ryankpowell

[ryankpowell]

Varsity Blues: What Bar Discipline Lies Ahead For Lawyer In College Admissions Scandal

The co-chair of Willkie Farr, Gordon Caplan, was named today in an unsealed federal indictment. The result of an FBI investigation dubbed “Operation Varsity Blues,” Caplan, as well as dozens of other well-to-do parents, was involved in what the U.S. Attorney’s Office calls a “nationwide conspiracy that facilitated cheating on college entrance exams and the admission of students to elite universities.”

Caplan, a lawyer who has practiced for 25 years without any published discipline, was charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.

According to the criminal complaint, Caplan paid $75,000 for someone else to take an admissions exam for his daughter. Part of the scheme also involved Caplan taking his daughter to a certain psychiatrist, who would then support a claim that she qualified for extended test time for the ACT. The complaint alleges that between June and December 2018, Caplan worked with middleman William Singer to guarantee that his daughter, who had scored in the low 20’s on an earlier test, would end up with a score of 32.

Caplan suddenly has a lot on his plate, and it is not billable (at least by him).

Of course, the most serious exposure he faces is from the criminal charges. The maximum punishment for conspiracy to commit wire fraud is five years in prison.

There is of course the damage inflicted on his reputation, which may be immeasurable. It would also seem highly unlikely that the Willkie firm would allow itself to be managed by Caplan at least until the criminal case is resolved.

That is not the only thing. The result of the criminal case could have serious ramifications for Caplan’s legal career. A felony conviction in many jurisdictions, including New York where Caplan is admitted, generally warrants disbarment.

Even an acquittal from the criminal charge, or conviction of a lesser offense, would not resolve disciplinary proceedings, which would seem to be inevitable at least based upon the current allegations. A failure to convict beyond a reasonable doubt would not prevent bar counsel from seeking disciplinary sanctions, which only need to be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Furthermore, bar counsel does not need to prove all of the elements of fraud as alleged in the criminal case. The rules of professional conduct generally prohibit attorneys from engaging in any conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. Even if Caplan is not convicted, bar counsel could still go after him for “dishonest” behavior. Disciplinary counsel thus have a much lower burden to carry to prove an ethics violation than the prosecution has in the criminal case.

Some attorneys are surprised to learn that their misconduct outside the practice of law could impact their law license. But bar counsel routinely discipline attorneys for “personal” rather than professional misconduct.

The takeaway is that when you are a lawyer, you are always a lawyer. The rules of ethics always apply. Even when you’re just trying to get your daughter into a better college.

source https://www.ipethicslaw.com/varsity-blues-what-bar-discipline-lies-ahead-for-lawyer-in-college-admissions-scandal/

[ryankpowell]

Loose Lips Sink Attorney Secrets

I was on a long flight recently and had the misfortune of sitting behind two lawyers for several hours.  For almost the entire duration of the flight, the attorneys were involved in a detailed discussion about what was obvious (to me anyway) to be a client matter.  They were discussing an upcoming deposition, strategical issues, and client communications.  And they had legal documents open on their laptops that I could easily see on their screens without any trouble.  They were totally oblivious to their surroundings.

This type of behavior happens on a shockingly regular basis. I have overheard lawyers discussing confidential client matters in bars, restaurants, elevators, and even while riding in the Amtrak “quiet” car.

I recall a few years ago working in an office building that we shared with the U.S. Attorneys Office in Baltimore. Many times I shared the elevator with those attorneys. And I cannot begin to recount how many times I had to listen in on their case-specific discussions while riding up to my office. It was if I were a member of the trial team.

If that wasn’t bad enough, not long ago, former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb was overheard at a Washington D.C. restaurant speaking with a colleague about the Russia investigation, which Cobb was (then) working on. Problem was, their conversation was within earshot of a New York Times reporter, and the “confidential” communication became very public. As The Times reported:

To my astonishment, they were in the midst of a detailed discussion of the Russia investigations being conducted by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and various congressional committees, as well as the strategy of Mr. Trump’s team for responding.

They were in a public place where they could have been overheard by anyone. I just happened to be a reporter, and I did not misrepresent myself, so I figured their conversation was fair game. I ordered another iced tea, pulled out my phone and began typing out notes, hoping that they would assume I was merely responding to emails, tweeting or surfing the internet.

According to The Times report, the two attorneys “discussed presidential privilege and its effect on document production, tensions on the legal team and their colleagues.”

Cobb violated one of the most fundamental ethical duties a lawyer owes to her client: the duty of confidentiality.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 provides that, with limited exceptions that do not apply in the context of any of the examples above, a lawyer “shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent” or “the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation.”  The same duty of confidentiality applies to patent and trademark practitioners and is codified at 37 C.F.R. Section 11.106.

Lawyers just seem to get very comfortable in their surroundings when they have private conversations in public places. I seriously doubt the lawyers whom I overheard on the airplane, or on the elevator, received the “informed consent” from their clients to share their confidential communications with me.

As ABA Rule 1.6(c) explains, “a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.”

At the very least, lawyers must always be aware of their surroundings when discussing confidential client matters. Even cell phone communications, which are easily picked up by third parties, should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.  Moreover, when communicating on a cell phone about a case or client matter, the attorney should advise their client that they are on a cellular phone.  Clients will appreciate knowing that you are thinking about confidentiality.

In short, lawyers need to remember when it is time to “zip it.”  Openly and publicly discussing “information relating to the representation of a client” violates the ethical duty of confidentiality and exposes counsel to professional discipline.

source https://www.ipethicslaw.com/loose-lips-sink-attorney-secrets/

[ryankpowell]

Attorney-Client Sex: A Bad Idea That’s Also Unethical

For decades, regulators and courts have ruled that sex with a client during the course of the professional relationship is unethical. Nonetheless, lawyers continue to flout precedent and are frequently disciplined for engaging in sexual relations with their clients.

Some cases of impermissible attorney-client sex are no brainers–such as the attorney who insists on a “legal services-for-sexual services” fee arrangement. Still, many attorneys believe that as long as the relationship is consensual, what happens between two consenting adults is none of bar counsel’s business.

That kind of thinking would be a mistake. Indeed, courts and bar organizations provide many justifications for regulating the personal aspects of the attorney-client relationship. And now the majority of jurisdictions in the United States include an outright ban on attorney-client intimacy during the course of the professional relationship.

The ABA Model Rule 1.8(j)

In 2002, following growing recognition of a “lawyer’s gone wild” problem, the ABA adopted Model Rule 1.8(j), which imposes a per se ban on attorney-client sex. The ban carves out only sexual relationships that predate the attorney-client relationship – after all, lawyers should be free to represent their spouses.

Today, over 30 states have adopted Rule 1.8(j). Most recently, on November 30, 2018, California replaced its previous regulation on attorney-client sex with a per se ban. California’s prior rule was criticized for being under-enforced because it left too many “outs” for the lawyer–such as requiring bar counsel to demonstrate that the sex resulted in the lawyer doing something else unethical, such as providing incompetent representation. In California’s experience, the prior test was unworkable, leading to the new per se ban.

It’s About Power

The traditional ethics-based rationales behind the regulation is a realization that sex is not about sex–it is about power. Or more precisely, an imbalance of power.

Clients come to their lawyers for help in solving their legal problems.  For the relationship to work, clients must feel free to share with their attorneys their secrets, which could include very personal, intimate details of their lives.  The information is sacred and must be used by the attorney only for the client’s best interests and consistent with the client’s legal needs.

Clients are also often emotionally vulnerable when they come to their lawyers for help.  They may be facing a serious dilemma and their rights in their freedom, or their property, or their own personal or business affairs, may be at stake.  The lawyer’s number one job is to protect their client. 

Moreover, the attorney-client relationship is a fiduciary one.  The client has placed complete trust in the lawyer who is bound to act in the best interest of the trusting party.  A fiduciary relationship exists:

[w]herever confidence on one side results in superiority and influence on the other side; where a special confidence is reposed in one who in equity and good conscience is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing the confidence; where confidence is reposed and accepted, whether the origin is moral, social, domestic, or merely personal; or where a person has knowledge and authority which he is bound to exercise for the benefit of another person.

There should be nothing, therefore, and no one, during the course of the relationship that interferes with or limits the lawyer’s professional judgment and the lawyer must be able to render candid advice to their client.  Moreover, lawyers are prohibited from engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, and engaging in a sexual relationship with a client—with all of the trappings that come along with such a relationship—could raise a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty or fitness to practice.

A sexual or intimate relationship started after the commencement of the legal representation has at least the reasonable possibility of adversely influencing the lawyer’s judgment, creating a personal conflict of interest, and allowing the lawyer to use client confidential information for the lawyer’s personal advantage. 

When sex is thrown into the mix, the lawyer’s judgment could be clouded.  They could be put into the situation of having their ethics questioned—even by their own client, who may feel that they were taken advantage of, were emotionally not able to consent, or gave into impulses either because of their vulnerable state or because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that intimacy was part of the quid pro quo for the continuing loyalty and zealous representation to which they were entitled.  Thus, in addition to potentially harming the lawyers’ reputation and ability to practice, engaging in intimate relations with clients raises a non-trivial risk that the lawyer, whether intentionally or not, well intended or not, will violate one or more of the rules of professional conduct. 

Cases involving attorney-client sex arise across practice areas, although history has proven that attorneys who practice in the areas of criminal law and domestic relations have a greater chance of becoming intimate with their client.

