, California, when her sedan was rear-ended by a pickup truck driven by Patrick Gallagher, an employee of Gold Coast Erectors. Larry Johnson, another driver and an employee of Weatherford USLP, had been driving between Donovan and Gallagher, but swerved out of the lane when Donovan stopped. Ms. Donovan sustained fatal injuries and died at the scene of the wreck.
Her mother, Constance Donovan, sued Gallagher, Gold Coast Erectors, Johnson and Weatherford USLP, alleging negligence.
Gallagher and Gold Coast Erectors admitted liability but argued that Johnson and Weatherford were also negligent. Both Johnson and his firm denied liability. Gallagher contended that he was driving behind Johnson’s vehicle, which blocked his view of Ms. Donovan. Gallagher argued that Johnson did not slow appropriately, forcing him to swerve out of the lane when Ms. Donovan stopped and that this was negligent, because it compromised his opportunity to avoid the collision.
Constance Donovan did not seek any economic damages, as she was not financially dependent on her daughter at the time of her death, but asked the jury for $3.5 to $4.5 million in noneconomic damages for the value of her daughter's life. The jury awarded her $1.2 million in noneconomic damages, with 90 percent of the fault to Gallagher and Gold Coast Erectors and 10 percent to Johnson and Weatherford USLP.
Even though you may be among the safest drivers on the road, you never know when the actions of those around you can cause injury and death. The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff ask you to drive defensively; and if you or a loved one has been injured in a Georgia car or truck accident that was someone else’s fault, call us or email us immediately before evidence is destroyed. Let us help you get the settlement you deserve.
Her mother, Constance Donovan, sued Gallagher, Gold Coast Erectors, Johnson and Weatherford USLP, alleging negligence.
Gallagher and Gold Coast Erectors admitted liability but argued that Johnson and Weatherford were also negligent. Both Johnson and his firm denied liability. Gallagher contended that he was driving behind Johnson’s vehicle, which blocked his view of Ms. Donovan. Gallagher argued that Johnson did not slow appropriately, forcing him to swerve out of the lane when Ms. Donovan stopped and that this was negligent, because it compromised his opportunity to avoid the collision.
Constance Donovan did not seek any economic damages, as she was not financially dependent on her daughter at the time of her death, but asked the jury for $3.5 to $4.5 million in noneconomic damages for the value of her daughter's life. The jury awarded her $1.2 million in noneconomic damages, with 90 percent of the fault to Gallagher and Gold Coast Erectors and 10 percent to Johnson and Weatherford USLP.
Even though you may be among the safest drivers on the road, you never know when the actions of those around you can cause injury and death. The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff ask you to drive defensively; and if you or a loved one has been injured in a Georgia car or truck accident that was someone else’s fault, call us or email us immediately before evidence is destroyed. Let us help you get the settlement you deserve.
Labels: car accidents, car wreck, damages, dead, death, injury attorney, lawsuit, pain and suffering, truck accident
Jane Clark, a satellite feed coordinator for Fox News, states in a lawsuit filed Thursday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court that she picked up bedbugs in the Fox News Channel in Manhattan.
Ms. Clark states in her suit last year that the bedbug bites left her unable to work and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The lawsuit asks unspecified damages from Fox News’ landlord, a management company and two maintenance companies. The Fox News Channel and its parent News Corp. were not named as defendants.
Lawsuits regarding negligent maintenance of commercial property are not unusual. Lawsuits over bedbug infestations in hotels, cruise ships and apartment buildings are also not unusual as these are environments where many people live in close proximity. However I have never before seen an allegation of bed bug infestation occurring in a work environment. We’d like to hear your feedback, Atlanta—have you ever missed work because of bedbug bites? The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff want to know. Email us.
Ms. Clark states in her suit last year that the bedbug bites left her unable to work and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The lawsuit asks unspecified damages from Fox News’ landlord, a management company and two maintenance companies. The Fox News Channel and its parent News Corp. were not named as defendants.
Lawsuits regarding negligent maintenance of commercial property are not unusual. Lawsuits over bedbug infestations in hotels, cruise ships and apartment buildings are also not unusual as these are environments where many people live in close proximity. However I have never before seen an allegation of bed bug infestation occurring in a work environment. We’d like to hear your feedback, Atlanta—have you ever missed work because of bedbug bites? The Law Offices of Michael L. Neff want to know. Email us.
Labels: bedbugs, damages, lawsuit, post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD
In an article published this month on LawyersUSAonline.com, author Dick Dahl reported on a case where cables snapped at the Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom in Louisville on the afternoon of June 21, 2007.
