Frequently Asked Questions

Answer: Of course you can. Your first consultation is always free! We handle all personal injury and police misconduct matters on a contingency basis. That means that you will not owe any attorney fees unless and until we secure a monetary settlement or verdict on your behalf. Many employment discrimination matters are also handled on a contingency basis. It is necessary, however, in some employment matters for us to ask for a nominal retainer at the commencement of your case. The remainder of the attorneys' fee is then calculated on a contingency basis.

Answer: Contingent fees are an essential component of the American Judicial System. For over 100 years contingent fees have allowed every American to exercise their right to pursue a valid claim against even the most powerful individual or corporation. Contingent fees are currently under attack by large corporations and insurance companies because these corporations seek to restrict access to competent legal representation to only those who are wealthy. This is un-American and undemocratic.

Answer:

• Keep calm and make sure that no one is injured. If someone needs medical attention that should be your first priority.
• Do not argue with anyone or admit liability.
• Call the Police to report how the accident happened.
• Call an ambulance, if necessary.
• Obtain the following information:
  • Driver’s license, registration and insurance information of the other driver(s).
  • Description of other vehicle(s).
  • Name, address and phone number of any witnesses.
  • Police aided report number and the name of the police officer.
• Report the accident to your insurance carrier.
• CALL OUR OFFICE SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.

Answer: So-called "tort-reform" is merely a thinly veiled attempt by insurance companies and corporations to avoid responsibility for the harm caused by their actions. Unfortunately, some manufacturers put corporate profit before public safety. The threat of lawsuits is often the only way to deter corporations from intentionally hurting you and your family by knowingly marketing unsafe products and from trading public safety for corporate profits.

Perhaps no example illustrates this principle more ably than the exploding Ford Pinto and the Grimshaw case. The Grimshaw case disclosed that possible design changes to the Ford Pinto were examined by Ford but rejected due to their additional expense.

The Grimshaw plaintiffs were passengers in a Ford Pinto when it was rear-ended and burst into flames. Plaintiff Gray died and Plaintiff Grimshaw suffered severe burns to his entire body.

The court found that Ford knew of the design defect in the Pinto and knew that the gas tank would explode in rear-end collisions even at low speeds. Ford had conducted several crash tests that demonstrated the Pinto's susceptibility to fire.

Despite this knowledge, Ford chose not to correct the design problem after conducting a risk/benefit analysis.

Ford discovered that it would cost $11.00 per vehicle to install rubber bladders in 11 million Pintos and 1.5 million trucks, totaling $137 million; and it estimated that it would cost only $49.5 million if instead they paid the compensatory damages of the 360 people they anticipated would die or be injured in fires resulting from this design flaw.

Ford performed a straightforward cost-benefit analysis and chose the least expensive alternative.

Grimshaw was awarded $2,516,000 in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages, which the trial court reduced to $3.5 million.

So-called "tort reform" is merely an attempt to allow Ford and its corporate brethren to return to the days when a human life was merely worth $11.00.

It was only after successful lawsuits such as the Grimshaw case increased the cost of a human life to Ford that the problem was either fixed or the Pinto removed from the road.

Corporations would repeat this episode over and over if they were no longer afraid of lawsuits from persons injured by their products and actions. The bottom line would demand it.

Answer: According to the law, sexual harassment can take many forms, both obvious and subtle. The law defines two major areas of sexual harassment; quid pro quo and hostile work environment.

"Quid Pro Quo" sexual harassment (something for something) is generally more obvious and easier to recognize. It often consists of a threat to fire or demote an employee unless some types of sexual attention or favors are granted. The threat may take many forms and need not be explicitly verbal.

"Hostile Work Environment" sexual harassment occurs when the acts of a person or persons make another person feel uncomfortable or unreasonably interfere with a person's performance in the workplace, on account of their sex. An intimidating, hostile or offensive work atmosphere often typifies a hostile work environment, whether or not the harassment is linked to promotions or salary. This illegal conduct can include uninvited touching or groping, lewd comments, dirty jokes and even physical assault.

Retaliation is also forbidden: It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against someone for making a reasonable claim that they have been sexually harassed or for reporting incidences of sexual harassment. Retaliation can take many forms including termination to demotion.