For example, in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Atta, an attorney represented a client in a divorce proceeding.  During the course of the representation, the attorney told his client, whose husband had left her and married another, that the attorney had strong feelings for her and discussed one day marrying her.  Subsequently the client accused her attorney of failing to timely file her divorce papers and asserted the attorney had “taken advantage of her by engaging in a sexual relationship with her while she was in an emotional stage in her life.”            

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin found that by representing his client while simultaneously engaging in a romantic relationship with her, the attorney violated: (1) Rule 1.7(a)(2), due to the lawyer’s material limitation based upon his personal interest; (2) Rule 1.16(a) for failing to withdraw from the representation once the conflict arose; and (3) Rule 1.8(j) by having sexual relations with a client while representing her in the divorce action. Other related ethics rules also were alleged to have been violated arising from the attorney’s denial of having any sexual or inappropriate contact with the client, including during the course of the bar counsel’s disciplinary investigation and court proceedings.

The Exception to the Ban

The comments to Rule 1.8(j) clarify that a sexual relationship that predates the formation of the attorney-client relationship are not prohibited—at least not by Rule 1.8(j).  Thus, one could under Model Rule 1.8(j0 take their lover as their client, but not the other way around—at least not during the existence of the attorney-client relationship.  The comments to ABA Model Rule 1.8 note that this exception for pre-existing relationships could still run afoul of other rules of professional conduct and warns that “before proceeding with the representation in these circumstances [of a pre-existing relationship], the lawyer should consider whether the lawyer’s ability to represent the client will be materially limited by the relationship.

Organization as the Client

Rule 1.8(j)’s comments add further gloss when the “client” is an organization, in which case the rule “prohibits a lawyer for the organization whether inside counsel or outside counsel) from having a sexual relationship with a constituent of the organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with that lawyer concerning the organization’s legal matters. 

Ordinarily, if one attorney is conflicted from a representation, then all lawyers associated in a firm with that lawyer are also conflicted.  The exception, however, is that imputed disqualification does not apply to conduct covered by Rule 1.8(j).  The comments explain that “The prohibition set forth in [Rule 1.8(j)] is personal and is not applied to associated lawyers.

Conclusion

A slight majority of jurisdictions in the United States expressly ban attorney-client sexual relations that commence after the start of the representation.  Other jurisdictions are still considering adding an equivalent to Model Rule 1.8(j) to their existing rules. 

There are many ways that attorney-client sexual relations may interfere with the lawyer’s professional responsibility obligations to their clients. 

Before entering into a “consensual” sexual relationship with a client, a lawyer should be mindful of the rules in their particular jurisdiction. 

Whether or not the lawyer is practicing in a jurisdiction that has adopted some version of Rule 1.8(j), if the lawyer is considering entering into an intimate relationship with a client, they should consider what is in the client’s best legal interests.  The attorney should strongly consider either referring the client to another lawyer or to refrain from entering into an intimate client relationship until the client representation has concluded.

source https://www.ipethicslaw.com/attorney-client-sex-a-bad-idea-thats-also-unethical/

[ryankpowell]

Federal Court DQs Law Firm in Patent Infringement Case, Rejecting Advance Conflict Waiver

A federal court in Alabama yesterday disqualified a law firm from representing a new client in a patent infringement case against a current firm client. In Southern Visions, LLP v. Red Diamond, Inc. (N.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2019), the court held that Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (“Bradley”) was ethically barred from representing one client (Southern Visions) against another client (Red Diamond).  The court found that disqualification was required because the law firm had a present client relationship with Red Diamond and the firm’s withdrawal from representing Red Diamond so that it could then represent Southern Visions was unethical.  

The court rejected the firm’s argument that it was permitted to undertake the representation because its client had agreed in advance to waive any concurrent conflict–at least to the extent the conflicting matter was unrelated to the firm’s representation of that client. The court held that the advance waiver was unenforceable because the waiver was overbroad, failed to provide Red Diamond with adequate information to “inform” its consent, and was revoked by the client before the firm started representing Southern Visions.

Red Diamond Representation

From 2009 until 2018, Bradley represented Red Diamond in “various small matters from time to time.”  The firm’s engagement agreement stated that Bradly was to serve “as legal counsel to provide general representation.”  Over the years, the firm’s legal work for Red Diamond was “light and sporadic.” 

In 2014, for example, Red Diamond engaged Bradley to advise it on employee benefit matters, billing only 26 hours over a four-year period. The firm also represented Red Diamond for advice on tax matters, one of which involved 13 hours of billed time in 2017 and another matter, in 2018, which involved 15 minutes of billings.  In still another matter, the firm represented Red Diamond for various debt collection matters, and some of those debt collection matters remained pending in December 2018 when the patent infringement litigation started.

The Advance Waiver

Red Diamond signed an engagement letter purporting to provide Red Diamond’s advance consent to the firm to undertake future representations of other clients “in any matter that is not substantially related” to the firm’s work for Red Diamond, “even if the interests of such clients in those other matters are directly adverse” to Red Diamond, and “even if such representations would be simultaneous.”

The firm did not advise Red Diamond to seek independent legal counsel about these advance conflict waivers, and Red Diamond did not obtain the advice of independent counsel before signing the waivers.

Firm’s Representation of Southern Vision

In December 2018, Southern Visions approached a firm attorney (Lembke) about representing it in an infringement case against Red Diamond.  A conflict check confirmed that Red Diamond was a current client.

On December 21, 2018, Lembke met with Southern Visions personnel about possible representation in the patent action. 

Red Diamond became aware that the firm was considering representing Southern Visions, and its CEO sent the firm an email on December 21 expressing dismay that Bradley was considering representation of its counterpart in the litigation. Red Diamond’s email expressly revoked its prior advanced waiver of conflicts. 

On December 23, 2018, Bradley began representing Southern Visions in its patent infringement suit against Red Diamond. 

On December 26, 2018, Bradley emailed Red Diamond and withdrew from its current representation, effective immediately.  The email stated that the firm believed it could represent Southern Visions adverse to Red Diamond based upon the advanced conflict waiver.

The Court Rejects Overbroad Advance Waiver

Red Diamond moved to disqualify Bradley from representing Southern Visions in the patent case.  It argued that the law firm violated Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a), which prohibits a lawyer from concurrently representing one client in a matter directly adverse to another client without both clients’ informed consent.  

The court found that as of December 23, 2018, the firm was representing both Southern Visions and Red Diamond.  “Thus, Bradley was representing two clients directly opposed to one another in pending litigation for three days.”

The court rejected the advanced waivers for two reasons:

(1) Red Diamond never gave its consent “after consultation” to the Southern Visions representation, through the advance waivers or otherwise; and (2) even if Red Diamond had consented to Bradley’s representation of Southern Visions, it unequivocally revoked that consent before Bradley began representing Southern Visions.

The court held that “broad, open-ended advance waivers like those Red Diamond signed are ineffective to provide consent to future conflicts.”  The court stated that it would not “lightly conclude” that a client’s open-ended consent was “truly” intended to permit the law firm to later sue that client on behalf of another, absent “clear evidence of such intent.”

The firm argued that Red Diamond should be held to the language of its advanced waiver because it is a sophisticated client of legal services.  The court rejected this argument:  

[W]hatever else sophisticated parties may provide advance consent to . . . they cannot consent in advance—or ever—to their own lawyers suing them on behalf of another client.

The court held that the law firm had a duty, once it knew the specifics of the patent matter, to seek specific consent to represent the adverse party in that proceeding.  Since the firm failed to do so, the general advance waiver language was legally ineffective. 

The court further held that even if the advance waiver language was effective, Red Diamond had revoked its consent on December 21, 2018—two days before the firm began representing Southern Visions.  Once that consent was revoked, there was “absolutely no doubt” that Bradley was prohibited from representing Southern Visions. 

Furthermore, apart from the advance waiver, the court held that a law firm must, pursuant to Rule 1.7(a)(1), “reasonably believe the new representation will not adversely affect is relationship with its existing client.”  The court found that no lawyer reasonably would believe that representing Southern Visions in a patent infringement case against its current client would not “adversely affect” the firm’s relationship with that current client. 

Disqualification as Appropriate Sanction

Finally, the court grappled with the proper standard for determining whether the conflict necessitated disqualification of the law firm.  The court noted that there were two lines of analysis, but that disqualification was appropriate under either standard.

Under the first standard, a firm that violates Rule 1.7(a) by suing a current client is automatically disqualified.  While not adopting this rule, the court stated that the per se line of authority was at least persuasive support for disqualification. 

The second standard is a “rule of reason” whereby courts balance the costs of disqualification against the interest sought to be protected by Rule 1.7.  The court found, applying a rule of reason, that disqualification was warranted in part because the representation had just recently commenced.  In addition, the court faulted the law firm for, in effect, causing the conflict itself by bringing in the adverse party to a litigation over the strong objections of its current client. 

Takeaways

This case illustrates the dangers of relying upon an advance waiver of conflicts that fails to disclose specific matters. Of course, in most representations, a law firm is not aware of what eventual conflicts might arise at the time it is engaged by a client. Nevertheless, if the firm wants to rely upon an advance waiver, at least according to this decision, the plain language of the waiver may not be enough–lawyers must consider if it is necessary to go back to the client, provide specific details about the specific matter, and seek specific consent to that conflict.

Of course, taking those extra steps essentially renders the “advance” waiver nugatory. If a lawyer is required to go back to the client and seek specific consent to waive a conflict notwithstanding an “advance waiver” signed by the client, then it would seem it matters not whether the engagement agreement included the advanced waiver at all.