As a result, the severed cable cut off both of the feet of a 13 year old girl.
The next month, her family filed a negligence suit in Jefferson County Circuit Court against the amusement park. The case is currently in discovery and a trial date has not been set.
Mr. Dahl pointed out that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates that some 6,000 to 7,000 people can expect to be treated in emergency rooms for amusement ride injuries by the end of the year.
The amusement-park industry steadfastly rejects these figures and claims that the injury rate is less than half of CPSC estimates. Still that would be over 3,000 people injured to the extent they need emergency medical treatment.
In 1981, lobbyists for fixed-site theme parks like Six Flags were able to get a law passed that exempted theme parkes from CPSC regulation. Thus, only the traveling fairs are regulated by the CPSC.
According to the article, there is no federal agency that requires reporting of amusement ride injuries. Also state requirements vary widely. It is suggested that the true injury toll is underreported.
The CPSC used to compile estimates on amusement ride injuries, utilizing data gathered from emergency rooms around the country. Over an eight-year period – 1997 to 2004 – the Commission estimated that 60,000 emergency-room injuries were related to amusement rides.
Then, in 2005, the CPSC stopped compiling estimates. It is argued that pressure was put on the CPSC to stop reporting negative news about a big money making business.
Currently, the only national data on amusement ride injuries is gathered and reported by the industry itself via a voluntary system. An industry group, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, asks its members to submit anonymous reports of injuries requiring medical attention without identifying the patron, the ride, the nature of the injury or what caused it.
In the past, the California Supreme Court concluded that amusement rides were "common carriers," a legal category that includes trains, elevators and ski lifts. (Gomez v. Superior Court, 113 P.3d 41 (Cal.).) This ruling was important for potential plaintiffs because it placed a higher duty on amusement park operators. In Georgia, a common carrier is held to the duty of extraordinary care.
The case involved a a woman who died two months after she allegedly sustained a brain injury on the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland. After the California Supreme Court's ruling, the case settled.
Some people argue that there are people who are predisposed to suffer brain injury from amusement rides yet that operators fail to provide adequate warning of that risk.
U.S. Congressman Ed Markey has introduced a bill that would repeal the exemption for fixed sites and enable the CPSC to collect injury data. It is questionable whether this bill will ever pass. It is sure to face heavy opposition from the parks and their lobbyists.
Questions or comments can be directed to the writer at: dick.dahl@lawyersusaonline.com
As a result, the severed cable cut off both of the feet of a 13 year old girl.
The next month, her family filed a negligence suit in Jefferson County Circuit Court against the amusement park. The case is currently in discovery and a trial date has not been set.
Mr. Dahl pointed out that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates that some 6,000 to 7,000 people can expect to be treated in emergency rooms for amusement ride injuries by the end of the year.
The amusement-park industry steadfastly rejects these figures and claims that the injury rate is less than half of CPSC estimates. Still that would be over 3,000 people injured to the extent they need emergency medical treatment.
In 1981, lobbyists for fixed-site theme parks like Six Flags were able to get a law passed that exempted theme parkes from CPSC regulation. Thus, only the traveling fairs are regulated by the CPSC.
According to the article, there is no federal agency that requires reporting of amusement ride injuries. Also state requirements vary widely. It is suggested that the true injury toll is underreported.
The CPSC used to compile estimates on amusement ride injuries, utilizing data gathered from emergency rooms around the country. Over an eight-year period – 1997 to 2004 – the Commission estimated that 60,000 emergency-room injuries were related to amusement rides.
Then, in 2005, the CPSC stopped compiling estimates. It is argued that pressure was put on the CPSC to stop reporting negative news about a big money making business.
Currently, the only national data on amusement ride injuries is gathered and reported by the industry itself via a voluntary system. An industry group, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, asks its members to submit anonymous reports of injuries requiring medical attention without identifying the patron, the ride, the nature of the injury or what caused it.
In the past, the California Supreme Court concluded that amusement rides were "common carriers," a legal category that includes trains, elevators and ski lifts. (Gomez v. Superior Court, 113 P.3d 41 (Cal.).) This ruling was important for potential plaintiffs because it placed a higher duty on amusement park operators. In Georgia, a common carrier is held to the duty of extraordinary care.
The case involved a a woman who died two months after she allegedly sustained a brain injury on the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland. After the California Supreme Court's ruling, the case settled.
Some people argue that there are people who are predisposed to suffer brain injury from amusement rides yet that operators fail to provide adequate warning of that risk.
