The Court Of Public Opinion

Mediation is just one of the forms of dispute resolution that are alternative to litigation through the courts. It helps to have some understanding of the others.

The first two forms of dispute resolution fall outside the ambit of any formal procedures.

The first is avoidance, which is a consciously chosen strategy in response to a perceived conflict. This strategy may be called: Get out of Dodge City. There is nothing wrong with getting out of Dodge City, in the face of a stronger opponent, a prize not worth fighting for, fear of worse, or any other number of motivations. People routinely, and often sensibly, respond to provocation by just ignoring it.

At the other end of the scale of extra-judicial processes, is self-help. Self-help is an action taken by a person designed to affect a resolution of a problem. Self-help includes murder, though not all forms of self-help are illegal. Murder is an effective means of resolving conflict by disposing of the opponent, but it suffers from drawbacks: (1) For most people, there is a moral objections: murder is against one of the Ten Commandments - Thy shalt not kill. (2) Murder is illegal, and the consequences of getting caught can ruin more than ones whole day. (3) Even where there is no organized legal system, there is a debilitating consequence to murder: it often results in a blood feud. Such blood feuds may last from generation to generation, and infect an entire society. Other forms of less drastic self-help may include protesting, striking, theft, and so on.

Both avoidance and self-help share in common that they are unilateral and unorganized. All other forms are more or less organized, and are bilateral or multi-lateral.

Straddling the border between organized and unorganized systems is negotiation. Negotiation is by far the commonest method used in all societies for resolving disputes. Most negotiations take place outside of any formal procedure. Indeed, people engage in negotiations constantly, on a daily basis, as they navigate their way through the day. When a conflict becomes serious enough to involve other people, it moves from the unorganized into the organized area of dispute resolution, and many people retain attorneys or other negotiators to do their negotiating on their behalf.

If negotiations prove unfruitful in terms of affecting resolution, then the parties may simply walk away from the deal. Or, if they cannot, they may resort to arbitration, which is an acknowledged form of alternative dispute resolution, and is very often given legal sanction, meaning that arbitration awards can be enforced in a court of law.

In arbitration, the parties have made the decision that they wish to avoid two features of a court trial. The first is the great expense of litigation; the second is the public nature of litigation. Arbitration is private, and the decision reached by an arbitrator is between the parties to that arbitration only. Generally speaking, arbitration is much cheaper than a fully litigated case. Parties to arbitration also have the luxury of choosing an arbitrator of their own choice, rather than accept whichever judge the court system provides them. Also, in a litigated case, all parties must conform to the schedule laid down by the court, and the courts system consults the convenience of judges more than the convenience of the parties, whereas in an arbitration, the parties can adjust the schedule with the arbitrator according to their own needs and preferences.

However, arbitration shares with the court system one critical feature. The parties to arbitration are not free to craft their own solution to the problem. Instead, they have already agreed that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding upon all parties. In this sense, arbitration is exactly the same as a trial by judge or jury, which also contains the feature that the parties are bound by the decision, and that decision will generally result in a winner and a loser.

Arbitration may be part of the procedure of a litigated case. For example, in California, in an effort initiated by the courts to reduce the size of their own dockets, a case may be ordered into arbitration, to be heard by an arbitrator on the courts list of volunteer arbitrators, with rules set down by the court for conducting an arbitration. However, because there is a constitutional right to proceed to trial by judge or jury, the rules provide that if either party is not intent to abide by the decision of the arbitrator in a court-annexed proceeding, then either party may refuse to accept the arbitrators findings, and instead proceed to trial by requesting what is called a trial de novo, which means a trial as if the arbitration had never occurred. Because of the de novo feature, arbitrations are widely perceived by litigants as being a waste of time, just one more hurdle to jump on the way to court trial, and for this reason, this court-annexed arbitrations have greatly declined in popularity, given way instead to growth in court-annexed mediations.

The great majority of arbitrations are contractual, coming about by reason of a prior agreement between the parties to permit a third person, the arbitrator, to decide the issue between them. The courts are supportive of contractual agreements to arbitration, and the courts will generally uphold arbitration awards. A risk that parties take when they choose an arbitrator to make the decision for them is that the decisions of arbitrators are, in nearly all cases, not subject to any appeal.

The arbitrators decision is final, even if the arbitrator has got the facts wrong, and even if the arbitrator makes a mistake in law. The grounds upon which an arbitrators Award can be challenged are usually very limited, relating to proven corruption, undisclosed conflict of interest, or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the arbitrator. In this sense, an arbitrator more absolute power than a judge or jury, whose decisions are subject potentially to two levels of appeal.