For law firms that wish to rely upon advance waivers, cases such as this demonstrate that advance waivers are subject to a broad array of legal attacks. Lawyers who believe they should be able to rely upon the language of their client contracts will need to think twice, at least when such language constitutes an advance waiver.

Counsel seeking an enforceable advance waiver may be wise to add as much detail as possible about the specifics of possible future representations. The more open-ended an advance waiver, the more likely it will be invalidated. In addition, lawyers who want their clients to agree to advance waivers should advise the client to seek independent legal advice before they agree to an advance waiver.

While the relative sophistication of the client granting the advance waiver is ordinarily a factor court’s consider, it is by no means a dispositive factor. Indeed, as the court found in this case, even a sophisticated consumer of legal services would not have “reasonably” agreed in advance to be sued by its current counsel. The decision suggests that a lawyer may never be able to get an enforceable advance waiver that extends so far as to allow the lawyer to sue his own client.

As cases such as this illustrate, an advance conflict waiver may not be worth the paper it is written on. At the very least, advance waivers will continue to be subject to very close scrutiny.

source https://www.ipethicslaw.com/federal-court-dqs-law-firm-in-patent-infringement-case-rejecting-advance-conflict-waiver/

[ryankpowell]

All In The Family: The Tricky Ethics Of Corporate Affiliate Conflicts

If you represent a corporation, do you represent all entities in the corporate family? For example, if you represent a parent company, does that mean you also represent the parent’s subsidiaries? Does it matter if a subsidiary is wholly-owned vs. partially owned? How about if you represent a subsidiary–does that mean you also represent its parent or grandparent entity in the corporate tree?

Many corporate entities are parts of families that can include parents, subsidiaries, and other affiliated or related entities.  Some corporate families can be complex and include scores, or even hundreds, of related entities under the same “family tree.”  This arrangement can present challenges for attorneys who are asked to undertake a representation adverse to an entity that the lawyer does not consider to be her client yet is part of the same corporate family as the lawyer’s organizational client.

The question sometimes arises whether a lawyer representing one entity in a corporate family may undertake a concurrent representation directly adverse to a different family member of the lawyer’s corporate client. 

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit disqualified a law firm from representing a client in a patent appeal because the adverse parties in the patent matter were corporate affiliates of one of the firm’s clients.  The Court’s decision in Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v. Generico, LLC, is instructive on how corporate affiliates can morph into unintentional clients that create a conflict of interest for a lawyer who wants to take a position adverse to a different entity within the same corporate family as the lawyer’s client.

The Trademark Representation

For many years, the law firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (Katten) represented Bausch & Lomb in trademark copyright, and advertising matters.  As relevant to this matter, in May 2018, Katten was representing Bausch & Lomb in trademark litigation.

Bausch & Lomb is both an indirect subsidiary of Valeant-CA and an affiliate of Salix.  The Firm’s engagement agreement for the trademark litigation on behalf of Bausch & Lomb was executed by Valeant-CA.  As is common especially when representing large entities, the client had outside counsel guidelines (OCGs), which the engagement agreement incorporated by reference. Valeant-CA’s OCGs stated in relevant part that Katten would not represent any party in matters conflicting with any Valeant entity. 

Patent Proceedings Background

In 2015, Valeant-CA and Salix sued Mylan, alleging that Mylan’s submission of an abbreviated new drug application constituted an act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e). Two Alston & Bird attorneys, Mukerjee and Soderstrom, represented Mylan in the litigation.  Valeant-CA and Salix moved for summary judgment of no invalidity. The district court granted the motion on May 1, 2018.

On May 3, 2018, Mylan notified the district court that Mukerjee and Soderstrom had left Alston & Bird to join Katten.

On May 25, 2018, Valeant-CA filed a motion to disqualify Katten in the district court action.

On June 22, 2018, Mylan appealed the district court’s summary judgment. Valeant-CA then filed a motion to disqualify Katten in the Federal Circuit.  The district court stayed a decision on the motion to disqualify pending before it, and the Federal Circuit stayed briefing on the merits of the appeal pending its decision on the disqualification motion.

In addition to that representation, Mukerjee and Soderstrom, while at Alston & Bird, represented Mylan against Salix in related, parallel proceedings before the PTAB and the district court.  The Salix matter wound up in a related appeal filed in the Federal Circuit, which appeal was pending when Mukerjee and Soderstrom joined Katten.  Thereafter, Salix moved to disqualify Katten from that appeal.  That motion was consolidated for decision with the Valeant-CA disqualification motion.

The Disqualification Motion

Valeant-CA and Salix argued that Katten’s concurrent representation of Bausch & Lomb in trademark infringement litigation presented a conflict of interest that required the disqualification of Katten from representing Mylan in the patent proceedings. 

First, they argued that the engagement agreement that Katten entered into for the Bausch & Lomb trademark litigation created an ongoing client relationship between Katten and Valeant-CA, including all of its subsidiaries.  Second, they argued that all Valeant-CA subsidiaries are so interrelated that the representation of one was, in effect, a representation of them all.

The Federal Circuit court applied the regional law of the Third and Fourth Circuit on the relevant rules of professional conduct.  Pursuant to Rule 1.7(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.  A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client . . .

The court noted that under the comments to Rule 1.7 pertaining to organizational clients that “a lawyer for the organization is not barred from accepting representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter, unless the circumstances are such that the affiliate should also be considered a client of the lawyer . . .”  The court concluded that the “circumstances” were such that affiliates should be considered clients of Katten.

First, the engagement agreement supported the conclusion that there was an ongoing client relationship between Katten and its organizational clients, Valeant-CA and Salix.  The court held:

Because the engagement letter creates an ongoing attorney-client relationship between the law firm, Katten, and its organizational clients, Valeant-CA and Salix, Katten’s representation of Mylan adverse to movants in Valeant II gives rise to a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7. The express terms of the engagement letter and accompanying OC Guidelines indicate that Katten formed such a relationship with the movants when it signed the engagement letter for the Bausch & Lomb trademark litigation. Specifically, the engagement letter states that it “represents the general terms of engagement governing the overall relationship between [Katten] and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.,” i.e. Valeant-CA. Gorman Decl. Ex. A, at 1. This sentence, on its face, demonstrates that Katten’s relationship extends beyond just Bausch & Lomb to at least Valeant-CA.

Moreover, the court found that the OC Guidelines, which were incorporated by reference into the engagement agreement, extended the relationship to include any Valeant entity, including subsidiaries and affiliates. 

The court further found that even if the engagement agreement was ambiguous, there was still a conflict because Valeant-CA, Salix, and Bausch & Lomb demonstrated they “are sufficiently interrelated to give rise to a corporate affiliate conflict.”  The court stated that “shared or dependent control over operational and legal matters between the affiliates is significant to the inquiry” and that, applying that standard, “Valeant-CA, Salix, and Bausch & Lomb all share a high degree of operational commonality and are financially interdependent.”  For example, Valeant-CA and Bausch & Lomb “have a common infrastructure whereby [Valeant-CA] provides administrative and general support services to Bausch & Lomb.  The two entities also share the same in-house legal department.  The court further found that Salix and Valeant-CA also share the same in-house legal department. 

The court conclude that “Katten’s representation of Bausch & Lomb in the trademark litigation presents a concurrent conflict of interest with its representation of Mylan” in the Federal Circuit matters.  Since Katten did not previously informed written consent from both clients, its conflict violated Rule 1.7, warranting disqualification. 

Takeaways

There are (at least) three takeaways from this case. 

First, this case illustrates the importance of conducting conflicts checks when bringing in a lateral attorney. Such checks should include a through vetting of all ongoing representations where the prospective new hire (or their clients they seek to bring into the firm) are adverse to a current firm client. 

Second, lawyers must be mindful of the terms of engagement, particularly where they incorporate outside counsel guidelines.  Such “guidelines” may impose significant additional terms that are not apparent from the face of the engagement agreement.

Third, engagement agreements are an important place for firms to define their clients. An overbroad client entity definition could lead to unintended “clients.” Such additional “clients” can wind up creating conflicts of interest that might not have been avoided if the firm had defined their “client” relationship more narrowly.

source https://www.ipethicslaw.com/all-in-the-family-the-tricky-ethics-of-corporate-affiliate-conflicts/

[ryankpowell]

Colorado Supreme Court Shuts Down Sham “Expert” Patent Law Firm

On February 6, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court shuttered a Colorado business, which once billed itself as an “expert patent law” firm, and its owner, for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. According to the Court’s order (here), Intelligent Patent Services, LLC (IPS) and its non-lawyer owner, Dak Steiert, are enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Colorado. The Colorado court also ordered IPS and Steiert to pay restitution to their victim as well as fines and costs.

We previously reported on this matter in our posts here, here and here.

The Colorado Supreme Court found that IPS operated from 2014 through 2017 as a non-lawyer-owned limited liability company operating under the trade name “Expert Patent Law.” IPS advertised on the internet and promised potential customers

that the company could make their patents profitable: “We’re here to be more than patent attorneys. We’re here to be in your corner, to fight for you, and to make sure your invention gets protected and stays yours!” Respondent lPS pledged to do so by offering a number of services, including patent searches, commercializing inventions, and as relevant here, “drafting highly effective patents, designed to add the maximum value to your business.”

The IPS site touted the high quality of patents produced by the company, explaining, “our patents are drafted entirely by patent attorneys with at least 5 years experience. Unlike any other firm, we do not use paralegals to draft patents. we don’t let rookie attorneys draft your application, then give it to a senior employee for a brief glance.”

