February 15th, 2011

First, Do No Harm

This was first posted in Trial Magazine (February 2011)©, put out by the  American Association for Justice, formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA). At my request, I’ve been given permission to re-post this, given the constant drumbeat of tort “reformers” seeking to protect those that have caused injury to others from being held accountable for their conduct.

———————————————

First, do no harm

C. Gibson Vance, President of AAJ

Few things in life are certain, but one thing you can count on is that politicians who want to weaken the civil justice system will try repeatedly to take away the legal rights of patients hurt by medical negligence. That was one of their final actions late last year, and it is on their agenda again in this new Congress.

Once again, our opponents are ignoring a major crisis in preventable medical errors and attacking injured patients while they try to revive the health care debate by raising the usual myths about medical malpractice litigation.

In the last Congress, AAJ successfully fought off dozens of amendments to the health care reform law that would have denied the legal rights of medical negligence victims. Our opponents tried one last time in the waning hours of the fall session by attempting to inject med-mal tort “reform” into the 9/11 bill, and AAJ helped to get the effort defeated by a vote of 185–244.

Their argument always boils down to cost. They claim that medical malpractice litigation is an expensive drain on the American health care system. A favorite tactic is to blame legitimate negligence claims for costly “defensive medicine”—a term used to describe what happens when doctors presumably order unnecessary tests for fear of being sued.

Yet even using our opponents’ statistics, a 2009 Congressional Budget Office report found that proposed changes in the civil justice system would save only one-half of 1 percent of all health care spending. The same report found evidence that tort “reform” measures would increase mortality rates and lead to worse patient care.

A tired and treacherous campaign

Now they’re at it again, at a time when the serious problem of medical errors is growing worse, not better. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) famously reported that preventable medical errors kill as many as 98,000 patients a year. At that time, the IOM suggested a number of steps to improve safety, such as increasing the use of computerized medical records and making sure doctors and nurses don’t work too long in any given shift.

Two recent studies make it clear those policies have not been widely adopted. Last November, both the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services published results of studies showing that the level of risk to patients in our nation’s hospitals is at crisis levels, with hundreds of people dying daily from medical errors.

The NEJM study—which examined patient safety in North Carolina hospitals—found that about 18 percent of patients were harmed and that of these injuries, 2.9 percent were permanent, 8.5 percent were life-threatening, and 2.4 percent caused or contributed to a patient’s death. The study also reported that “the penetration of evidence-based safety practices has been quite modest.” Only 1.5 percent of hospitals in America are using a comprehensive computerized medical record system, and doctors-in-training and nurses regularly work excessively long hours, which has been proved to be unsafe.

The inspector general’s report included some sobering statistics from a study of Medicare beneficiaries conducted in October 2008. It found that one in seven Medicare patients experienced a serious adverse event. As a result, the study projected that 15,000 patients died in a single month—that’s the equivalent of an astonishing 180,000 patients a year. The study concluded that 44 percent of the adverse events were preventable, due to medical errors and substandard care, and cost the government $4.4 billion a year.

How will stripping the rights of these patients to seek justice solve this crisis of care? It won’t. Instead it will create a health care system that costs more but produces worse outcomes. Patients injured by medical errors will have no recourse, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

Congress should adopt the time-honored pledge of the medical profession, “First, do no harm.” It should focus on the real problem of preventable medical errors, not attack innocent patients harmed by health care providers’ mistakes.

 

February 15th, 2011

Dominic Barbara Retires In Wake of Suspension (High Profile Long Island Attorney)

Fresh on the heals of being hit with an 18-month suspension from practicing law, high profile lawyer Dominic Barbara has decided to retire according to the New York Law Journal.

The suspension came after 20 prior sanctions from 1988 to 2009, with the Appellate Division citing the “avalanche of Grievance Committee sanctions” as a motivating factor. Barbara, who primarily did matrimonial and criminal law, was also involved in a high profile personal injury matter last year regarding the death of eight people on the Taconic Parkway from a drunk and stoned driver going the wrong way.