It does not hurt to be reminded that the court system itself was once an alternative dispute resolution process, which has superseded older forms of dispute resolution, of which may be mentioned trial by battle, trial by ordeal, trial by compurgation, and trial by torture.

Trial by Battle: It used to be thought that in the event of a dispute, the disputants should resolve the issue by battling it out between themselves, and indeed this method still prevails today: Western movies are full of such examples. In addition to the strategy of avoidance (Get out of Dodge City), there is the strategy of confrontation (Gunfight at OK Corral, High Noon) This procedure became formalized in the early middle ages when it became the custom for a disputant to pick a champion to engage in the battle on his behalf. It was still the case that the winner of the battle also won the argument, but the individual disputant did not have to risk his own neck in order to achieve this kind of justice. Knights in medieval times would engage in tournaments, at which they would start at one end of the run, and proceed at full tilt on horseback towards their opponent, also on horseback and wearing heavy armor. The lances would strike the galloping bodies, and if each survived that encounter they would gallop to the other end of the run, and turn in order to face the opposite direction and start again. This turning point was called the tourney, and the knight was said to be at the tourney, or a tourney, from which we derive the modern term attorney.

Trial by Ordeal: Trial by ordeal could be called an unfairly weighted system, often used to try witches. The unfortunate lady would be weighed down with stones in a sack, and thrown into a pond. If she survived, that was by the grace of God, and she was innocent. If she drowned (nearly always the case) that proved she was guilty. If she might be made to grasp burning coals; if by Gods mercy her hand did not blister, she was innocent. It may readily be seen that this kind of trial was used in instances where the allegation was impossible to prove, and women were the likely sufferers.

Trial by Compurgation: Trial by compurgation was an ancient system whereby a disputant would bring forward friends to swear an oath on his behalf that his story was correct. This primitive method of resolving a dispute relied upon the not unsophisticated proposition, in an Age of Faith, that where a person had sworn an oath on the Bible to tell the truth, she would be risking his soul to damnation if she lied. But it appeared that many people were prepared to take that risk in order to help a friend.

Trial by Torture: Finally, trial by torture has always been popular, though not in the arena of civil cases but more in cases of criminal conduct or especially heresy or treason. As it always results in a confession or death, the conviction rate is a hundred percent. But as a means for discovering the truth, it has the disadvantage that people will confess anything under torture, and it is inhuman and revolting. (A person under torture always wants to die. Torture is worse than death. Anonymous Honduran torturer)

The shortcomings of these alternative methods of resolving disputes are obvious, and eventually the common law procedures of trial by judge and jury wholly superseded them in English-speaking countries. Our legal procedures today avoid the appalling risks inherent in trial by battle, ordeal or torture, and even in the days of greatest piety, merely taking an oath could not ensure that the witness would tell the truth. Any yet, our present system suffers from the drawbacks so eloquently set forth by Chief Justice Warren Burger, which accounts for the growth in alternative procedures, of which mediation is perhaps the fastest growing.

Collaborative Law is a fairly new system, well suited to marital dissolution cases, where the parties and their lawyers make an agreement in advance to work out the terms of the divorce collaboratively rather than competitively, meaning without using the abrasive and costly procedures of litigation. What if they cannot? The agreement requires that, if agreement is not attained, then the parties may proceed with litigation but must obtain new attorneys to do so. If the lawyers fail to reach agreement, they are off the case. If the parties must retain new attorneys, it greatly increases costs. Both parties and attorneys thus have strong incentive to reach agreement, and more than that, merely making the collaborative agreement in the first place itself reduces the tension and stress that accompanies the break up of a marriage. Especially where children are involved, a workable continuing relationship between the parents is greatly enhanced by a collaborative process, and so often greatly impaired by the traditional adversarial process.

Of all methods of conflict resolution, only negotiation requires that the disputants talk to each other, even if they choose to do so through a mediator.

All other methods of conflict resolution are essentially unilateral and their common liability is that conflicts handled unilaterally are not really resolved at all.

In searching for justice, one often finds her in the company of her retarded little sister whose name is revenge.

More articles at article database

From Bill Gates at the end of the last century to John D. Rockefeller at the end of the previous century; from Rick Scott, founder of Columbia Health Care, to AT&T: from Richard Branson and British Airlines to Dan Pea and The Financial Times; from government, banking, insurance and every other facet of world commerce - to grow geometrically and stay around, litigation must be (prudently) used and mastered.