Potential customers were advised that they could request “one of our attorneys who used to work for the USPTO examining patents.” The IPS website explained that, “There is no better way to make sure your patent gets granted than to use an attorney with experience on the other side of the equation, evaluating patents for the government! ”

IPS offered fixed-fee pricing for provisional patent applications of between $2,700 and $2,900 and between $900 and $9,700 for non-provisional applications. IPS would receive invention materials directly from its inventor-customers. IPS would then email outside patent attorneys with whom it had contracted to draft documents “relate[d] in some aspect to the preparation and prosecution of patents.”

For example, one of the attorneys would receive $1,800 from IPS for preparing a non-provisional application, although he would be docked $200 in pay if he delivered the patent application more than one week late. IPS and Steiert then would pocket the difference.

According to the attorneys, they were prohibited by Steiert from communicating directly with IPS’s customers. The attorneys would file their work product in the USPTO and would invoice IPS for their services.

The Colorado Bar alleged that IPS, which was owned by nonlawyer Steiert, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law “by advertising, offering, and providing the legal services of patent attorneys to inventors in Colorado.” Under Colorado law, a nonlawyer may not offer or provide legal services to the public.

The court found that IPS, as a nonlawyer owned corporation, was prohibited from “offering or purveying legal services of licensed lawyers.” The court explained that “such corporations may not prepare legal documents for others, regardless of whether those legal documents are drafted by lawyers on staff” and that by “holding itself out as able to perform legal services and by rendering under the corporate aegis those legal services, including the preparation of patent applications, Respondent IPS engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.”

In addition, the court found that IPS’s website held the company out as a patent law firm, “suggesting that the company was, in fact, a law firm owned and controlled by lawyers”–such as by referring to IPS as a patent firm and comparing itself to other law firms. The court concluded that IPS engaged in the unauthorized practice of law through its representations on the IPS website.

The Colorado court rejected IPS’s argument that it was a “mere conduit between customer and lawyer,” finding that:

To the contrary, that conduit role injects great uncertainty into the lawyer-client relationship, including whether the protections of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege apply, and whether advertising can be relied upon not to mislead or overreach.

The court found that in one particular matter, an inventor contracted with IPS to help it with securing a patent for his invention on a portable urinal. After getting paid by the inventor, IPS subcontracted with a patent attorney to draft the application. However, due to delays in the patent attorney’s schedule, the attorney was unable to complete the draft application in the time required by IPS. As a result, Steiert terminated IPS’s relationship with that attorney. Thereafter, according to the opinion, Steiert completed the application himself, including by drafting the patent claims.

The court found that by drafting the patent claims himself, Steiert engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

In a second matter involving Steiert, he was accused of engaging in UPL by signing an attorney’s name to a Request for Continued Examination without the attorney’s knowledge or consent. The court, however, found that the evidence was insufficient to support this claim. Notably, the court stated that it was “unconvinced that the mere act of signing, dating, or filing a document without the knowledge or authorization of a lawyer constitutes the unauthorized practice of law”–although such conduct “might very well constitute criminal impersonation and run afoul of other rules and regulations.”

The court reasoned that the act of signing and filing a “mostly completed document” did not involve “any inherent exercise of professional judgment beyond that which is possessed by a layperson.”

As for the penalty, the Colorado Supreme Court entered an injunction prohibiting IPS from advertising, offering to provide, or providing legal services, whether provided by lawyers or nonlawyers. The court further enjoined Steiert from “preparing or prosecuting patent applications for others; advising others as to their legal rights or duties, including patentability of inventions; and forming or participating in the formation, ownership, direction or control of an entity that advertises, offers, or provides legal services.”

Finally, the court ordered Steiert and IPS to pay one of the inventor-clients restitution in the amount of $5,700, as well as court costs and a fine for each incident of unauthorized practice of law.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s disposition is not the end of Steiert’s legal woes. Prosecutors in Eagle County, Colorado have accused Steiert of multiple felonies, including fraud and criminal impersonation, in connection with IPS’s business. See Colorado v. Dak Brandon Steiert, 2017CR137. Steiert has denied the criminal charges. A jury trial is scheduled to begin later this summer.

source https://www.ipethicslaw.com/colorado-supreme-court-shuts-down-sham-expert-patent-law-firm/

[ryankpowell]

Patent Prosecution Malpractice: Minimizing the Risk of Claims

Malpractice in patent prosecution can be an expensive (very expensive) and time-consuming proposition. Defense costs alone can run well into the seven figures. No patent prosecutor or law firm wants to face that kind of exposure.

On February 21, 2019, I will be presenting a 90-minute CLE webinar hosted by Strafford on best practices for minimizing the risks of being sued for malpractice arising from patent prosecution. Here is the announcement of our program:

This CLE webinar will guide patent counsel on minimizing the risk of malpractice claims in patent prosecution. The panel will examine common pitfalls and problematic behavior as well as how the courts have dealt with recent malpractice claims in the patent context.

Description

Malpractice risks for patent practitioners increase with the rising complexity of patent practice. For many companies, the most valuable assets are its IP. Consequently, protecting and enforcing IP rights becomes more important. With such high stakes, patent counsel are an easy target if something fails during the prosecution process, whether due to missing deadlines or a strategy that does not work.

Malpractice claims may come from the client’s belief that not all the patent claims asserted led to a later invalidity determination or an inadequate conflicts check. Malpractice claims against patent attorneys are growing, and patent attorneys should take steps to minimize the likelihood that they could face such claims.

Listen as our authoritative panel discusses where common pitfalls arise and problematic behavior that may lead to claims. The panel will also discuss how the courts have dealt with recent malpractice claims in the patent context and steps counsel can/should take to minimize the likelihood of malpractice. The panel will also address the issue of damages.

Outline

Key issues in a malpractice case including causation

Problem behavior and common pitfalls

Court treatment

Damages

Best practices to minimize the risk of malpractice claims

Conflicts checks

Intake process

Termination letters

Firm culture

Insurance

Benefits

The panel will review these and other important issues:

What behavior could be problematic and put patent counsel at risk of malpractice claims?

How does patent law representation differ from most other matters in terms of malpractice claims?

What steps can patent counsel take to minimize the risk of malpractice claims?

This should be a great program and I am looking forward to presenting with Amy Richardson of Harris Wiltshire & Grannis.

For information on how to sign up for the webinar click here.

source https://www.ipethicslaw.com/patent-prosecution-malpractice-minimizing-the-risk-of-claims/

[ryankpowell]

This Feed Will Stop Updating on March 1st 2019! Please contact the owner to avoid disruption.

According to our new plans, Inoreader Pro is required to export RSS feeds.

If you are the owner of the feed, please consider upgrading to Pro.

from https://blog.inoreader.com/2019/02/official-announcement-inoreader-new-plans-and-pricing-updates-in-february-2019.html

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/this-feed-will-stop-updating-on-march-1st-2019-please-contact-the-owner-to-avoid-disruption

[ryankpowell]

Moss & Collela law firm hired by family of Theoddeus Gray who was shot and killed by a St. Clair Shores police officer Nov. 4

Moss & Collela law firm hired by family of Theoddeus Gray, who was shot and killed by a St. Clair Shores police officer Nov. 4

FOIA requests have gone unanswered

Media contact: Barbara Fornasiero, EAFocus Communications, 248.260.8466; barbara@eafocus.com

Southfield, Mich. — November 19, 2018 — A. Vince Colella, a civil rights and personal injury attorney with Southfield-based Moss & Colella, P.C., announced that the family of Theoddeus Gray has retained the firm to investigate his death on November 4, 2018.  Gray, 29, was shot and killed by a St. Clair Shores police officer responding to a call regarding a man with a gun.  St. Clair Shores police say Gray was shot after he produced a weapon and shot and killed a department K-9 police officer, Axe.

“The family has serious concerns about the spurious account of events given to the media by the St. Clair Shores Police Department,” Colella said. “A FOIA request has been submitted to both the St. Clair Shores Police Department and the Macomb County Sheriff’s Office; however, neither agency has responded to our requests.”  

Colella continued that his firm will conduct its own independent investigation into the death of Gray, but is eager to receive information from the agencies involved.

“The Gray family finds it curious that police have failed to identify a weapon found on the person of Mr. Gray, and that the results of the autopsy performed on the dog have been kept from the public,” Colella said.  “We look forward to complete disclosure of the facts surrounding Mr. Gray’s tragic death and full transparency on the part of the sheriff’s department.”

About Moss & Colella

Established in 1997, Moss & Colella represents the victims of personal injury, civil rights violations, discrimination, medical malpractice, and wrongful death.  The firm is recognized as a leader in complex tort litigation, including excess and deadly force, jail death, sexual abuse and harassment, auto and truck accidents, motorcycle accidents and other serious injury and wrongful death claims.  To learn more about the firm and its diverse areas of practice, visit www.mosscolella.com.

The post Moss & Collela law firm hired by family of Theoddeus Gray, who was shot and killed by a St. Clair Shores police officer Nov. 4 appeared first on The Moss And Colella Law Firm.

from https://www.mosscolella.com/moss-collela-law-firm-hired-by-family-of-theoddeus-gray-who-was-shot-and-killed-by-a-st-clair-shores-police-officer-nov-4/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/moss-collela-law-firm-hired-by-family-of-theoddeus-gray-who-was-shot-and-killed-by-a-st-clair-shores-police-officer-nov-4

[ryankpowell]

Michigan Uninsured Motorist Insurance in 2018

Michigan Uninsured Motorist Insurance in 2018

Uninsured motorists make up a significant percentage of the driving population in Michigan. Approximately 20% of motorists lack valid insurance for their vehicles, and the number is potentially higher in communities such as Flint and Detroit. Most residents cite the high costs of insurance in the state to be the leading factor that hinders them from acquiring coverage. Nevertheless, the high number of uninsured translates to a higher probability of Michigan drivers getting into an accident with uninsured drivers. Some of the leading Michigan car accident attorneys work at our firm.