U.S. Congressman Ed Markey has introduced a bill that would repeal the exemption for fixed sites and enable the CPSC to collect injury data. It is questionable whether this bill will ever pass. It is sure to face heavy opposition from the parks and their lobbyists.
Questions or comments can be directed to the writer at: dick.dahl@lawyersusaonline.com
Labels: common carrier, Georgia, injuries, lawsuit, Six Flags, traumatic brain injury
The Associated Press reported last week that a Santa Fe jury returned a verdict of more than $14.5 million to the family of an Albuquerque man killed by a drunken driver in 2003. Daniel Gutierrez was in a coma for about five weeks before he died.
His mother, Janet Jaramillo, sued the driver, Daniel Durand, and the Albuquerque convenience store he worked for before the crash. She alleged that Alameda Meteor, which owned the convenience store, and its parent companies were negligent when employees sold alcohol to Durand when he was obviously intoxicated.
Her attorney, Jacob Vigil, said store employees sold Durand beer throughout the day knowing he was a chronic alcoholic.
Blood-alcohol tests on Durand three hours after the crash found his blood-alcohol content was 0.09, above the legal limit.
Durand was sentenced in September 2003 to 10 years in prison and five years on probation for the drunken driving crimes he committed after he leaving work at the store drunk and colliding with five vehicles, including Gutierrez's motorcycle.
The lawsuit named El Baracho Inc., which leased the liquor license to the store operators, along with Meteor Monument, Alameda Meteor and Meteor Stores Inc., which held the franchise for the convenience store.
———
Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, http://www.sfnewmexican.com
His mother, Janet Jaramillo, sued the driver, Daniel Durand, and the Albuquerque convenience store he worked for before the crash. She alleged that Alameda Meteor, which owned the convenience store, and its parent companies were negligent when employees sold alcohol to Durand when he was obviously intoxicated.
Her attorney, Jacob Vigil, said store employees sold Durand beer throughout the day knowing he was a chronic alcoholic.
Blood-alcohol tests on Durand three hours after the crash found his blood-alcohol content was 0.09, above the legal limit.
Durand was sentenced in September 2003 to 10 years in prison and five years on probation for the drunken driving crimes he committed after he leaving work at the store drunk and colliding with five vehicles, including Gutierrez's motorcycle.
The lawsuit named El Baracho Inc., which leased the liquor license to the store operators, along with Meteor Monument, Alameda Meteor and Meteor Stores Inc., which held the franchise for the convenience store.
———
Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, http://www.sfnewmexican.com
Labels: attorney, avoid wrecks, car accidents, drunk driving, jury, lawsuit, personal injury, sue, verdict, wrongful death
In an article published by Reuters reporter Tom Doggett (Tue May 20, 2008 2:27pm EDT)
the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices.
However, President Bush has threatened to veto the measure. He apparently doesn't like any lawsuits. However, maybe his family's ties to the oil industry might cloud his judgment a little.
The proposed law would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow. The measure passed in a 324-84 vote which is a large enough margin to override a presidential veto.
Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin sponsored the law. He said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much they pay for gasoline. As we know, prices are skyrocketing with summer demand ready to push them up even more.
The Senate would still have to approve the House measure.
the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices.
However, President Bush has threatened to veto the measure. He apparently doesn't like any lawsuits. However, maybe his family's ties to the oil industry might cloud his judgment a little.
The proposed law would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow. The measure passed in a 324-84 vote which is a large enough margin to override a presidential veto.
Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin sponsored the law. He said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much they pay for gasoline. As we know, prices are skyrocketing with summer demand ready to push them up even more.
The Senate would still have to approve the House measure.
Labels: law, lawsuit, oil, president
Humpty Dumpty Sues Owner Of Wall
OMAHA, Neb. -- Humpty Dumpty sued the owner of the wall where he had his "great fall" in an Omaha courtroom on Wednesday.
It was a personal injury case in which Dumpty was trying to recover the cost of "putting himself back together again."
The jury was a group of fourth-grade students. The goal of the trial was to educate the students about the legal system and courtroom procedure. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, so now Dumpty can pay all the king's horses and all the king's men.
http://www.ketv.com/education/15971659/detail.html?rss=oma&psp=news
OMAHA, Neb. -- Humpty Dumpty sued the owner of the wall where he had his "great fall" in an Omaha courtroom on Wednesday.
It was a personal injury case in which Dumpty was trying to recover the cost of "putting himself back together again."