His notoriety stems from handling high profile clients such as Joey Buttafuco and Jessica Hahn, and frequent call-in appearances to the Howard Stern show.

The Law Journal quotes Barbara as saying,

“The Appellate Division has a very difficult job to do ruling on what the findings of the grievance committee are and I’m sure what they did, they felt was right…I’ve been a lawyer for 40 years, and am 65 years old, and it’s just a sad way to end my career. But, on the other hand, life goes on.”

Previously:  Dominic Barbara, High Profile NY Attorney, Suspended for 18 months

 

February 11th, 2011

Dominic Barbara, High Profile NY Attorney, Suspended for 18 months

Part of this short story is about a lawyer named Dominic Barbara, who previously represented Howard Stern (and is a regular side-kick, call-in guest on his show). He also represented Joey Buttafuco, Jessica Hahn, and Michael Lohan, each of whom had more than their allotted 15 minutes of fame. New York Magazine once called him the “biggest, brassiest lawyer on Long Island.” And last year he was retained for a headline making crash on the Taconic Parkway that killed eight people (video).

But the more important part, to me, is the fact that what you see on a lawyer’s website, or in the newspapers, isn’t always what you get.

First, as to Barbara. He was suspended this week after “an avalanche of Grievance Committee sanctions” (nine Letters of Caution, nine Admonitions, and two Advisements). That’s a lot of baggage, and as a consequence of the latest round he was handed an 18-month suspension.  Among the charges, and these seem to be the straws that broke the camel’s back, are that he failed to issue itemized bills as required, failed to supervise the lawyers in his office, failed to timely refund a portion of a fee that had not been earned after the client fired him, and engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer by failing to adequately communicate with that client (or her new counsel).

But here’s the thing, despite this “avalanche” of sanctions, he has this to say about his firm on  his website:

For more than 35 years, The Barbara Law Firm has performed at the highest level of quality legal representation in the fields of Family, Matrimonial, Criminal, and Civil Law.

The highest levels? I think not. Not with all those sanctions. There is more puffery, of course, as he tries to parlay  the celebrity clients into more business:

Dominic A. Barbara has been leading this firm for more than 30 years, providing personal, assertive, successful legal representation to clients from all walks of life. The housewife, teacher and business owner receive the same care and consideration as the high-profile celebrities who turn to The Barbara Law Firm. Each one is looking for the same thing – a team of brilliant legal minds focusing on his or her individual case.

So what you see on a website isn’t always what you get when it comes to the law. Anybody can write puffery. And just because someone has high profile clients doesn’t mean that they are actually good lawyers. (I never did like that whole “celebrity lawyer” thing.) ” I once tried a case with a guy that had many high profile clients. In the well of the courtroom he was awful. And when I say awful I mean law students could do a better job. I would see him on the news after our trial and the first in my mind was this: His client is gonna hang.

The best way to find a lawyer isn’t by checking out the puffery on a website. It’s by asking around and making sure they handle the problem that you have, perhaps by starting with friends and neighbors and other lawyers who will hopefully be able to direct you to someone who knows what they are doing. In fact, this was the subject of the fourth post I ever did on this blog, more than 1,000 posts ago, when I only had six readers. They were all Bulgarian spammers.

So if you’re hunting for a lawyer, ignore that guy on the news. And certainly don’t be impressed with his website. For as the old New Yorker cartoon goes, on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.

Avvo screenshot at about noon on 2/11/11

Addendum: I think it’s worth noting that this “avalanche” of Grievance Committee sanctions didn’t show up on Avvo‘s lawyer rating service, a service of which I’ve previously been critical. (This suspension hasn’t either, but I cut them slack for that because the opinion was just released yesterday.) But the point is that many disciplinary actions are hidden from public view. In other words, Avvo probably couldn’t have found the problems even if they looked. And that type of incomplete information can be rather misleading to the consumer, notwithstanding all the caveats that Avvo might provide. A copy of Barbara’s listing, showing “No professional misconduct found” is at right.

