January 15th, 2009

Hudson River Plane Crash To Test New York’s New Attorney Ethics Rules? (Updated x2)

The plane crash in the Hudson River today may test New York’s new attorney ethics rules with respect to solicitation.

New rules were put into effect in the wake of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster that killed 11 and injured 71. The Appellate Divisions were appalled that so many personal injury lawyers ran to place ads in the Staten Island Advance before a 3 pm deadline on the day of the accident; ads that were placed while rescue efforts were still underway.

Specifically, there is a prohibition on solicitation within 30 days of such a mass disaster. (While some of the new rules were found unconstitutional, this one was not.) The new rules read:

DR 7-111 (22 NYCRR 1200.41-a) Communication After Incidents Involving Personal Injury or Wrongful Death

(a) In the event of an incident involving potential claims for personal injury or wrongful death, no unsolicited communication shall be made to an individual injured in the incident or to a family member or legal representative of such an individual, by a lawyer or law firm, or by any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm, seeking to represent the injured individual or legal representative thereof in potential litigation or in a proceeding arising out of the incident before the 30th day after the date of the incident, unless a filing must be made within 30 days of the incident as a legal prerequisite to the particular claim, in which case no unsolicited communication shall be made before the 15th day after the date of the incident.

Lawyers who place the ads claim that they do so so that people will be able to quickly learn their rights before an insurance company stuffs a release under their noses while they are still in shock from the incident, and gives them 10 cents on the dollar. The new rules, it should be noted, prohibit the insurance companies from doing so. The following paragraph reads:

(b) This provision limiting contact with an injured individual or the legal representative theoreof applies as well to lawyers or law firms or any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm who represent actual or potential defendants or entities that may defend and/or indemnify said defendants.

Of course, the authority of the court to regulate the insurance companies in such a manner has never been tested. (See: Did New York Courts Exceed their Authority With New Advertising Rules?)

Some may believe that, thanks to the fast and heroic action of local ferry operators that saved so many people, and the lack of serious injuries at this point (as per news reports), it would indicate that few personal injury lawsuits would even occur. But even if the physical injuries are minor, there will no doubt be substantial psychological damage to many who thought they would not live to see another day, and may suffer post-traumatic stress disorder in the months and years to come.

With all this in mind, I Googled “Hudson River Plane Crash” to see who started to run ads. Thankfully, the answer is zero. None. Nada. Zip. I don’t know if this is the result of the new ethics rules, or due to the lack of death or serious physical injuries, but it is certainly surprising. A pleasant surprise I might add.

So far, so good. Let’s hope I don’t have to do an addendum.

[1st Addendum: OK, I now have to do an addition. Yeah, you knew there would be one, right? An attorney search service is might, in fact, trolling for victims (via Overlawyered and Popehat). This is would be a clear violation of New York’s attorney ethics rules, but of course, the site claims not to be a law firm (and this might be for a different crash). I had warned in November 2007 of exactly this type of problem, with lawyers using agents to advertise while turning a blind eye to the ethics of the services. See: The Ethics of Attorney Search Services. I wrote at that time:

The implications of attorneys outsourcing advertising to a third party that may be acting unethically represents an area of law that is unexplored by many ethics committees. The company itself is most likely not in your state and not subject to attorney disciplinary rules. So what forces the advertising company that the lawyer is using to act in accordance with local ethics codes?

The very act of engaging such an advertising service should subject the law firm to disciplinary action for any ethical violations committed by the non-attorney advertising company. With this threat hanging over the head of an attorney, it is unlikely they would take such risks with their licenses. It thus makes it impossible to turn a blind eye to any ethical breaches by any service that is used as a front for the law firms.

There is little doubt that if and when attorneys are called on the carpet for problems, they will simply play dumb and say they didn’t know. But that should not be an acceptable excuse. And this is a problem that should be nipped in the bud quickly.] End 1st Addendum

[2nd Addendum: OK, it seems that we have a clear winner on the issue of this crash and the new ethics rules, with one New York firm clearly and unequivocally using “Flight 1549” and “US Airways” in their Google ad]

And one big, gigantic tip of the hat to the pilots and crew and all involved in the rescue. I would call the result a miracle, but if I did so it would diminish the skills and courage of those involved.
————————————————————————-
Photo Credit: Fanny Brown Rice
————————————————————————-
More on the crash:

…it’ll take more than a miracle to keep the lawsuits from flying. As far as we know, no suits have yet been filed. But we were curious about what such a claim — negligent infliction of emotional distress, anyone? — may look like, and whether it could succeed.