The jury was a group of fourth-grade students. The goal of the trial was to educate the students about the legal system and courtroom procedure. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, so now Dumpty can pay all the king's horses and all the king's men.
http://www.ketv.com/education/15971659/detail.html?rss=oma&psp=news
Labels: fall, injury, lawsuit, trial
US veterans sue over 'poor care'
By Maggie Shiels
BBC News, San Francisco
US veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are suing the government, claiming inadequate care is leading to an increase in suicides.
A San Francisco court will hear the class action lawsuit against the Department of Veteran Affairs.
The veterans say the department has been unable to deal with the growing incidence of depression and suicides.
But government lawyers argue the department has been devoting more resources to mental health.
In court papers the two non-profit groups representing the veterans write "that failure to provide care is manifesting itself in an epidemic of suicides".
"The bottom line is that we're not taking care of the veterans and we need to change that," says lead lawyer, Gordon Erspamer
Raft of complaints
An average of 18 war veterans kill themselves each day - five of them under Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) care - according to a December e-mail between top department officials that has been filed as part of the federal lawsuit.
What I would like to see from the VA is that they actually treat patients with respect - Bob Handy, Veterans United for Truth
The Rand Corporation has recently released a study that shows some 300,000 US troops - about 20% of those deployed - are suffering from depression, or post traumatic stress disorder, after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"We find that the VA has simply not devoted enough resources. They don't have enough psychiatrists," said Mr Erspamer.
In 2006 suicide rates were reported to be the highest in 26 years, at 99 confirmed suicides.
The two organisations involved in the legal action are asking US District Court Judge Samuel Conti, a World War II army veteran, to order the VA to overhaul its system drastically.
"What I would like to see from the VA is that they actually treat patients with respect," says Bob Handy, the head of Veterans United for Truth, one of the bodies suing the agency.
Mr Handy formed the group after hearing a raft of complaints from veterans about their treatment, when he was a member of the Veterans Caucus of the state Democratic Party.
More professionals
Government lawyers say the VA has been making mental health and suicide prevention a top priority.
In court filings, the VA states that for 2008, $3.8b will be spent on mental health.
Also, more than 3,700 new mental health professionals have been hired in the past two-and-a-half years, bringing the total to just under 17,000.
The VA's lawyers have filed papers arguing that the courts have no jurisdiction to tell the VA how to operate, and no business wading into the everyday management of a network that includes 153 medical centres nationwide.
The case will be heard without a jury and is expected to last about two weeks.
Plaintiffs are hoping the judge will order broad changes in the administration of veterans' benefits, or perhaps even appoint an outside administrator to oversee changes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7357909.stm
By Maggie Shiels
BBC News, San Francisco
US veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are suing the government, claiming inadequate care is leading to an increase in suicides.
A San Francisco court will hear the class action lawsuit against the Department of Veteran Affairs.
The veterans say the department has been unable to deal with the growing incidence of depression and suicides.
But government lawyers argue the department has been devoting more resources to mental health.
In court papers the two non-profit groups representing the veterans write "that failure to provide care is manifesting itself in an epidemic of suicides".
"The bottom line is that we're not taking care of the veterans and we need to change that," says lead lawyer, Gordon Erspamer
Raft of complaints
An average of 18 war veterans kill themselves each day - five of them under Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) care - according to a December e-mail between top department officials that has been filed as part of the federal lawsuit.
What I would like to see from the VA is that they actually treat patients with respect - Bob Handy, Veterans United for Truth
The Rand Corporation has recently released a study that shows some 300,000 US troops - about 20% of those deployed - are suffering from depression, or post traumatic stress disorder, after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"We find that the VA has simply not devoted enough resources. They don't have enough psychiatrists," said Mr Erspamer.
In 2006 suicide rates were reported to be the highest in 26 years, at 99 confirmed suicides.
The two organisations involved in the legal action are asking US District Court Judge Samuel Conti, a World War II army veteran, to order the VA to overhaul its system drastically.
"What I would like to see from the VA is that they actually treat patients with respect," says Bob Handy, the head of Veterans United for Truth, one of the bodies suing the agency.
Mr Handy formed the group after hearing a raft of complaints from veterans about their treatment, when he was a member of the Veterans Caucus of the state Democratic Party.
More professionals
Government lawyers say the VA has been making mental health and suicide prevention a top priority.
In court filings, the VA states that for 2008, $3.8b will be spent on mental health.
Also, more than 3,700 new mental health professionals have been hired in the past two-and-a-half years, bringing the total to just under 17,000.
The VA's lawyers have filed papers arguing that the courts have no jurisdiction to tell the VA how to operate, and no business wading into the everyday management of a network that includes 153 medical centres nationwide.