Lacking insurance is both illegal and risky for the driver and any passengers. Apart from the hefty fines and the potential for a jail term, the driver misses out from the benefits that come along with insurance covers. For instance, uninsured drivers cannot claim the benefits of Michigan’s no-fault insurance or make legal claims against the at-fault driver for monetary compensations. The driver will not be entitled to have any form of financial support that is directly related to the incidences of the car crash.

However, there is the case of being involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. Due to the high probability in Michigan, this is an issue of high concern. Insured drivers can get into accidents with uninsured drivers that may result in harm to passengers and damage to property. Additionally, there is the case of hit and run where the driver cannot be identified. In such cases, uninsured motorist insurance gives the victims an opportunity to claim compensation for suffering and damages. A leading Detroit car accident attorney at our firm can help you with filing a Michigan car accident insurance claim.

What does Michigan Uninsured Motorist Insurance Cover?

Uninsured Motorist insurance tries to cover the damages that arise from accidents with uninsured motorists. Drivers can acquire this type of insurance from their insurers to cater for compensation in the event of damage, injury or loss from an uninsured driver. Since the coverage is not mandatory for all, drivers have to make a conscious decision to purchase the policy to be part of their insurance. The coverage is either a minimum of $20,000, or $40,000 and varies upwards according to the coverage purchased. Most covers are inexpensive while still offering extensive coverage over some months. Speak with some of the leading Michigan car accident lawyers at our firm today. 

How to make Michigan Uninsured Motorist Claims

The procedure for initiating uninsured motorist claims is straightforward. Once named as a beneficiary of an insurance policy, making a claim is as simple as contacting your insurance provider. Unnamed individuals who can benefit are those who were passengers in the insured vehicle at the time of the accident with an uninsured driver. If the individual can prove their occupancy of the vehicle, they can claim the insured driver’s provider. Driving uninsured in Michigan is not a good idea as Michigan police can check your insurance using your license plate.

However, the claims made are subjected to the specific terms outlined in the insurance policy. Different insurance contracts may have varying obligatory clauses that must be adhered to before the claims are approved. The obligations involve the time limits for making the claim which when ignored can disqualify a claim. Moreover, only no-fault individuals are allowed to make a claim. In special cases where there is shared fault, for a claim to be valid, the driver has to have less than 50% of fault.

Nevertheless, uninsured motorist benefits offer a much-needed reprieve for motorists against the ignorance of other drivers. It is recommended that drivers add insurance to their basic coverage to protect against harm and or damage from uninsured drivers. An elite Michigan car accident attorney at our firm is standing by to help you immediately with any issues you may be having regarded an auto accident. 

The post Michigan Uninsured Motorist Insurance in 2018 appeared first on The Law Firm of Elia & Ponto.

from https://www.eliaandponto.com/michigan-uninsured-motorist-insurance-in-2018/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/michigan-uninsured-motorist-insurance-in-2018

[ryankpowell]

Police use license plates to check insurance in Michigan

Police use license plates to check insurance in Michigan

One of the items the police check when stopping motorists is insurance. Therefore, before getting behind the wheel, motorists are required by law to have valid insurance. Lack of insurance or falsifications of documents is considered to be misdemeanor offenses that may result in one year of jail term or fines according to the type of offense. Lacking proof of insurance results in a fine of $143 while driving an uninsured car attracts a fine of up to $500 together with a $500 responsibility fee that must be paid in two years. Hence, lacking insurance is a rather costly affair. A leading Michigan car accident attorney at Elia & Ponto can help you or a loved one was injured in an auto accident. 

Being a common practice in traffic law enforcement, police officers check for insurance many times each day. To ease the process, Michigan managed to give police the upper hand by providing a tool for easier insurance check without pulling over motorists. Previously, police officers used to ask for proof of insurance after stopping motorists. Such a technique raised the issue of the potential for fake cards or hoax insurance companies. As from September of 2015, the state police together with other law enforcement agencies in Michigan have been using license plates to check insurance on the go. The police officers directly run a car’s license plate through their onboard computer to verify insurance records before approaching the motorists. We understand that you are going through a tough time, an experienced Michigan car accident lawyer at our firm is always standing by to help you.

To support the system, insurance companies are also mandated to send updated information on the 1st and 15th of every month to the office of the Secretary of State. The information details the names of the insured and the duration of the coverage. Once updated, it is available for all agencies through the Law Enforcement Information Network. When a license plate is run through the system, the police officer will be able to determine whether or not a driver is insured instantly. A highly trained Michigan car accident lawyer at our firm is standing by to help you now.

The system offers the advantages of being more accurate and reducing the number of stops made by police officers. Police officers have an opportunity to assess the validity of insurance covers by looking up the license plates rather than asking for physical proof. In this way, police officers are better placed to crack down on the use of fake insurance cards. The success of the system in coping fake cards is seen in how the number of citations offered to uninsured drivers rose from 8,664 in September 2013 to 10,009 in 2014. A car accident lawyer in Michigan at Elia & Ponto can be a very valuable resource to anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident.

One of the limitations of the system is that it does not display results for motorcycles or commercial vehicles. Officers will be required to confirm the availability of insurance in such cases manually. Moreover, since information is only updated every two weeks, the information on the system is not real time. The officer has to verify an indication of lack of insurance with the physical proof provided by the driver before a ticket is given. Nevertheless, it has still helped ease the regulation of insurance coverage. Understanding the role of the police officer in a Michigan auto accident is critical.

While the system only targets to give officers more flexibility and faster access to information, drivers are still required to carry proof of insurance cover within their cars. It also does not mean that drivers will constantly be targeted for insurance violations. Lack of insurance is regarded as a secondary violation and is not a sufficient cause to pull over a driver. Moreover, pulling a driver over for lacking insurance will render any other identified ongoing criminal activity to be invalid since the initial cause of pulling over was invalid.

Elia & Ponto Law Firm

The Elia & Ponto law firm is one of the leading Michigan car accident law firms based in metro Detroit. We have a dedicated team of paralegals and experienced Detroit car accident attorneys standing by to help you right away. 

The post Police use license plates to check insurance in Michigan appeared first on The Law Firm of Elia & Ponto.

from https://www.eliaandponto.com/police-use-license-plates-to-check-insurance-in-michigan/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/police-use-license-plates-to-check-insurance-in-michigan

[ryankpowell]

9 Critical Things You Should Know after a Michigan Car Accident

9 Critical Things You Should Know after a Michigan Car Accident

The first step in winning a personal injury lawsuit is to take the appropriate precautions and actions.

The Elia & Ponto Law Firm is one of the leading auto accident law firms to go to if you were injured in an auto accident in Michigan. A Michigan car accident lawyer at our firm is always ready to help you. Even if your vehicle was damaged in a Michigan parking lot accident, we can show you how to file a Michigan parking lot accident claim.

Over the years our Michigan car accident attorneys have grown to understand every aspect of how cases are fought and won. We have it down to a science. Even if you or a loved one was injured in a truck accident, a Michigan truck accident lawyer at our firm can still help you. We have taken the time to prepare a list of 9 critical things that you should know if you sustained an injury in an auto accident.

9 Critical Things You Should Know After A Michigan Car Accident

Victims of car accidents in Michigan must show impairment, not pain.

In Michigan, you will only have ONE YEAR to apply for No-Fault benefits.

In Michigan, you will only three years to file a Michigan pain and suffering lawsuit.

Be sure to have all your injuries documented on your application for No-Fault benefits.

Making sure you seek medical attention for your injuries is critical.

Be sure to tell the truth and leave nothing hidden.

Expect surveillance after an auto accident.

If you misrepresent, you lose your “right to sue.”

Operating an uninsured vehicle in Michigan may cost your “right to sue.”

Car accident victims in Michigan must show impairment

When it comes to car or truck accident victims, the Michigan Law can be considered quite unfair. This law insists that the victims of auto accidents should present a “serious impairment of body function“, it wants to see how your life now different was affected by the accident. So if all you’ve got is just the pain with nothing real physical to show for it, then your personal injury lawsuit may be difficult to win.

Wondering how exactly victims and the Michigan auto accident lawyers show “impairment”?

The best way to win your lawsuit is to prove how the auto accident left you impaired or led to a “lifestyle impact.” If you can, show as many ways where your usual daily life has been affected and changed. The more the ways, the easier it is to convince the court how the accident truly affected your life.

Some of the things the court will take a look at are:

✓ Type (severity) and duration of medical treatment you received.

✓ Changes induced by the car accident on how you perform hobbies, recreational or sports activities,  and other interests.

✓ The time you got off work.

In Michigan, You will only have One Year to apply for No-Fault benefits.

There are a number of important benefits that your Michigan No-Fault insurance is ready to cover. These benefits are known as personal injury protection (PIP), and these are the typical Michigan accident forms of compensation which include:

Wage loss

Medical expenses

Household replacement services

Medical mileage

Attendant care or Nursing services

This type of auto accident case is commonly referred to as first-party auto accident cases. An application for benefits is to be filed with your auto insurance company before you can get access to No-Fault benefits. An important thing to know is that all Michigan auto accident victims have just a year to file for these benefits. One year is one year no matter the victim’s age or competency.

