Total Pageviews

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Vanessa Kachadurian- Assemblywoman Halderman introduces bill to eliminate frivilous lawsuits


Aide Christine Bedoyan-Caprielian, State Assemblywoman Linda Halderman M.D. and Vanessa Kachadurian

I am very proud that Halderman has introduced this bill, I have known her to be a fantastic physician and advocate for women with breast cancer. Now, Linda is ridding us of a cancer called "frivilous lawsuits"

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/06/10/2422260/advocates-in-fresno-criticize.html
Advocates in Fresno criticize frivolous lawsuits
Posted at 11:13 PM on Friday, Jun. 10, 2011
By Victoria Guida / The Fresno Bee
Frivolous lawsuits are hindering job growth and driving up home prices in the Central Valley, an advocacy group said Friday morning in Fresno.
At a news conference, members of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse accused lawyers of churning out lawsuits that harass companies and hinder businesses, all for the sake of generating legal fees.
The organization examined recent legal cases involving building projects in the area and estimated how many new jobs were not added as a result of costs and delays associated with those lawsuits. The tally: More than 2,000 jobs in the Valley were affected, according to a report the organization released Friday.
CALA joined others in support of a bill proposed by Assembly Member Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, that would require attorneys consulting with homeowners on a possible lawsuit against their homebuilder to disclose that, for instance, there is no guarantee of financial recovery from a lawsuit and that a lawsuit could affect the property's value.
"There are some bad apples who approach homeowners and tell them they can be guaranteed a quick recovery by suing their homebuilder, regardless of whether they have defects in construction or not," Halderman said. "This takes away potential jobs because construction cannot happen in this litigious environment."
Paul Olson, a Tulare homeowner, said a law firm has been "bombarding" his neighborhood with notices asking him and his neighbors whether they would participate in a class-action lawsuit alleging faulty workmanship by the homebuilder.
"This is complete and utter nonsense," Olson said. "None of the neighbors, including myself, have experienced any of the problems alleged by this out-of-town law firm."
Mike Prandini, CEO of Building Industry Association of Fresno and Madera counties, said such lawsuits also increase the price of homes because homebuilders must factor their insurance premiums into the cost of construction.
The bill failed to pass committee March 15. The committee unanimously granted reconsideration, and Halderman said she is optimistic but noted that it's "going to be an uphill battle."
Before the vote, Consumer Attorneys of California wrote an opposition statement, saying the bill put litigation in an unfairly negative light and arbitrarily singled out construction-defect lawsuits.
Mark Milstein, a member of CAOC, said notices sent out are meant to inform about litigation happening in case other homeowners have similar problems. He said each home is evaluated individually.
As for frivolous lawsuits, Milstein said he has never handled a case in which there weren't at least some defects.
"If they're not able to recover, it doesn't make financial sense to sue," Milstein said. "The intent of [the bill] was to scare people off from pursuing their legal rights."
He also referred to the claim that these lawsuits drive up the price of homes or decrease property value as "ridiculous," given the state of the economy.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Vanessa Kachadurian, Truth or defamation?





"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." -Winston Churchill


Truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation.
It is the great equalizer in any libel or slander suit. It is what the plaintiff's defamation lawyer fears the most; that what his client's accuser says is true. It does not matter that the defendant made the statement out of malice or out of bad faith, so long as the statement is true. Washer v. Bank of America (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 501, 509; Campanelli v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 572, 581; Rest. 2d, Torts § 581A; Francis v. Dun & Bradstreet (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 535, 540 (credit report, even one causing harm, is not defamatory if true); Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 953 (statements as to dentist's misconduct were true given Board of Dental Examiner's determination that dentist had been grossly negligent and in violation of provisions of Business and Professions Code).
So what does it mean to establish truth? Does that mean the defendant must establish the truth of his statements in every particular? Surprisingly, the answer is no.
It is sufficient if the defendant proves that the substance or the "gist" of the statement is true. Heuer v. Kee (1936) 14 Cal.App.2d 710, 714; Gantry Const. Co. v. American Pipe & Const. Co. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 186, 194 ("The concept that it is the gist or sting of the alleged defamatory statements that must be false rather than the specific details of the charge is deeply rooted in our common law."). Weller v. American Broadcasting Cos. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 991, 1009, footnote, 17; See Campanelli, supra (admission that plaintiff basketball coach engaged in tirades so bad that seven players were thinking of quitting established truth of defendant's assertion that players "were in trouble psychologically").
But who bears the burden of proof? The previous rule in California was that the plaintiff needed to plead that the statements were false. This is no longer required. The burden of pleading and proving that the statements are true rests squarely on the shoulders of the defendant. See Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224, 233.