The case will be heard without a jury and is expected to last about two weeks.
Plaintiffs are hoping the judge will order broad changes in the administration of veterans' benefits, or perhaps even appoint an outside administrator to oversee changes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7357909.stm
Labels: depression, lawsuit, PTSD
Greg Land of The Fulton County Daily Report recently wrote an article about an Atlanta Law Firm Getting Into Trouble for Lawsuit “Loans”
In the article, it notes that Lawsuit Financial Inc. of Southfield, Mich., sued Atlanta lawyer Earl A. Davidson and his firm, Giddens, Davidson & Mitchell, in Fulton County Superior Court earlier this month to collect its $25,000 loan plus much more than that in fees and interest. Lawsuit Financial was charging 100% a year in interest.
Davidson, the attorney that was sued for taking the loan, was disbarred earlier this year by the Georgia Supreme Court for misusing funds in his trust account, not paying his dues to the State Bar of Georgia and not complying with continuing legal education requirements.
Lawsuit Financial is one of a number of businesses that finance lawsuits by providing money to personal injury victims who pledge to pay back the funds if they successfully resolve their cases. While these are frequently called loans, the documents fine print shows that the advances are generally regarded by state regulators as investments. As a result, Georgia bank regulations and usury laws don’t apply.
According to Lawsuit Financial's Complaint filed March 4 in Fulton County Superior Court, Davidson assigned portions of the outcomes of 10 suits in Fulton and DeKalb County State Courts to Lawsuit Financial for $25,000.
According to the DeKalb County court records, at least two of the cases were settled several years ago; one could not be located. In Fulton State Court, all of the cases had settled by 2003.
Lawsuit Financial’s representative noted, "Obviously, anytime an attorney is getting advances from a company like mine, they may be having issues," he said. "But he was with a well-regarded firm, [and had a] good reputation, member of the bar in good standing when I checked."
Another company specializing in funding for lawyers and law firms, Advocate Capital, located in Brentwood, Tenn., did not respond to a request for comment. But its Web site says, "If a case is abandoned or lost, you would be required to repay the amount advanced against the case and any outstanding interest."
Most loans to injured plaintiffs average $3,500 or so. Some lawfirms may borrow as much as $250,000 and $1 million, although they can go much higher.
The case is Lawsuit Financial v. Giddens, Davidson & Mitchell, No. 2008CV141417.
The article is found at http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1206528548016
In the article, it notes that Lawsuit Financial Inc. of Southfield, Mich., sued Atlanta lawyer Earl A. Davidson and his firm, Giddens, Davidson & Mitchell, in Fulton County Superior Court earlier this month to collect its $25,000 loan plus much more than that in fees and interest. Lawsuit Financial was charging 100% a year in interest.
Davidson, the attorney that was sued for taking the loan, was disbarred earlier this year by the Georgia Supreme Court for misusing funds in his trust account, not paying his dues to the State Bar of Georgia and not complying with continuing legal education requirements.
Lawsuit Financial is one of a number of businesses that finance lawsuits by providing money to personal injury victims who pledge to pay back the funds if they successfully resolve their cases. While these are frequently called loans, the documents fine print shows that the advances are generally regarded by state regulators as investments. As a result, Georgia bank regulations and usury laws don’t apply.
According to Lawsuit Financial's Complaint filed March 4 in Fulton County Superior Court, Davidson assigned portions of the outcomes of 10 suits in Fulton and DeKalb County State Courts to Lawsuit Financial for $25,000.
According to the DeKalb County court records, at least two of the cases were settled several years ago; one could not be located. In Fulton State Court, all of the cases had settled by 2003.
Lawsuit Financial’s representative noted, "Obviously, anytime an attorney is getting advances from a company like mine, they may be having issues," he said. "But he was with a well-regarded firm, [and had a] good reputation, member of the bar in good standing when I checked."
Another company specializing in funding for lawyers and law firms, Advocate Capital, located in Brentwood, Tenn., did not respond to a request for comment. But its Web site says, "If a case is abandoned or lost, you would be required to repay the amount advanced against the case and any outstanding interest."
Most loans to injured plaintiffs average $3,500 or so. Some lawfirms may borrow as much as $250,000 and $1 million, although they can go much higher.
The case is Lawsuit Financial v. Giddens, Davidson & Mitchell, No. 2008CV141417.
The article is found at http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1206528548016
Labels: attorney, Dekalb County, lawsuit, lawyer, loan
Archives
February 2007 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