And also, the No-Fault benefits received must be paid for within one year which starts counting from the date the service was received. If after one year, your benefits are yet to be paid for by your insurance company, and an application for No-Fault benefits is not filed for you, then without exceptions, the amount you owe is deemed to be time-barred. In other words, those benefits are now irrecoverable because it’s too late to file a lawsuit.

In Michigan, You will only have three years to file a pain and suffering lawsuit.

While the Michigan law offers a three year period for auto accident victims that sustained injuries to file pain and suffering lawsuit against a careless driver, this is rarely ever the case. The injured victims actually have less time than they think to file a lawsuit. The actual reason for this is that many of these victims have two other forms of insurance coverage that is known by most as Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UM/UIM). These types of coverage schemes sometimes have notice provisions that are less than the time frame in the first-party No-Fault cases. They also offer notice provisions that are less than the three-year period you have to file a pain and suffering lawsuit.

After a car crash, the first thing you should do is to check your auto insurance company policy as soon as you can and of course to notify the company of the car crash. Consult with an auto accident lawyer too, especially if you have any questions about your insurance policy’s contract provisions on filing requirements or notice periods.

Be Sure to Document all personal injuries on your application for No-Fault benefits.

Ross v. Allstate, a 2004 case serves as a perfect example of just how much auto accident victims stands to lose when they do not report their injuries specifically to their insurance company. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in the case was that if an auto accident victim suffering from injuries did not give specific notice of every injury to his No-Fault insurance company, then the person would have forfeited his right of having his No-Fault insurer cover his medical bills. That is if this notice was not given within a year.

Non-documentation of injuries is a common issue among victims of closed-head injuries or mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). Because these symptoms are not documented early enough in the victim’s medical records, or they are not reported to doctors soon enough. It is really easy to be refused or denied payment for medical services by the insurance company.

Most times, these symptoms are not reported early to doctors because the patient is quick to wave them off as minor problems or side effects of a medication if they are currently under any. Thus when these symptoms like headaches, nausea, dizziness, light-headedness, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), blurry vision, short-term memory loss, problems with concentration or emotional changes become more severe and painful to dismiss especially when the victim is no longer under pain medications for physical injuries. These symptoms are also less likely to be rejected when the victim returns to work that will highlight concentration and memory problems of the person. By then, it would have been too late to make your insurance company pay for medical treatment. A Detroit car accident lawyer can help you understand your Michigan car accident compensation benefits as well as the types of Michigan car accidents.

Do not hide any pain or symptom from your doctor, regardless of how minor they seem and hiring a lawyer who understands all the intricacies of closed-head injury cases will go a long way to help you, as they’re always stressing the fact that no injury is too minor to report. Your application for benefits immediately should reflect all of your injuries to your insurance company.

Getting medical care for your injuries is critical.

Do not underestimate the potential that any injury has to lead to something much worse. You should not ignore any minor injury or pain which appear from an auto accident, no matter how insignificant. For instance, your minor backache could actually be a ruptured spinal disk and extruded disk material that can ultimately cause paralysis. So every pain needs to be checked out by the doctor, especially if you hit your head or you lost consciousness. Run a diagnostic test for your brain to ensure there’s no internal bleeding. All pains should be documented immediately, and that includes your neck pain and back pain.

If perhaps you or a loved one was involved in an auto accident and suffered some injuries, please ensure you seek medical care and treatment immediately. Remember, your health is essential, do not play with it.

Lastly, do not miss a doctor appointment, you don’t have any reason to. Missing appointments will be interpreted by your doctor or the jury that you don’t care or that you are pretending to be hurt.

Tell the truth, do not hide information.

Hiding information and lying are two things that can damage the value of an auto accident victim’s injury case in Michigan. Defense lawyers are always so quick to use these against you in court and thus weakening your injuries’ value. For this very reason, do not hide any information from your doctor and lawyer, always tell the truth.

According to auto accident lawyers, the two biggest mistakes auto accident victims keep making is hiding information and lying and this destroy your credibility and likeability, important issues in trial advocacy. Jurors need to believe in you before they can help you and besides that, if they like you and consider you credible, they’ll give you more money.

When being attended to by a doctor, give accurate and precise medical history. Do not attempt to cover up a previous injury. Why? As regards your personal injury lawsuit, your medical and work records will expose your medical history. And if they don’t turn up in your records, private investigators are sure to come up with something. This is the age of computers, social security numbers and of course, private investigators. Another thing you shouldn’t keep hidden is an old or minor injury that happened in the past at the same area injured by a new accident. This also helps your doctor to be able to distinguish an old auto accident injury from a new one.

To prevent defense lawyers from attacking you with “information hiding” or “exaggeration of injuries,” do not deny anything that you can remember. Admitting to things you can remember will hinder the defense lawyer from using inadmissible information as admissible evidence. This should be done especially when you’ve been asked by a doctor or in a lawsuit interrogatory. Your Michigan auto accident lawyer is ready to help you but to do that, he/she needs to know about your history.

Expect surveillance after a Michigan Car Accident

One thing to know about Michigan’s significant auto accident cases is that the defense has surveillance on you. The problem comes up when the victim carries out a task he has never really done, for instance, taking out the garbage and the reason for doing it was because there was no one around. And then in a deposition, if the auto accident victim forgets to mention it, the victim might end up being accused of lying or exaggeration of pain by the defense lawyer even though the lawyer knows this isn’t the case.

A mistake like this can lead to one’s undoing in the court. It doesn’t matter if you did it just once, the defense lawyer can spin the story to the jury and make it appear as if it’s an everyday thing, especially if they have a video.

If there’s any likelihood or inkling of truth to any question asked, admit it. Ethical auto accident lawyers advise that it’s better to admit it. You can then explain the reason why you did it. Maybe you were checking out if you could do a simple task like that or you were on strong pain medication. Whatsoever the case, the full truth is your best answer.

If you misrepresent, you lose your “right to sue.”

Two optional coverage types that offer other important protection to the victims are Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UM and UIM). An insurer has the right to cancel the insurance policy of the insured person who has made a misrepresentation that is considered material.

This act lets the insurance company off the hook as they are no longer duty-bound to pay benefits if there was a misrepresentation about where an automobile is mainly garaged for cheaper rates, or perhaps if the insured do not mention of other person’s who use the vehicle frequently.

In Michigan, telling a half-truth or lying can cost you a fair and full measure of compensation for your injuries.

A “right to use” an uninsured vehicle may cost your “right to sue.”

The Michigan Supreme Court in 2004, issued Twichel v. MIC General Insurance Corp. This left thousands of injured Michigan residents without the right for an auto accident injury lawsuit.

The Court’s precedent was that for a “constructive” owner, it didn’t really need matter how many times the person drove the uninsured vehicle. All that was needed was the existence of the “right to use” the vehicle for a 30-day period not considering how many times the injured constructive owner had actually driven the vehicle.

According to auto accident attorneys, a constructive owner is also an uninsured owner of the vehicle, and as such, Michigan law offers no provision for the person to receive a No-Fault insurance benefit, and no right to sue the driver at fault for a pain and suffering lawsuit.

This very Michigan law is strict and unrewarding because even if your injury is paralysis for life and was caused by a DUI driver, you still won’t be allowed to sue because you have a “right to use.”

Communication with your Michigan car accident lawyer is essential

Your Michigan car accident attorney should be aware of any doctor visits or medical examination required by your insurance company.

Do not give ANY form of statement without informing your lawyer first, not even your insurance company. Defense lawyers use these examinations under oath (EUOs) to take advantage of a victim with no lawyer. Questions having no relationship to the issue at hand are mostly asked, and your answers can be used against you in a lawsuit because EUOs are recorded and are under oath. The only benefit and true cause if these interviews is the exposure they give.

If something bothers you, it’s best you tell your doctor and lawyer, especially if it’s a past DUI, bankruptcy or an old injury. This information is inadmissible information, but they can be used as admissible evidence if you try to hide them or you like about them if asked.

Your auto accident attorney should be experienced and ethical, they actually desire that you receive full benefits and get a fair deal. If you want us to be of good help, you can start by telling us about your worries.

Get the help you need from us now

To be on the safe side, contact an Elia & Ponto experienced Michigan auto accident attorney at 855-753-7529, live chat with us, or fill out our contact forms to have an attorney get back with you as soon as possible.

The post 9 Critical Things You Should Know after a Michigan Car Accident appeared first on The Law Firm of Elia & Ponto.

from https://www.eliaandponto.com/9-critical-things-you-should-know-after-a-michigan-car-accident/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/9-critical-things-you-should-know-after-a-michigan-car-accident

[ryankpowell]

Five Places Hiding Asbestos in 2018

Five Places Hiding Asbestos in 2018

Diseases resulting from exposure to materials containing asbestos continue to cause thousands of deaths on an annual basis. These diseases typically consist of asbestosis cancers such as lung cancer or mesothelioma. Part of the fight against these diseases includes seeking to eliminate the root cause of the problem by preventing asbestos exposure, banning the use of asbestos, and enforcing current regulations regarding the use of asbestos. We are the leading mesothelioma lawyers in Michigan.

Frequently, people assume that the government has already banned asbestos. This assumption leads them to believe that the possibility of asbestos exposure is not something with which they should be concerned. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While the US Environmental Protection Agency did present a ban of asbestos in 1989, the proposition was eventually overturned at the judicial level.