http://www.defamationlawblog.com/2009/08/articles/defamation-basics/truth-is-a-defense-to-a-claim-of-defamation/

Defamation - New York Court of Appeals Addresses Fact Versus Opinion in Summary Judgment Context
Halstead v. Brokaw (Motion for leave to appeal granted on Dec. 10, 2010) 74 A.D.3d 1283 (2010)
The appeal concerns one of three related actions to recover damages for defamation. The novel issue appears to concern a court’s determination of whether a statement is one of opinion or of fact. The Court of Appeals will likely re-examine its holding in Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146 (1993), which set forth the following relevant factors for a court to determine whether a statement is an opinion or of fact: “(1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to 'signal . . . readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact.' " (Id. [quoting Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 292 [1986]).
A unanimous panel at the Second Department granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second action. The Court held that the plaintiff in action No. 2 failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Lawyers in the "fight of their life" to stay afloat financially.



Lawyers in the “fight of their life” to stay afloat financially.

In this sagging financial economy, many law firms have had to re think their current business model to simply stay afloat. The larger the law firm the larger the expenses, many are litigating cases or creating cases for billable hours. Naïve and unsuspecting clients that are finding their simple cases are dragged out 2-3 years have “dwindling bank accounts” and are unfortunately following the advice of their attorney who have an economic advantage on their agenda. As a consequence many attorney’s are now being sued by their clients for giving ill-advice, and pursuing no-win cases.

Let’s face it, we can file a complaint for any silly reason, the courts will never turn the fees away from the Plaintiff who wishes to do this. However, make no mistake about it, the legal industry is a business and not about justice for the Plaintiff(s) who continue to pay while the case only further erodes their reputation and future. Many people do NOT want to continue business relations with individuals or companies that are known to file silly unfounded complaints against people that may have opposing or differences of opinion, especially when the complaint is about a controversial subject.

Many lawyers with a one-man operation have recently partnered up with larger law firms that wish to outsource certain types of law that are niche and obscure like: Internet Law, educational law, etc., or these attorneys have tried to create another opportunity by writing for free for some papers like Huffington Post, or they may host a local radio show or TV show while attempting to only promote themselves. Some of the reputable ones have gone into teaching law ,or legal ethic seminars to local law enforcement. Still others travel to give seminars for spam marketers and other questionable speaking engagements that only demean the legal industry further. But hey, a guy has to earn a buck doesn’t he?

Some of the larger law firms have been forced to dismantle, after a 3 year economic downslide. The only attorney’s that are growing are the bankruptcy attorneys and of course the stable Entertainment Lawyers or Insurance lawyers who work on large consistent retainers. Recently in California a large firm that was over 50 years old was forced to dismantle, most of the staff scrambled to find positions at other large firms—some were brave enough to try private practice or outsourcing with other large firms, while others were able to retire.

Meanwhile that client that is strung along in the hopes that there is some golden payout in the end will end up spending $400.00+ per hour plus expenses. An average 2 year case will cost the Plaintiff(s) over $80,000+ with no hope or guarantee of winning much of anything except a slim hope of some paltry settlement – why would anyone want to spend $80-100K to receive nothing but maybe $3,000 and a bad reputation that will follow them forever? Lets see $80,000+ for $3,000 and a bad reputation…doesn’t sound like a winning proposition to anyone with a good business sense. Law firms know when they can latch on to an empty check book and give empty promises. ….it’s called “keeping my law firm afloat”

One recent comment from a local attorney at a large law firm stated “Thank God for sucker clients with money” ……as P.T. Barnum stated “There is a sucker born every minute”
Kimble, McMichael & Upton “has ceased practicing law” (even taking dumb cases didn’t keep them afloat)
Lastly, thank you to those that read my postings and obsess over every word and everything about me and my world. We are so sorry that you have such an empty life, maybe another brand of Chardonnay without so much sulfates would clear your thoughts. Alas the life of another bored dragon lady with too much time and money on their hands. So very sad.
http://kmulaw.com/
http://fresnofiggarden.kmph.com/news/business/long-established-fresno-law-firm-closing-its-doors/44413
http://www.news-journalonline.com/business/local-business/2011/03/01/law-firms-maneuvered-to-get-through-recession.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/business/west-coast-law-firm-closing-after-dot-com-collapse.html
http://www.slashgear.com/magicjack-lose-defamation-case-charged-50000-2375338/
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2011/05/tax-lady-roni-d.html
http://blog.larrybodine.com/2008/11/articles/money/early-warning-signs-of-law-firm-failure/