I will, as briefly as I can, memorialize the salient points of using litigation as a business tool.

Now before I start, I want it on the record, some 50% of my 30-year track record of litigation has had nothing to do with winning money, i.e., many lawsuits have been over principle, some were to right a heinous wrong such as slanderous remarks made about me; and some were because an entity just needed a good comeuppance and nobody else would carry the flag into battle.

I, like Don Quixote, have fought many a windmill.

As you’ve heard me speak and write about, when building your ‘Dream Team,’ you want Big Five accountants and a large national or international firm of lawyers - the best representation you can’t afford!

Unlike the success-oriented fees I coach you to use when facilitating transactions, no law firm will litigate initially on this basis.

Perhaps if your case is especially strong, they will do it on a contingency basis. Unfortunately, you will be using, from time-to-time, litigation as a positioning tool and your case may not be something you can seriously leverage.

A year or two ago, being left with a pig-in-a-poke, I had to litigate a case having specious facts at best to support my desired outcome. Fortunately, our (my) apparent lust for litigation was stronger than their desire to fight a hard fight, so a reasonably good settlement was finally arrived at.

Of course, during this process my good lawyers counseled us, advising our case needed to be much stronger, etc. Even with great lawyers, it is their job to tell you the downside risks. Again, what happens is you are often scared from pursuing your case.

Good lawyers win so-so lawsuits. Great lawyers can win lawsuits in which you have little or no chance to win.

Three of my favorite litigators over the years are Steve Susman and Cyrus Marter IV of Susman Godfrey in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles and Seattle and Tim Harris of Charleston Revich & Williams in Los Angeles. All three have dug me out of some pretty big black holes.

I’ve dealt with them 10 and 20 years respectively. They are worth every penny they charge!

Our judicial system works, but we grow up being afraid of it. It’s way out of our comfort zone so we preclude ourselves from benefitting from it. Normally the cost associated with it keeps us from using it.

In fact, I’m currently embroiled in litigation where the ancillary players to the litigation have rights which are being severely violated. A large group of people could bring great pressure to bear, but they’re afraid because of previous bad experiences. They could get what they deserve but aren’t pursuing their best interests.

There are lawyers who take on cases for humanitarian reasons, if the case warrants, in business as well, i.e., big major corporations taking advantage of the system because of their size alone.

Why do you want to initiate the lawsuit so you are the plaintiff? As the plaintiff, you pick where and when the lawsuit is fought and probably ultimately adjudicated.

This can be a huge advantage. And secondly, the plaintiff is allowed two closing arguments, meaning you (your lawyer) gets to address the judge and/or jury once and then again after the defendants’ closing argument. This can also be very important.

26 Unbreakable Rules of Litigation

#1 CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES

#2 CHOOSE THE VENUE

#3 BE THE PLAINTIFF

#4 HAVE THE BEST REPRESENTATION

#5 LISTEN TO YOUR HEART

#6 DON’T LISTEN TO YOUR SICK STOMACH WHEN YOU’RE OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONE

#7 DON’T LISTEN TO RELATIVES, FRIENDS, ET AL

#8 LISTEN TO EXPERIENCED LITIGANTS - LIKE ME!

#9 GENERALLY SPEAKING, DON’T WORRY ABOUT THE COST (THIS IS VERY HARD!)

#10 BIG LAWSUITS ARE BETTER THAN SMALL ONES

#11 ELECT JURY TRIALS, AS OPPOSED TO A JUDGE ONLY

#12 PREPARATION (YOURS) IS EVERYTHING - KNOW THE FACTS

#13 PRACTICE DEPOSITIONS AND TRIALS

#14 IF YOU ARE THINKING OF A BETTER STRATEGY, GET A NEW LAWYER (NOT TRUE IN MY CASE)

#15 NEVER GIVE UP

#16 DON’T BE INTIMIDATED BY THE PROCESS

#17 USE MOCK TRIALS (PRETEND TRIALS YOU DO IN FRONT OF A HIRED JURY)

#18 DRESS SIMPLE AND CONSERVATIVELY IN COURT - NO JEWELRY EXCEPT A WEDDING BAND; WHITE SHIRT, PLAIN TIE AND DARK SUIT FOR MEN AND THE EQUIVALENT FOR WOMEN; SHORT GROOMED HAIR FOR MEN

#19 DON’T LOSE YOUR TEMPER IN COURT - IT’S OKAY TO CRY IF IT’S REAL

#20 HAVE YOUR SPOUSE IN THE FRONT ROW EVERY DAY. CHILDREN ALSO IF POSSIBLE. OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IN SECOND ROW IS OKAY

#21 NO QUOTES TO THE PRESS OTHER THAN ‘WE BELIEVE IN OUR CASE AND THAT IS WHY WE WENT TO COURT’. YOUR WORDS CAN EASILY BE TURNED AROUND.