Please don’t rush to New York and file a lawsuit over yesterday’s crash.

Links to this post:

mortimer, morden, and miracles
a few “quickies” that took too long to write this saturday morning afternoon: thank you, john mortimer, for creating rumpole: as today’s new york times reports, “john mortimer, barrister and writer who created rumpole, dies at 85” (jan.
posted by David Giacalone @ January 17, 2009 1:25 PM

 

August 2nd, 2007

New York Personal Injury Attorney Probe Catches Another Ambulance Chaser

A Manhattan District Attorney investigation into ambulance chasing has yielded its 11th attorney conviction. The probe, ongoing since 1999, involves a “runner” bribing hospital officials for the names of patients and then selling them to corrupt attorneys for $500, according to this New York Law Journal article.

The attorneys who bought the names have been convicted of a felony for filing a false statement, and disbarred. The filed document is a “Retainer Statement” that New York personal injury attorneys must furnish to the Office of Court Administration that sets forth the terms of the contingency arrangement, and also mandates that the attorney set forth how the law firm was found by the client. A subsequent filing must be made at the end of representation detailing exactly what happened to the proceeds (if any) of a matter taken on contingency.

My opinion:
I am of mixed feelings on seeing this. On the one hand, it is a continuing embarrassment to the profession to see this conduct happen. The image of all attorneys, and those who practice personal injury law in particular, are further smeared leaving a sour taste in the mouths of the public.

On the other hand, and far more importantly, I know this crap happens and I want it stopped. I have heard it through the grapevine as new clients reported on how they were approached by others after being hospitalized. It is utterly infuriating, and I am pleased that the Manhattan District Attorney is working on the issue. I have often quietly hoped (and today, not so quietly) that District Attorneys in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island would follow suit, not only investigating based on tips they receive, but even running sting operations.

Seven other now-convicted New York attorneys were listed in the article for using the runner (Jean Phillipe Landi) named in the article:

In addition, two other attorneys uncovered in this probe had previously been convicted of stealing from clients, Michael Mann and Joshua Just (Mann & Just). The conviction was based on charging clients for expenses such as medical reports that had never been incurred. I had previously covered that here: Two Personal Injury Lawyers Sentenced in Billing Scam.

Addendum:

We strongly urge not only enforcement, but also outreach by the disciplinary committees to [the Office of Court Administration] itself and/or other State agencies for the resources needed to address what may be the most extraordinarily offensive variety of client solicitation. They must undertake the investigative efforts necessary to identify and prosecute those attorneys and hospital employees who are responsible for inserting “runners” into hospitals to solicit clients at their bedsides. Currently, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach effectively encourages wrongdoers. Our membership believes that hospitals are in a unique position to stop this practice and that it is in the best interests of their patients to do so.

 

July 9th, 2007

A Guilty Plea at Milberg, Weiss & Bershad For Ambulance Chasing

This isn’t about New York personal injury law, but is related in a fashion. Related because it is the personal injury attorneys who are usually accused of ambulance chasing.

But high-powered class action law firm Milberg Weiss & Bershad is not only accused of paying money to obtain clients, most certainly a form of ambulance chasing, but named partner David Bershad has now plead guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice. This investigation has been going for six years.

Byron Stier at the Mass Torts Litigation Blog has this excerpt:

According to a person familiar with the situation, Bershad‘s plea will relate to the core allegations of the indictment: misleading judges into believing that plaintiffs were being paid by Milberg Weiss, when in fact the firm was paying them. A “factual statement” accompanying the plea is also expected to unveil new details of the government’s allegations against the still unindicted “Partner A” and “Partner B,” who are widely assumed to be, respectively, name partner Melvyn Weiss and former name partner William Lerach. Lerach and the San Diego-based west coast office of Milberg Weiss split away from Milberg Weiss in 2004 to found Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins.

So what punishment awaits Bershad (whose archived biography from Milberg Weiss can be found here)? According to the Wall Street Journal:

He said in court papers that he and others agreed to conceal from judges secret payment arrangements that the firm had with named plaintiffs in class actions. He will forfeit $7.75 million and pay a $250,000 fine. He could face as much as five years in prison; how much time if any he serves may depend in part on his cooperation, the plea agreement says.

So, do you think those who thought Scooter Libby’s obstruction of justice sentence too harsh will be starting a campaign for commutation of Bershad’s eventual jail sentence?

See also:


(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)