While asbestos use is not currently banned, it is regulated. Certain products such as spray-on insulation, flooring felt, and commercial paper are not permitted to be made up of asbestos-containing materials. However, a wide range of products are legally allowed to contain asbestos – the majority of which are materials for purposes related to building construction. This means that many of the spaces in which people spend time contain substances that could be potentially harmful. The following types of buildings have been noted to be potential hiding places of asbestos-containing materials. We can help you find a Maryland mesothelioma lawyer, contact us today.

Churches

Materials containing asbestos tend to be used for purposes such as soundproofing or fire prevention. Because of this, churches have historically used asbestos-containing materials in the construction of their buildings. Panels containing asbestos were placed in walls and ceilings to reduce reverberation levels. Asbestos was also used for insulation purposes pipes and boilers. Church maintenance workers tend to be at the highest risk of asbestos exposure. However anyone, who works in the building or attends church there may be at risk of exposure. If you or a loved one is searching for a Florida mesothelioma lawyer we can help you.

Schools

Materials containing asbestos are often found in pipe and boiler insulation, HVAC ductwork, vinyl flooring, and ceiling tiles. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) was enacted in response to major issues with a high presence of asbestos-containing materials in schools. Under this act, schools are required to undergo an inspection of the entire building with the goal of locating any and all asbestos-containing materials. They are also expected to create plans for managing any asbestos found and to take any necessary measures for preventing and reducing exposure to asbestos. While AHERA has greatly reduced the amount of asbestos in school buildings, unfortunately, there are still buildings containing asbestos-based materials.

Public buildings

Many public buildings built before 1980 contain asbestos-based construction materials. These include structures such as theaters, restaurants, police stations, government buildings, pharmacies, grocery stores, shopping malls, hair salons, and airports. While asbestos use in public buildings has dramatically decreased since this time, newly constructed buildings sometimes contain asbestos-based materials such as vinyl tiles, cement piping, and roofing materials. A lung cancer lawyer is very valuable to anyone diagnosed with stage 4 mesothelioma.

Hospitals

Because asbestos has fireproofing qualities, it was often used in the construction of hospitals or to protect medical devices from overheating. Because of this hospital workers may be at risk for asbestos exposure. This is particularly true for maintenance and construction workers.

Your Own Home

While it is a common assumption that asbestos is only found in older homes, this is just not true. Asbestos-containing materials can be found in new homes as well. A Michigan asbestos lawyer can help you understand Michigan mesothelioma statute of limitations. In older homes, asbestos is typically found in the following places:

Attic insulation

Putties and materials used for caulking

Electrical panels

Plaster

Plumbing fixtures

Insulation for boilers or fireplaces

Asbestos Popcorn Ceilings

Vinyl floor tiles

Drywall and Joint compound tape

In new homes asbestos may be found in:

Cement shingles

Pipeline wrap and millboard

Sheets and Pipes

Flooring and roofing materials

It is essential that if you suspect your home has asbestos-containing materials that you do not make any attempt to remove the asbestos yourself. Asbestos should never be disturbed, as that is what leads to exposure and the issues that come along with exposure. If you suspect that your home contains asbestos, you should contact an expert regarding safe identification and potential removal of the materials.

Conclusion

Exposure to asbestos can lead to long-term adverse health effects, including potentially fatal diseases. If you have been exposed to asbestos and you have developed a condition such as mesothelioma or asbestosis, as a result, contact one of our Michigan mesothelioma lawyers today. We can help you to seek the compensation you deserve. Even if you or a loved one is searching for a New York mesothelioma lawyer, we can also assist you.

The post Five Places Hiding Asbestos in 2018 appeared first on Goldberg, Persky & White P.C..

from https://www.gpwlaw-mi.com/five-places-hiding-asbestos-in-2018/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/five-places-hiding-asbestos-in-2018

[ryankpowell]

The Role of The Police Officer in an Auto Accident Case in Michigan

The Role of The Police Officer in an Auto Accident Case

    After an auto accident, one of the first responses is to call for the police. When they respond to the call, they will get to the scene of the accident and ensure that everyone around is safe and help in managing traffic movement, ensure automobiles that need removal are towed away and document the accident. These are the main roles of the police at the accident scene. However, they can still be instrumental later on in your auto accident case. A Car accident lawyer in Michigan at our firm can help you if you or a loved one was injured in an auto accident. Here are some of the ways that the police lend a hand in an auto accident case:

Police report

As mentioned above, the policeman on duty at the scene of the accident is tasked with coming up with an accident report. To do this, the police officer has to interview the concerned parties, that is the drivers or pedestrians, and any witnesses who saw the happenings. They ask them questions which help come up with an error-free account of what took place. In some cases, the police report may have a statement on who was behind the accident according to the officer’s professional deduction. Nevertheless, many police reports do not include the report of who was at fault.

It is crucial to note that in spite of the police report indicating who was at fault over the accident, this does not imply that the driver will be liable for all the damages in the event of a lawsuit later on.

In Michigan, when the plaintiff goes to court in a bid to recover third-party benefits, one has to prove comparative fault. In this case, a police report will help in building a solid case. Our auto accident lawyers at Elia & Ponto will help you in using a police report to help secure a fair settlement after an auto accident in Michigan.

Traffic citations

After a police officer launches into an official investigation of the auto accident, he or she may hand out traffic citations. A traffic citation is a notice that is handed out by an officer of the law and that charges a driver with defying a traffic law. The traffic citation may include the course of action such as a penalty like deduction of points or a fine on the driver. The driver may also be arraigned in traffic court. Running a red light or taking a wrong turn before an accident will earn a driver a traffic citation.

When a traffic citation is issued after an investigation, it doesn’t necessarily prove legally the person responsible for the auto accident in the event of a lawsuit. However, it will be used as evidence to show that the driver is negligent.

Witness

In some cases, the police officer who responded may be asked to show up in court as one of the witnesses in the case. In a courtroom, the police officer gives a deeper account of the contents of the police report by elaborating on them and also explains all the conditions that led to the accident and all who were involved.

In addition to police officers playing a part in an auto accident case, their reports also lend a hand in the determination of the settlement amount with your insurance provider. After you report to your insurance provider of an accident, they immediately launch an investigation into the claim that you file. One of the steps they take is to ask for a copy of the report by the police. They may ask you to produce a report or they may source for it from the police station.

In spite of the police report indicating who was at fault, insurance adjusters will still conduct their own investigation. This is because police reports are not entirely accurate. In some rare occurrences, the police might make mistakes. And in their investigation, the insurance adjuster may stumble upon evidence that was missed by the officer. Nonetheless, the police report remains to be a very persuasive document in determining fault.

In the event that your case ends in court because the adjuster disagreed with the assessment of the accident by the police officer, chances are that the jury will go along with the police report. And owing to the persuasiveness of police reports, if you disagree with the police officer’s assessment of the accident, call for a Michigan car accident attorney from Elia & Ponto to help you to counter.

In conclusion, if you are suing for pain and suffering benefits, a police report will go a long way in ensuring you secure the benefits. If you or a loved one was in an auto accident in Michigan, a Michigan auto accident lawyer at Elia & Ponto will help you in filing a Michigan car accident insurance claim and ensure you receive a fair settlement.

The post The Role of The Police Officer in an Auto Accident Case in Michigan appeared first on The Law Firm of Elia & Ponto.

from https://www.eliaandponto.com/the-role-of-the-police-officer-in-an-auto-accident-case-in-michigan/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/the-role-of-the-police-officer-in-an-auto-accident-case-in-michigan

[ryankpowell]

No-fault Car Insurance in Michigan

No-fault Car Insurance in Michigan

No-fault car insurance in Michigan is tricky to understand, but a Michigan auto accident lawyer can help you understand every aspect. Among all no-fault states, Michigan is considered to have one of the best no-fault auto insurance coverage schemes available. Its main working policy is it provides a wide range of compensation options for all parties involved in an accident regardless of the one who caused it. Additionally, it is the victim’s insurer who is obligated to make the compensations rather than the third party insures. However, what puts Michigan’s policy ahead is its main selling point of providing unlimited insurance of medical expenses in addition to multiple other accident-related insurance covers. However, the additional provisions also make it one of the most complicated and costly. No-fault Insurance in Michigan is tricky to understand, a Michigan car accident lawyer at Elia & Ponto can help you file a car accident claim. Therefore, what does Michigan’s no-fault policy entail? and how does it affect drivers in the state?

What Claims can I file with No-fault Car Insurance in Michigan?

While recovering, accident victims are entitled to a wide range of possible insurance claims. One of these claims is the unlimited medical insurance which not only covers hospital bills but also includes medical mileage whenever victims travel long distances for medical services. Victims are also entitled to wage loss which refers to compensation for lost earnings during the recovery process. Michigan Replacement services compensation is also given to cater for expenses that arise from assistance with childcare, house chores, or assistive nursing care. Moreover, modification claims may also be made to aid the victim in making house and vehicle adjustments if the accident resulted in disabling injury. Even if you or a loved one was injured in a truck accident, a Michigan truck accident lawyer at our firm can help you file a Detroit car accident claim. 

Does No-fault Car Insurance in Michigan cover my Property and Car?