#22 WHEN YOU BREAK FOR LUNCH OR A RECESS, REMEMBER NEVER TALK IN PUBLIC ABOUT THE CASE - YOU NEVER KNOW WHO MIGHT OVERHEAR

#23 WHEN YOU FIND A LEGAL TEAM THAT WINS, STAY WITH THEM

#24 ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH, NO MATTER WHAT. THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.

#25 DURING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS AND IN COURT, LOOK AT THE CAMERA AND THE JURY. MAKE EYE CONTACT.

#26 WHEN TESTIFYING IN A DEPOSITION/TRIAL, IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER, SAY YOU DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER

It’s a closed world of top litigators. Virtually all big law firms have good to super-good lawyers. All big law firms don’t have great litigators. You don’t always need a great lawyer, but sometime if you grow geometrically, you will.

Like any other project management, litigation must be managed. Unfortunately, like speech-giving, you become a great litigant by going through a learning curve.

I don’t mean you have to get involved in losing efforts (like making bad speeches so after some time you make good speeches) to get in a position to win in court. Large law firms will allow you to get ahead of the learning curve.

The Quantum Leap methodology talks ad nauseam about following your dreams. Life without dreams is like a bird with a broken wing - it can’t fly. I wrote this newsletter because sometimes you’ll need litigation to follow your dream.

Go out and kick some butt, and don’t let conventional wisdom keep you from achieving your dream.

Conventional wisdom says Don’t Litigate.

All high-performance people and the great organizations of the last one hundred years did and do litigate as I write this letter.

Don’t litigate frivolously - but don’t be afraid to either.

To Your Quantum Leap,

Daniel S. Pea, Sr.

More articles at articles database

After you hire an attorney, you work is not done. You can do a lot to help (or hurt) your case. Since you usually get one shot at winning a claim, here are 10 tips to make the most of your legal challenge:

#1 Be candid. Your attorney can help you more if she knows the WHOLE story, not just the good part or your side of things.

#2 Be truthful. Lies can easily be exposed. Your case will be much stronger when you are honest.

#3 Be responsive. If your lawyer asks you a question, answer it fully and directly. Follow directions from your lawyer.

#4 Be accessible. Your attorney may need to talk with you without delay, so be available and return calls promptly.

#5 Be discreet. Dont discuss your case with anyone other than your lawyer or her staff. While some information may be disclosed, it can be difficult to know the difference. So its best not to talk about any of it.

#6 Be reasonable. While you may have the best case in the world, sometimes its better to cut your losses and get on with your life. The court system is designed to solve problems, whether its through settlement or litigation. It is not the place to enact vengeance.

#7 Be understanding. Your lawyer has other clients and maybe a personal life. Dont expect her to drop everything to respond to your every whim.

#8 Be patient. The legal process takes much longer than the hour shown on T.V. Some cases can take years. So dont expect immediate results.

#9 Be kind. Treat your lawyer, her staff, and the opposing counsel with respect and consideration. They may be more reasonable when dealing with you and your claim.

#10 Be realistic. The big verdict/windfall cases get a lot of publicity, but they are rare. Even with large awards, they must first be used to pay court costs, attorney’s fees, expert witness bills, deposition costs, etc.

Winning a case takes much more than just hiring a lawyer. Its a team effort. Follow these and other sound practices to help your team win.

Copyright 2005 Carolyn E. Wright

More articles at articles database

By now, every personal injury attorney has heard of litigation funding - the non-recourse sale of a portion of a plaintiffs future settlement proceeds in exchange for cash today. In recent years, the availability and use of litigation funding has grown rapidly and most attorneys now recognize the need for plaintiff financial support. A 2001 survey by Lawyers Weekly asked a simple question: Should Litigation Funding Be Permitted? Of the 1,876 votes cast, 82.5% responded yes.