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Vanessa Kachadurian- Homeowners Insurance and legal fees

As a tip to most of you in cyberspace, if you are a homeowner and have homeowners insurance you are generally covered 100% on many types of liability or if you are sued. Depending how involved your case is your homeowners insurance could save you $40-100,000. Approximately 90% of libel cases are dropped and never make it passed initial disclosure, the tab can be very expensive for the party that is litigating (plaintiff) as they are not covered by homeowners. If the party is merely on a fishing expediation and trying hard to build some flimsy case, it will cost the poor plaintiff thousands of dollars.
Here from Professor Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA and expert on Freedom of Speech issues and a reputable GOOD Attorney.
Bloggers — You May Already Have Blogging Libel Insurance,
Eugene Volokh • February 8, 2005 3:53 pm

but you might have lost it by having ads or a tipjar.

This surprised me, too, but it seems to be so. Here are the details. (Thanks to Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation for first suggesting this point, and to my wife for her advice on insurance law. Please note, though, that I’m not an insurance lawyer, though I’ve done a bit of research on this subject. Don’t take this to the bank, and do let me know if you are an insurance lawyer and have some corrections. Consider this general speculation about the lay of the land, and not individualized legal advice.)

1. It turns out that homeowner’s insurance policies, and possibly also some renter’s insurance policies, generally cover libel lawsuits. That may sound odd, but the policies tend to cover both damage to your property (the main reason, I suspect, that most people buy these) and liability for unintentional harm that you inflict on others. One policy that I read, for instance, says that

If a claim is made or a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury . . . caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies, we will:

1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable; and

2. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice even if the allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent. . . .

POLICY DEFINITIONS . . .

“Bodily injury” means; . . . personal injury . . . arising out of . . . libel, slander or defamation of character; or . . . invasion of privacy.

If you have an umbrella liability policy, it may provide extra monetary coverage. Of course, you’re only covered if your insurance contract does indeed specify this, explicitly or implicitly. You ought to read your policy (they are often quite readable), and pay close attention both to the body of the policy and any separate definitions section.

2. These policies generally don’t cover punitive damages, but they do cover both compensatory damages and litigation defense costs. Fortunately, that’s what you most want to have covered.

Libel cases are hard for plaintiffs to win, and punitive damages are especially hard to get. If you’re writing on matters of public concern, and are sued for libel, you can’t be liable for punitive damages unless a jury finds that you knew your statement was false or at least knew it was quite likely false but blithely published it without any investigation. So chances are you won’t be on the hook for punitive damages, or even for compensatory damages.

But even if you win, you could spend huge amounts of money defending yourself. That’s where the insurance can be especially handy.

3. However, these policies generally explicitly exclude liability related to “business pursuits.” The exclusion and the definition of “business pursuits” may vary from policy to policy, so check yours (and again check both the homeowners’ insurance and your umbrella policy, if you have it). Still, I’m told that most policies just say “business pursuits,” and sometimes define them as referring to a “trade, occupation, or profession.”

If your blog is entirely noncommercial — you neither have ads nor solicit donations for a tip jar, and you don’t systematically use your blog as primarily promotion for your business — then you should be covered for libel lawsuits arising out of your blog posts, because the blogging wouldn’t be a business pursuit. (Possible exception: If your primary occupation is a professor or a journalist, then even noncommercial posting on topics related to your specialty may conceivably be seen as part of your main occupational “business pursuit”; I know of no precedents one way or the other about this.)

But if you make some money out of it, even a small amount, then in many states you probably won’t be covered. In a few states (as best I can tell, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina), even a blog that makes some money will be covered if blogging isn’t your primary occupation. In Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and Michigan, you might be able to get coverage on the theory that making money wasn’t your primary motive in blogging, and that you were instead doing it as a hobby with money being only a side consideration. Still, the majority view, as I understand it, is that any moneymaking component (so long as it’s regular, rather than just one-time or highly intermittent) makes your blogging into business activity and thus excludes it from coverage. This isn’t entirely clear, but that’s my sense from reading some cases and a couple of reference works.

