Dean Weitzman from “My Philly Lawyer”
You have seen this act before, dear reader, but perhaps never so blatantly. It’s the lawyer who chases the mass disaster crash, a/k/a the ambulance chaser. It’s the lawyer that, by doing so, smears the names of all others in the lawyering profession.
Today’s story comes up because Dean Weitzman, managing partner of the Philadelphia firm Silvers, Langsam & Weitzman, decided it would be a swell idea to send out a press release to the local press letting everyone know that they would be accepting cases from the Amtrak crash. (Which is not an “accident” by the way).
He wrote, among much personal agrandizement, that is firm would be:
available to provide representation for victims and injured persons in last night’s Amtrak derailment in North Philadelphia.
Gee. Ya’ think?
And he also wrote that:
Dean Weitzman is also available to media outlets to give analysis and discuss what happens next.
The firm is, as I understand it, (in)famous for slathering Philly with its ads, using the moniker My Philly Lawyer.
It was exactly this type of grotesque chasing after cases that led New York to create its 30-day anti-solicitation rule (and I presume to a similar federal 45-day rule for airline disasters). In the immediate wake of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster that killed 11, some lawyers ran to the Staten Island Advance to place ads for the next day.
But there were still bodies on the boat when many of them did that.
This type of wretched behavior has repercussions. I see it when I step into the jury room to select, as do others in the profession. Calling the jury pool cynicism deep would be an understatement.
If the cynicism came solely from insurance company propaganda, it would be one thing. But when the smear comes from your own ranks, then what? Then it becomes the obligation of others in the profession to express their contempt for the practice and issue a complete disavowal of the conduct.
Let there be no mistake about my position here: Dean Weitzman and the firm of Silvers, Langsam & Weitzman do a grave disservice to the cause of justice and to those who have been injured. By chasing ambulances in this fashion they perpetuate an ugly stereotype, whose ramifications are felt not only by members of the bar but more importantly by those we represent.
As I noted back in 2009 in a short analysis of anti-solicitation rules, they do work. In honor of the chasing that Weitzman is doing, it looks like time for Pennsylvania to follow suit with an amendment to its rules.
Since Dean Weitzman said he was “available to media outlets to give analysis and discuss what happens next,” I’ve sent him an email seeking comment about the appropriateness of sending out such an email within 24 hours of the crash, when all of the passengers aren’t even accounted for. If he elects to respond I may amend this post.
(Hat tip, Max Kennerly)
Okay, so there is a 30 day anti solicitation rule in New York. If there is no such rule in Pennsylvania what is the problem with this firm offering their services in the form of a press release. The press has already disclosed that people were injured in this accident. Atty. Weitzman is not approaching anyone individually. Isn’t this just a strategy for success? Are you worried that his statement will diminish the public’s very high opinion of personal injury attorneys by portraying them as opportunists? I think that you are reasonable in you blog for recommending that Pennsylvania adopt a 30 day rule but not for criticizing a Philadelphia colleague for breaking a rule that does not exist in his state.
If there is no such rule in Pennsylvania what is the problem with this firm offering their services in the form of a press release.
That’s what the post was about. You might want to read it.
I did read your post; all of it. You say you find advertising prior to the 30 day window ‘grotesque’ and ‘wretched’ and you worry that it will make jurors more cynical. I get that. But you could say the same about many forms of perfectly legal advertising used in the law profession.. the signs posted inside port-a-potties at construction sites for example. The point of my comment is that you are calling out a lawyer for exercising his right to publicly express an interest in the Amtrak crash victims. You are holding him to a standard that does not exist in his State and that is not fair. If I were a crash victim I would call him.
But you could say the same about many forms of perfectly legal advertising used in the law profession.. the signs posted inside port-a-potties at construction sites for example.
You mean as I have done in the past, like this?
Legal Advertising – Reaching For The Toilet (Or At Least the Urinal)
The point of my comment is that you are calling out a lawyer for exercising his right to publicly express an interest in the Amtrak crash victims. You are holding him to a standard that does not exist in his State and that is not fair.
Of course it’s fair. If I see someone do something I think is scummy it is perfectly fair to rip into that person. It is perfectly legal, for instance, to write all kinds of racist, homophobic or misogynist tripe. Should people be forced into silence simply because the miscreants have a right to voice those opinions? It is the marketplace of ideas that determines what is “fair,” which is vastly different from determining what is legal.
If I were a crash victim I would call him
Maybe you should count your blessings that you are not?
“Maybe you should count your blessings that you are not?”
I know because traffic to Philadelphia is always abysmal and really the only convenient way to get to downtown Philly is Amtrak.
WCBS-AM (NYC) seems to be keeping a running tab on suits filed to date. Since I only listen when driving, I don’t remember the name Dean Weitzman at the time, but I don’t think I heard it on any report so far. I’ll try to pay more attention (maybe — I’m an Old Geezer after all).
This news has dropped away from radio, but reading up on the published remarks of counsel to date does not reveal any connection to Dean and partners. So, did it work?
On a different note today I heard a radio pitch for a law firm selling asbestos claim expertise. It ended with a comment to the effect that choosing a lawyer is too important to be done from just hearing a radio commercial. So, the recommendation is to call them. Based on this radio commercial. Ah, the self-serving guise of apparent honesty. But a worthy idea, withal.
Yet it was not so in-your-face as the usual lawyer radio pitch. And no silly theme song! Better example of this kind of thing I’d say.
It’s unfortunate that his actions reflect poorly on other personal injury lawyers. It also seems like he’s undermining his own firm’s ability to represent their clients effectively. If a passenger does seek his firm out, how will the jury respond when they see an opportunist in court?