However, reminiscent of the criticism faced by trial attorneys over contingency fees, litigation funding companies must respond to the same disparagements. Defenders of the status quo seek to brand litigation funding as profiteering by scoundrels taking advantage of the down trodden. They trot out such red herrings as champerty, usury and far flung theories of inherent conflicts to show how vexatious the practice really is. Sound familiar? Despite the criticism, we know the following: plaintiffs love it; defendants hate it; it is here to stay!

Equal Protection Requires Equal Access The lynchpin for every privilege contemplated by our founding fathers and codified in our constitution rests in one simple principle equal protection under the law. Since 1786 when pamphleteer Benjamin Austin called it a pernicious practice, contingent legal fees have been criticized non-stop. Yet today, it is the most widely used fee agreement in the United States. Why? Simple because it works! The contingent fee system helps to achieve the goal of equal protection by facilitating access.

It is axiomatic that there can be no equal protection when access to the court system is unaffordable by a significant segment of the citizenry. The entire raison detre for contingency fees lays in this basic access issue. So persuasive is this point that, over the years, courts, have systematically removed virtually every barrier preventing access to the court system. From contingency fees to attorney advertising to champerty, laws preventing access, in even the most indirect ways, have bitten the dust.

Perhaps Judge Michael A. Musmanno said it best:

If it were not for contingent fees, indigent victims of tortious accidents would be subject to the unbridled, self-willed partisanship of their tortfeasors. The person who has, without fault on his part, been injured and who, because of his injury, is unable to work, and has a large family to support, and has no money to engage a lawyer, would be at the mercy of the person who disabled him because, being in a superior economic position, the injuring person could force on his victim, desperately in need of money to keep the candle of life burning in himself and his dependent ones, a wholly unconscionably meager sum in settlement, or even refuse to pay him anything at all. Any society, and especially a democratic one, worthy of respect in the spectrum of civilization, should never tolerate such a victimization of the weak by the mighty. Richette v. Solomon, 187 A.2d 910, 919 (Pa. 1963).

However, affording a lawyer is only one part of a plaintiffs challenge. A claimant must also have the ability to sustain themselves during the pendancy of their action. After all, what good is retaining an attorney, if you cant afford the basic necessities of life? How are financially stressed plaintiffs to sustain themselves during the pendancy of their litigation which may be the cause of their financial condition in the first place

Litigation Funding One answer is litigation funding. Being able to stay the course is a prerequisite to fair treatment and this simple transaction can help level the playing field with a well-heeled adversary. This fact was recognized by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the 1997 case of Saladini v. Righellis, (426 Mass. 231, 234) when it noted:

We have long abandoned the view that litigation is suspect, and have recognized that agreements to purchase an interest in an action may actual foster resolution of a dispute. Other superior courts seem to be persuaded by the Massachusetts court including the Supreme Court of South Carolina which relied heavily on Saladini when it abolished champerty in Osprey, Inc. v. Cabana Limited Partnership, 532 S.E.2d 269 (S.C. 2000). In fairness it should be noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio held a different view in Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp.99 Ohio St.3d 121, 2003-Ohio-2721. However, Ohio is in the minority and the doctrine of champerty may one day meet its final well-deserved death sentence at the US Supreme Court when the applicability of the 14th Amendment is determined. (Bennett v NCAAP 370 S.W. 2nd 79 82 (Ark 1963))

What are the real issues? Aside from 15th Century English Law, what are the real issues today? The perception is there is nothing in it for attorneys, at least not immediately or directly. Providing information to the funding company, administering the execution of the contract and observing the lien are all a nuisance for plaintiffs counsel. However, despite this, more and more PI attorneys are forging relationships with funding companies because their clients need it, and they have found that reputable experienced companies can prove to be an invaluable resource. Cost

The most common criticism is the cost. The average amount paid for bodily injury insurance claims suffered in motor vehicle accidents is small - less than $10,000. Thus, it should not be surprising that the average litigation funding contract is also small. Most contracts are for $1,000 to $5,000. Consumer financial products have relatively fixed transaction costs meaning that smaller deals are nearly as costly as larger ones. It follows that, because of their small size, the average fees on litigation funding contracts will unavoidably be high.

That having been said, the very growth of the business will resolve the issue of cost. The marketplace will set prices just as it does with contingent legal fees. Once the there is enough experience for the true risks of these transactions to be widely known, investors will price the risk to a corresponding level. Already, fees have dropped significantly. Only a few years ago it was not uncommon to find fees of 15% per month compounded with no cap! This is now rare.

There are three basic fee methods used by most funding companies:

1.Monthly interest or fees. These can range 3% to as high as 15% per month with no cap.