Elsewhere:

Learning Tricks from an Old Dog (Simple Justice):

Is this your hero?  Is this your savior?  Is this the lawyer who you want standing next to you when your life is on the line?  Or is this the guy who will charge you a whole lotta money because he’s a big time “high profile” lawyer, and when you decide that he’s not the guy you want next to you despite all the puffery on his website, he won’t give you your money back? (more)

Loud Lawyer Dominic Barbara suspended for 18 months (Courtroom Strategy):

I have had clients who have come to me after a foray into his firm’s office that when they complained about the non-stop pouring of money into legal fees, that he would offer to stay on the case if he allowed them to hold a press conference about the case. (more)

Update: Dominic Barbara Retires In Wake of Suspension

(Note: Subsequent to this post, news organizations ran stories on the suspension)

 

February 7th, 2011

Huffington Post Sold (The Future of the Legal Blogosphere and How Much Is Your Blog Worth?)

When I heard this morning that the Huffington Post was sold for $315 million to AOL, it made me wonder once again just how much a blog was “worth” if it was sold on the open market. I speculated on this once before, on April Fool’s Day 2009, when I put my blog up for sale on eBay for $1 million.

So, with a bit of number crunching, we get this: Huffington has 25 million visitors per month as per a NYT article I read this morning. Whether that is unique visitors, or some other way of calculating visitors, I don’t know. But my little corner of cyberspace had these metrics last year: 172K visitors, 207K visits, and 295K page views (using Google Analytics). That makes this a modestly successful law blog, if one is concerned with eyeballs (as per Alexa/Avvo, #46 if counting eyeballs). Roughly speaking, it seems that Huffington gets about 1,500 times as many visitors as I do.

So if Huffington has 1,500 times as many visitors, then this blog would have a value of about $200,000.

Of course, the ability to generate revenue would be a major issue for the blog. I’ve never gone out of my way to do that, with the exception of the ALM ad you see to the right that I discussed some time ago, but it seems that law blogs would have particularly favorable demographics for advertisers. Not just books, and legal support services, but high end products such as cars as well. So one would think that a premium would be paid for such sites (if they were for sale).

Some time ago, I speculated that a group law blog in the fashion of Huffington would work very well for the right entrepreneur, leading me to write The Future of the Legal Blogosphere in 2009. (See also a 2 minute interview I did at Legal Tech in 2009 on this.) And the sale of Huffington today reinforces that feeling.

 

February 4th, 2011

So, You Think It’s Safe To Disburse Those “Available” Funds In Your Account?

This one isn’t just for personal injury attorneys, but anyone that drops a check into an attorney trust account, waits for it to clear, and then disburses the funds. Warning: Banks may suspend the ordinary usage of English.

An interesting decision yesterday out of the Second Circuit regarding funds placed in a lawyer’s bank account that Citibank said were “available.” Except when they said “available,” they didn’t really mean it in the sense that you and I mean it. Because after they were “available,” and the lawyers wired the money money overseas, the bank called to say the check was counterfeit. Now the funds weren’t so available anymore.

This case arose out of a scam. The firm of  Fischer & Mandell collected $225, 351 that was allegedly a partial debt owed to another. Then, when their Citibank website said the funds were “available” they disbursed the money by wire transfer. Then they were unavailable, and the bank took the money needed for the wire transfers from another account of theirs.

“Available,” it seems, isn’t the same as “cleared.” Apparently, Citibank has in one of its agreements — the bank agreements drafted by the bank that no one ever reads until something bad happens — that the funds are only “provisionally” cleared. Nice. If you happen to be the bank.

You can almost hear the BigLaw lawyers that likely wrote the agreement chuckling about this over a beer.

Local attorney Stephen Chawkin emailed me his own thoughts on this when the subject came up for discussion later yesterday:

When I was taking my commercial paper course in law school 8,000 years ago, the teacher – who was a good guy and nobody’s fool – said that the underlying principle that trumped all other is simply this: “the bank wins”. Everything else is a corollary, an elaboration, a commentary, or (once in a blue moon) an exception to this.

The decision is here: Fischer&Mandell-v-Citibank

Hat tip: Blawgletter: Sucker Law Firm Loses Claim to Undo Wire Transfers