4. This means that if you’re worried about the risk of libel lawsuits, you might want to consider staying entirely noncommercial. Naturally, you wouldn’t have to do it if you live in a state which reads the “business pursuits” exception narrowly. (Most homeowner’s insurance policies, I’m told, don’t have a separate provision indicating what state law would be used to interpret them, so courts would generally apply the law of where you live.) And if you figure that you’ll make lots of money from the ads or the tip jar, you might be willing to run the risk, especially because libel lawsuits against bloggers are thankfully rare, and because you might think that your posts would be unlikely to trigger a lawsuit.

But if you think that having libel insurance will let you sleep better at night, you might conclude that it’s better to forego, say, $500 worth of advertising income in a year in order to remain insured.

5. What should you do if you get a threatening letter?

Read your insurance policy. As I said, it may not be a hard read. Pay close attention to all the sections, to see if there might be some unexpected exclusion that may apply. Also pay close to attention to the definitions section, since some terms may be defined in counterintuitive ways.

Immediately notify your insurance company, in writing, that there might be a claim against you; send them a copy of the nastygram you received, and a dated cover letter. Tell the company that you need to consult a lawyer to deal with the threatening letter, and ask them to get you a lawyer right away, or to authorize you to consult one yourself on their dime. The insurance company may not have an obligation to pay your lawyer’s bills until the lawsuit is filed, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

I’m told that you can usually do the notification through your insurance broker, who knows how to deal with the company, and whom to talk to there. In any case, talk to your broker and see whether he’ll do the notification for you or whether you ought to notify them yourself.

Always communicate in writing, keep copies of all communications, and date all your communications. You can also call them (particularly important if you need to nag them), but confirm any substantive communications in writing.

If the other side’s gripe with you is sound — if you did indeed err — post a correction. It’s the right thing to do, and it may avoid a lawsuit.

If a Complaint is filed against you in court, notify the insurance company about that, too, by sending them a copy of the Complaint with a dated cover letter. Demand that they get back to you quickly about whether they’re hiring a lawyer on your behalf.

If they don’t tell you quickly, hire a lawyer yourself, and show him a copy of the insurance policy. Then inform the company that you’ve hired the lawyer, and that you expect them to pay the bills. Bug them repeatedly, if necessary, including through your insurance broker. If your policy covers libel, and you aren’t within the business pursuits exclusion, you likely have a very strong case for coverage; but they can still be slow, and you need to be the squeaky wheel.

If you do hire a lawyer, show him the policy, and negotiate with him in light of the policy. See if he would agree to represent you for rates that he’s pretty sure the insurance company would pay. See if he would agree not to charge you if the insurance company denies coverage. That, of course, depends on his sense of how likely coverage seems to be. But cyber-libel cases are potentially pretty interesting, even glamorous. Some lawyers may be willing to take a small risk of nonpayment to do a fun case like that.


* * *

In any case, these are just a few thoughts; use these numbers for comparison, your mileage may vary. But keep in mind that (1) you may already have libel insurance for your blogging, (2) you might lose it, depending on the state you’re in, if you sell ads, have a tipjar, or otherwise make even small sums of money from your blog, (3) you may therefore want to plan your blog financing accordingly, if you’re the worrying sort (or for that matter the libeling sort), and (4) if you are sued or threatened with a lawsuit, look carefully at your insurance policies, notify your insurance company immediately and in writing, and bug them repeatedly for an answer.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Vanessa Kachadurian- Why Lawyers Can't Handle the Truth.



How is a lawyer likely to react when confronted with the undeniable truth about the ugly side of the legal field?
He probably will lash out in abrupt and misguided fashion. I know because just yesterday a lawyer threatened me with a defamation lawsuit because of my coverage of an Alabama divorce/child custody case.
I attended a status conference at the Jefferson County Domestic Relations Court on Turner v. Turner, a case that involves the custody of triplets who now are 10 years old. Turner v. Turner embodies much of what is wrong with our broken justice system, and we have reported on it several times. (See here, here, and here.)
The case got even uglier yesterday as I was leaving the hearing. Tom Kendrick, of the Birmingham firm Norman Wood Kendrick and Turner, approached me, introduced himself and proceeded to threaten me, on about five different occasions, with a lawsuit for portraying his firm in a false light. I informed Mr. Kendrick that I've been a professional journalist for 30-plus years, with 11 years of experience in daily newspapers, and I had not written anything that is defamatory on Turner v. Turner--or any other subject.
Read the complete article by Roger Shuler
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lawyers-Can-t-Handle-the-T-by-Roger-Shuler-110419-215.html