2.A percentage of the recovery.

3.Flat fees that are capped and may or may not have a discount for early payment.

(Attorneys must beware of large fees at closing that serve to raise the true cost significantly)

A valid concern is that, with monthly fees rising with no cap, clients might be tempted to take a settlement just to stop the fee increases. This not only injures the clients chances of a fair recovery but also limits the attorneys fees. Fortunately, capped fees are always available in the market.

While the marketplace place will continue to drive price levels toward equilibrium, it should be comforting for those with no faith in market forces to remember that, in the final analysis, the court has the final say and can set aside abusive fees. Schlesinger v Teitelbaum, 475 F2nd 137, 141 (3rd Cir), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1111 (1973)

On this issue Saladini is very much on point: This means that if an agreement to finance a lawsuit is challenged, we will consider whether the fees charged are excessive or whether any recovery by a prevailing party is vitiated because of some impermissible overreaching by the financier.

Is it really a loan in disguise? Litigation funding contracts are almost universally non-recourse. The definition of a loan is blackletter law. If any part of the principal or interest is contingent on an event that is more than a mere colorable hazard, the contract is not a loan. A challenge on the grounds that the requisite degree of hazard is not present would have to be adjudicated case by case, each case being unique. Bear in mind that the funding company is subordinate to attorneys fees and costs, statutory liens and prior liens. The risk for an attorney is substantially better than for the funding company that is last in line. Many regulatory authorities from attorneys general to banking commissioners have reviewed the practice and taken no action. It seems clear that non-recourse means non-recourse and that litigation funding is a risky business.

Draconian Contracts

A second widely held concern is the use of contracts with draconian clauses. While the enforceability of such clauses is questionable at best, they still present a formidable nuisance value. Typical objectionable clauses are:

Prior permission of funding company required to change attorneys

High liquidated damages

Waiver of all defenses

Disclosure of non-discoverable information

Most reputable companies, including CapTran have modified their contracts to address these concerns.

Ethics

George Kuhlman, ethics counsel for the American Bar Association, was quoted in Lawyers Weekly USA as stating: The problem only comes in when lawyers are acquiring an interest in the subject matter of the litigation, but anybody can buy a piece of someone’s judgment. I don’t see any lawyer involvement so I don’t see any problem. This is a third party becoming involved; making sure people can survive their judgments.

With one exception, all Ethics Opinions of which we are aware find litigation funding ethical. Michigan finds contracts with certain clauses to be impermissible.

State Bar of Michigan Ethics Committee Opinion RI-321, June 29, 2000

1. The ultimate control of the litigation may be transferred to the venture capital corporation due to the fact that the lawyer is permanently appointed to the case;

2. The original lawyer cannot be terminated without the venture capital corporations consent in light of the fact that on demand of the venture capital corporation all documents and things must be demanded by that group; and

3. Privileged materials may be disclosed.

We should also note that some states require certain specific procedural issues to be observed. (A listing of ethics opinion relating to litigation funding can be found at www.captran.com) Where do we go from here?

As experience grows, capital will enter the business in ever increasing amounts, making it fairly commonplace while competition will undoubtedly mold the product, and fix most, if not all, of the problems.

Many savvy attorneys understand that litigation funding is not going away anytime soon and they are embracing it and learning how best to use it. They are forging relationships with funding companies and using their services to meet the needs of their clients. In doing so, they get the added benefit of negotiating for a client that is no longer under the unnerving and destabilizing effect of financial duress.

Copyright 2003-2005 www.financeandlaw.com, a Jurismark LLC website

More articles at article database

Given the monstrous size and profitability of drug companies, some plaintiff lawyers are considering focusing more of their practice on drug litigation. In fact, shortly after Merck’s announcement of the Vioxx recall, some large plaintiff firms started aggressive media campaigns aimed at bringing in prescription drug injury victims. The media blitz has been non stop. Billboards, TV, web marketing, radio, and direct mail are just some of the marketing vehicles that attorneys have used to try and find new cases for them to work on. Many plaintiff law firms are no longer focusing on chasing run of the mill car accidents. Some of them have gone so far as to reposition themselves as drug recall lawyers, seeing that the future of their practice may be shaped by the initial outcome of these new pharmaceutical cases.

When Merck chose to withdraw Vioxx, the CEO stated that a voluntary recall was the responsible course of action. Prior to pulling Vioxx from the market, Merck was spending $500 Million per year on advertising Vioxx. Vioxx is classified as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or NSAID. However, Vioxx belongs to a new family of NSAIDs called COX-2 inhibitors. There are not many COX-2 inhibitors on the market in the US: Bextra and Celebrex may be the only other two.