Apart from coverage of physical injury, no-fault car insurance in Michigan also provides for damages to property and the vehicle. Compensation for different types of physical damage is however limited to the collision coverage enforced and the person in fault. For instance, under the broad collision coverage, if not at fault, an individual is entitled to get compensation for vehicle repair without a deductible which is payable if they are at fault. The standard collision package necessitates a deductible in the event of an accident but is refundable from the at-fault driver while limited collision cover does not provide cover for at fault accident damages. The difference between the three is the cost of the premium. Lastly, the insurance provides limited property damage insurance for cases where the driver causes damage to someone else’s car. It is only paid out when the other party has no coverage for collisions or when they are charged a deductible. However, this coverage is limited to $1000, and the insurer will not be liable for any higher charges. Even if your vehicle was hit in a Michigan parked car accident, a Michigan car accident lawyer at our firm can help you understand what happens if you are involved in an uninsured auto accident in Michigan. 

What are the Michigan No-fault Car Insurance Claim Time Limits?

While the benefits of no-fault insurance in Michigan are enviable, it is necessary that drivers be aware of the strict timelines that guide the claims. The insurance policy demands that all no-fault insurance claims and reimbursable expense claims should be filed in a period not exceed one year from the accident date. Any pain and suffering claims are limited to within three years of the accident date. Once these timelines have passed, any benefits will be lost. Drivers must also have detailed knowledge of how to avoid rejection due to masking and be cautious of the fine print when signing documents. In this regards, it is recommended that drivers have their policy documents looked up by an auto insurer before signing the commitment. Additionally, drivers should also be wary of the statements given to accident claims adjusters. It is preferable to have an auto attorney present for guidance on the best legal alternatives to take. Speaking with a Detroit car accident lawyer at our firm can prove to be very valuable to anyone injured in a car accident in Michigan. Our attorneys will personally help you understand No-fault car insurance in Michigan for 2018 updates and so forth.

 The post No-fault Car Insurance in Michigan appeared first on The Law Firm of Elia & Ponto.

from https://www.eliaandponto.com/no-fault-car-insurance-in-michigan/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/no-fault-car-insurance-in-michigan

[ryankpowell]

The Most Essential Auto Accident claims In Michigan

The Most Essential Auto Accident claims In Michigan

Many drivers in the State of Michigan are unaware of car insurance and how it works. There are many claims that one can file if they are involved in an accident. The Michigan car accident lawyers at Elia & Ponto will help you file a Michigan car accident insurance claim and get compensation covers for your injuries and damages. They will assist you to get the justice that you deserve and ensure that drivers with insurance abide by the laws and are protected in cases of an accident. Thus, Elia & Ponto are your first choice auto accident lawyers in Michigan who will smoothly represent you during such periods. Even if you are at-fault in a Michigan auto accident, a consultation by one of our attorneys may still shed light on options you may not have known about. The following are various claims that you can file when involved in an auto accident in Michigan:

Third Party Claim

This is a claim for injuries that one suffers after an accident. It is often difficult to win a third party claim, especially if one fails to pass the threshold of injury. In addition, if one goes through with this claim, then he or she will receive reimbursement for scarring, disfigurement and suffering and pain. In this regard, an Elia & Ponto Michigan car accident lawyer will assist in filing this claim. Further, the lawyers will offer you the best legal help and ensure that all injuries including the death of a loved one during a car accident are compensated.

No-Fault Insurance Claim

This is one of the claims that Elia & Ponto a Detroit car accident attorney can help you file. In this claim, you as a car accident victim will reclaim all the expenses resulting from the accidents. The No-fault insurance claim covers expenses such as medical, transportation and any necessary modifications made in your house as a result of injuries suffered.

Property Damage Claim

This claim allows you to be reimbursed for any damage that is caused to your car and any property damaged during the accident. For such a claim, a Michigan car accident lawyer at Elia & Ponto will help you in determining additional coverage, which is usually advised for collision. This is because the type of coverage determines the recovery. Thus, as Michigan auto accident lawyers, we can file this claim for you.

Uninsured Motor vehicle Claim

This is a claim, which is filed when you or your family member is injured as a result of the carelessness of another driver who does not have an insurance cover. Many people fail to realize that this claim can only be filed when the said policy is added to your insurance plan. It is essential to have a sit down with your insurance agents and ensure that your insurance covers this policy. However, if you need to file this claim, you are entitled to seek the best services from Michigan auto accident lawyers at Elia & Ponto to help you assess whether you are eligible for this claim and how to go about it.

Under-insured Motor Vehicle Claim

This claim is filed when a careless driver who caused the accident does not have sufficient insurance to cover your injuries or damages. For instance, if the person who caused the accident has an insurance cover that does not have a policy that will cover your damages. This allows you to file your an insurance policy if you already had the under-insured policy in your insurance coverage. Nonetheless, if you need professional help about this case, Elia & Ponto auto accident lawyers are best in Michigan who can help you make this claim.

Conclusion

By allowing us to handle your auto accident claims, you will be guaranteed of efficient and effective legal representation that will enhance your peace of mind. Elia & Ponto auto accident lawyers are equipped with the sufficient skills and expertise to file your claims and ensure that your insurance policy covers the damages caused to your property and yourself.

The post The Most Essential Auto Accident claims In Michigan appeared first on The Law Firm of Elia & Ponto.

from https://www.eliaandponto.com/the-most-essential-auto-accident-claims-in-michigan/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/the-most-essential-auto-accident-claims-in-michigan

[ryankpowell]

Why You Should Avoid Driving an Uninsured Car in Michigan

Why You Should Avoid Driving an Uninsured Car in Michigan

With the state of Michigan’s economic outlook becoming bleaker, buying auto insurance is becoming a pricey matter. This drives some people to consider driving on the roads with uninsured cars. However, this couldn’t be more wrong. The thing is, the amount of money that you have to pay in order to buy No-Fault insurance is minuscule compared to the amount of money you’ll be required to pay from your pocket just because you didn’t have auto insurance in the event of an accident. If you or a loved one was in an auto accident with an uninsured driver, a Michigan auto accident lawyer will guide you on how to recover your No-Fault benefits and other benefits that may arise. Here is why you shouldn’t be driving an uninsured car in Michigan:

Pain and suffering benefits

If you sustain serious injuries from an auto accident in Michigan but you were in an uninsured car, you will not be able to sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering, even if they were entirely at-fault and you played no part in it. This is because the Michigan No-Fault law does not allow for uninsured drivers to assess pain and suffering benefits. A Detroit car accident lawyer at our firm can help you file a Michigan car accident claim and uncover what type of Michigan auto accident you were injured in to better assist you with your pain and suffering.

Paying your medical bills

For insured drivers, they have the comfort of having their medical bills paid by their auto insurance provider. This is especially helpful when they sustain serious injuries which could have cost them a fortune. Also, this benefit is payable for life. On the other hand, uninsured drivers have to pay for their own medical bills on any accident-related bills because they are not eligible for Michigan No-Fault benefits.

Lost wages

If you cease to work because of serious injuries you sustained in an auto accident, and the car you were driving was not insured, then you will not have your lost wages reimbursed to you. This is because you will not be eligible for wage loss benefits. In order to receive these benefits under the No-Fault Law, you must be carrying personal protection insurance. This covers you when you lose wages following the accident. However, if you were uninsured, you lose the right to recover lost wages. A Michigan car accident lawyer can help you recover lost wages and understand your Michigan auto accident compensation.

Vehicle damage

If you are involved in an accident and you were driving an uninsured car and it sustained serious damages, you will be fully responsible for all the required repairs. In the past, uninsured drivers who were not at-fault were able to recover the cost of repairing their car under the Mini Tort law up to $1000. However, this ceased to be available to uninsured drivers from October 1, 2012.

You may have to pay for pain and suffering damages

If you caused an auto accident with your uninsured car and you were at fault, and the accident caused another person, say, driver-pedestrian or passenger, to sustain a ‘serious impairment of a body function,’ you can be taken to court and be compelled to cater for their pain and suffering cost as the jury or judge determines. In Michigan, having a residual liability insurance exempts you from having to pay for someone’s pain and suffering from your own pocket. Since an uninsured driver does not have this coverage, then they have to pay for all the pain and suffering damages that resulted from the car accident that they caused. Even if you were injured in a truck accident in Michigan, we have a Michigan truck accident lawyer standing by to help you immediately.

You may be liable for a victim’s lost wages and medical bills

If you cause an accident when uninsured with another vehicle, the auto insurance provider of the driver can sue you for their client’s lost wages and medical bills. It doesn’t matter if the other driver was entirely at fault. And the downside is that if you fail to pay in the next 30 days after judgment, your license and vehicle registration will be revoked or suspended.

You may be liable for the victim’s vehicle damage

If you are at-fault in an accident with another vehicle and your vehicle was uninsured, you can be sued for the damages on the other person’s vehicle and you will be liable for the whole amount that caters for the vehicle damage.

Jail time and fines

Driving an uninsured car or being the owner of one makes you ‘guilty of a misdemeanor‘. The penalties that await you include jail time of not more than 1 year, a $200-$500 fine or both.

Driving an uninsured car is a costly affair. On the other hand, if you have the basic Michigan PIP insurance required in Michigan, you will be reimbursed for all your medical fees, lost wages and services if you are in an auto accident. You will save a load of money in the long end.

If you or a loved one was in an auto accident in Michigan, our Michigan car accident lawyers at Elia & Ponto will guide you in filing a Michigan car accident insurance claim.

The post Why You Should Avoid Driving an Uninsured Car in Michigan appeared first on The Law Firm of Elia & Ponto.

from https://www.eliaandponto.com/why-you-should-avoid-driving-an-uninsured-car-in-michigan/

from America's Top Mesothelioma Lawyer - Blog http://gpwlawmimesotheliomalawfirm.weebly.com/blog/why-you-should-avoid-driving-an-uninsured-car-in-michigan