Both the number of potential Vioxx plaintiffs and award amounts of the lawsuits are projected to be extremely large. The investment bank S.G. Cowan recently estimated that eventually more than 600,000 plaintiffs could file suit in the Vioxx case. Furthermore, some investment banks think that plaintiffs may file for more than $10Billion in damages in years to come. Even the national TV networks have covered the Vioxx withdrawal. A November 2004 story on the Vioxx withdrawal appeared on CBS News’ 60 Minutes. The CBS story implied that the US Justice Department is conducting an investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into Merck’s conduct. Given the media coverage of the Vioxx withdrawal and the number of people who were prescribed Vioxx, there may be many new Drug Recall Firms founded in years to come.

More articles at articles database

On Sept. 30, 2004 Merck announced a worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx (rofecoxib). Vioxx had previously been prescribed in the treatment of arthritis and pain. Worldwide sales of Vioxx in 2003 were an estimated $2.5Billion and the drug was marketed in more than 80 countries around the world. This is one of several recent pharmaceutical products to have been put in the spotlight by both the national media and plaintiff lawyers.

Since sometime in the mid to late 90s a substantial number of pharmaceutical medications and medical devices have been removed from the market due to possible adverse health implications. The FDA acts as a regulatory body in approving health related products before they are marketed to consumers. The FDA moved to ban Ephedra in the US in 2004. However, the recent headlines about voluntary drug withdrawals have produced questions as to the FDA’s recent performance.

Many people believe that the FDA did not test the drugs rigorously enough to determine all the possible health problems that they might cause. People believe that the rise in litigation over these medications was due to the fact that the FDA now allows pharmaceutical companies to fast track their products and get them through the process in a year. In fact, Vioxx was only released in 1999.

Some of the latest drugs where concerns have also arose are Bextra, Celebrex and Zyprexa. Litigation over these drugs may commence in the near future. US plaintiff lawyers have begun to put some serious time and research into possible claims that may arise from pharmaceutical drugs. Plaintiff lawyers also handle Mesothelioma, Car Accident, and a wide variety of different personal injury cases.

If you think that you may have been injured by one of these drugs that have recently made headlines, you may consider consulting with a lawyer. Many plaintiff attorneys handle cases on a contingency basis.

You may republish this article on your own site. A link to Law Articles from your site would be most appreciated. Please do not alter the article. Thanks.

More articles at article database

Unless you have been completely out of touch, you have probably heard all the hubbub about the dangers of asbestos. So, what is the big deal?

A Quick Guide to Asbestos and Health Issues

Asbestos is a fibrous material that is highly resistant to burning. It has a long history. While it was first used on a large scale commercial basis at the turn of the twentieth century, it has actually been around much longer. In fact, the ancient Egyptians were known for using it burial clothes.

Common modern applications used to include building materials, products and automobile brake pads, which all required a fire resistant element. Asbestos is still used today, but on a fairly small scope. The reason has everything to do with health. Asbestos in and of itself is not harmful to people. What is harmful, however, is asbestos dust.

Asbestos dust is a vicious thing. Due to the chemical makeup of the material, the dust is like a cloud of fine glass particles. While they will not damage your skin, they do great damage to the lungs. Making matters worse, asbestos dust is so fine that it is easily raised from asbestos material like ceiling tiles and walls. Once in the air, it is all but invisible. Prolonged exposure, such as when working on or in a building with asbestos materials, can result in massive amounts of the toxic dust entering the lungs.

Once asbestos dust is in your lungs, you cannot expel it by coughing. That doesnt mean the body does not try. Asbestosis is scarring of the lungs from acid created by the body in an effort to get the asbestos dust out. If this process is allowed to occur for 10 to 20 years, the lungs may stop functioning because of excess scarring. If that sounds bad, it only gets worse. Asbestos dust can lead to terminal cancer in the form of mesothelioma. [What is Mesothelioma?

Asbestos is an excellent fire resistant material that saves us from burning while killing us in a much slower manner. Since 1989, it has been banned in the United States in all but a few commercial areas.

More articles at articles database

When you talk about the health risks caused by asbestos, mesothelioma is at the top of the list. It is a sad story with a very unhappy ending.

A Quick Guide to Mesothelioma

Beginning in 1926, various studies started revealing that the wide spread use of asbestos for its fire resistant properties might not be such a good thing. The problem? Dust from asbestos materials was easily ingested into the lungs, but was nearly impossible for the body to expel. This resulted in a host of health problems of which Mesothelioma undoubtedly is the worst.

Mesothelioma is a nasty form of cancer. It is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos dust. This primarily occurs when a person has worked directly with or around asbestos materials. For example, a person who works on older buildings with asbestos materials or a person in the ship building industry to mention only a few. The disease can also impact secondary individuals who come in contact with such people, particular said peoples clothes.

On the medical side of things, Mesothelioma is a cancer that attacks the mesothelium. This anatomical term refers to the lining found around most organs of the body including the lungs and chest cavity. The cancer can also attack the sack encompassing the heart as well as other areas of the body. In short, it is a devastating form of cancer.

The truly horrific thing about Mesothelioma is the fact it takes a long time to appear. Gestation periods can be from twenty to fifty years. Even when it begins to show symptoms, it is very difficult to diagnose because it shares many symptoms common to aging and other health issues. These can include chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing and blood clotting.

Unfortunately, Mesothelioma is deadly once it fully presents. A variety of treatment methods have been tried, but nothing has worked. The average person presenting with the cancer has a life span of less than a year. Radiation, surgery and pharmaceutical approaches have failed to significantly extend this time.

Mesothelioma is terminal cancer caused by exposure to asbestos dust that takes a long time to manifest, but a short time to kill.

More articles at article database

Plaintiffs involved in pharmaceuticals lawsuits like Zyprexa and Fen-phen etc, can now get Lawsuit cash advances. 99% of Plaintiffs involved in Lawsuits Dont Realize They Can get Cash Advance before Their Case Settles.

Zyprexa (olanzapine) is a second generation or atypical antipsychotic medication produced by Eli Lilly and Company. Zyprexa was FDA approved for the short-term treatment of acute manic episodes in bipolar disorder.

In 2003 the FDA required that the class of drugs known as atypical antipsychotic, including Zyprexa, include warnings about increased risk to patients of development of diabetes and hyperglycemia. In 2004, a federal prosecutor announced an investigation of Eli Lilly, in relation to the techniques it has used to market Zyprexa.

To date, over 16 million people have used this drug. The FDA has identified there have been 384 reports of diabetes Zyprexa side effects, including 23 deaths. There have been many questions regarding the popular drug Zyprexa and its safety. The potentially fatal Zyprexa side effects have resulted in Zyprexa lawsuits.

A relatively new source of financing is now available for plaintiffs involved in Zyprexa or other pharmaceutical lawsuits. It is called lawsuit funding or often referred as Lawsuit Loans, Lawsuit pre-settlement financing, Legal finance or Litigation cash advance, but these are not loans because the money does not have to be paid back unless the case is won or settled. These are Non- Recourse Cash Advances. It carries No Risk because Plaintiffs owe Nothing if they lose the case. The client must be represented by an Attorney, and need money prior to settlement due to financial hardship.

It doesnt seem fair. Even if you win your Zyprexa litigation, the money you get may come too late. You need money now! Lawsuit cash advance or so called Lawsuit loan can help you buy some time with a cash advance on your pharmaceutical drug litigation settlement.

Pharmaceutical drug litigation can take years to settle, which can be a problem if youre sick or are unable to work. You can have a solid pharmaceutical drug litigation claim and a strong legal team, but the drug companies have deep pockets. Without a cash advance to pay your bills and other expenses, you may have to take a low settlement offer for your pharmaceutical drug litigation.

The process to receive Zyprexa Lawsuit Loan is Risk Free & simple. Plaintiff may have a bad or no credit. There are no monthly payments. The total process is confidential, prompt and discreet:

1. The first step is to complete an Application Form.

Making an application is free and there is no obligation. Approval is fast.

2. Plaintiff authorizes attorney to release case information to underwriters

3. Quick and thorough underwriting process to qualify client.

4. If approved Plaintiff completes funding agreement

5. Bank check delivered to Plaintiff

6. Plaintiff payback upon successful settlement/verdict of case

They can use the Cash Advance in any way they like. They can use the money for Living Expenses; Pay their Bills, Mortgage/ Rent / Car Payments, Medical Treatment, Education Expenses. As a matter of fact Use it any way they like.

There are very few good internet sites that give good information on various types of Lawsuit cash advances or Lawsuit Loans (Non-recourse).

More articles at Article Database