From the monthly archives:

October 2008

Vickie Pynchon, who runs Settle It Now Negotiation Blog, one of the most recognized legal blogs around, was kind enough to allow me to write a guest post on her blog. The post can be found here. You should check out her blog; lots of good stuff on there.

I’ve also reprinted my article below.

Mediating? A Savvy Plaintiff’s Attorney Tells You How

by Guest Blogger Brian Herrington

Don’t Agree To Mediate Too Soon In The Litigation

The mediation of litigated cases involving personal or economic injury should mainly be about money. Unless the issues of law and fact have been fully fleshed out, mediation sessions get bogged down in contentions about ultimate facts and conclusions of law that neither side can “win.”

Let’s take a drug case in which the drug causes a signature disease that only has 3-4 causal connections. Until the defendant knows my client’s medical history and definitively understands that the only causal connection present in my client’s case is the drug at issue, the defendant cannot fully appreciate the strengths of the plaintiff’s case, leading to an unbridgeable divergence in the two sides’ valuation. On the other hand, if I’ve not yet conducted adequate discovery to learn that the drug didn’t contain the offending agent until after my client quit taking the drug, then I’m going to waste my time – and everyone else’s – by asking for 7 figures.

If the attorneys are making arguments that sound like summary judgment motions during a mediation, both parties are wasting their time. No one should proceed to mediate before they know what they agree on and what they disagree. Ideally, the parties should agree upon as many facts and legal issues as possible before sitting down to negotiate settlement.

Make Sure The Money Person Is There

I will no longer attend a mediation unless the individual authorized to write the settlement check is present. None of this, “We have to get on the phone and see what corporate says” for me. You do not want to mediate with defense counsel only. It’s much easier for an adjuster or other money person to hold tight at a number when he/she doesn’t have a plane to catch. In fact, one of the first things I ask the corporate representative at a mediation is, What time is your flight? This information usually tells me volumes.

Make Sure The Mediator Knows Who to Talk to Before the Mediation Begins

Assuming there’s only one plaintiff and one defendant, there are no less than four parties that the mediator may need to direct his/her attention to: (1) defense counsel (2) the corporate representative of the defendant (3) plaintiff’s counsel and (4) the plaintiff. In any given litigation, one or more of these parties could be the source of impasse. Usually my clients are very well-oriented on where we need to be money-wise heading into mediation. The occasion does arise, however, when I need the mediator to help me help my client understand that his or her expectations of recovery are unrealistic. On those occasions, I instruct the mediator confidentially that my client needs a little reality testing if the case is going to settle.

All of us sometimes have unrealistic expectations. I certainly can, as can defense counsel or the corporate representatives. The point is the mediator needs to know who needs to be talked to a little more than the others. I encourage any mediator with whom I work to accept confidential settlement letters. In these letters, I mention which parties I think might be barriers to settlement.

If you have a mediator who only talks to the lawyers, you’re probably in for a long and unsuccessful day. Or, given the situation, it may be the clients who are being hard-headed. In these instances, the mediator needs to talk right past the lawyers and speak directly to the clients. As a plaintiff’s lawyer, I won’t deal with a mediator who won’t talk directly to my client or the corporate representative.

The lawyers’ job is to represent their clients and the mediators job is to bring the lawyers together. If the lawyers are in the way, the mediator needs to ignore them for a while and deal directly with the clients. Ensure that the mediator you’ve agreed to will do this.

Before The Mediation Set A Time Limit For Real Progress

This last point is something that I’ve only started employing in the last few years, and it’s worked wonders. In a courteous and professional tone, I inform defense counsel that if we’ve not made sufficient progress by a certain time or within a certain number of hours – usually 2-3 – then I will leave. What constitutes “sufficient progress” is case-specific, and you’ll know it when you see it. I give this caveat to defense counsel so that there’s no misunderstanding at the mediation. If, by all reasonable measures, my case is worth 7 figures, I’m not going to spend 6 hours trying to get to 6 figures. I simply will not let that happen to me anymore.

By informing defense counsel ahead of time that I won’t stay more than a couple of hours unless I see real progress, I’ve managed to avoid many of the lowball offers that usually start the defense side of the mediation. Or, if I get a lowball offer, the numbers start increasing once I remind the mediator and defense counsel that I will leave if substantial progress isn’t made.

Of course, this point applies equally to plaintiff’s counsel. I can’t start off at $10 billion dollars like Dr. Evil with a law degree. I make sure that my offers are within reason so that I can be justifiably indignant if defense counsel starts playing games with the offers.

One Size Does Not Fit All

As I said at the beginning, there is no foolproof way for the plaintiff lawyer to approach mediation. There are numerous approaches and many depend on the parties involved. These are some of the broad categorical approaches that I take and they’ve worked for me. I hope that you find them useful as well. Happy mediating.

About The Author

Brian Herrington is the founding partner of Herrington Law, PA in Jackson, Mississippi. Licensed in Mississippi and Tennessee, Brian litigates consumer class actions, cases involving defective drugs and medical devices, and personal injury cases all over the country.

You can obtain more information about Brian’s practice by going to Herrington Law PA’s main website here. Brian blogs on numerous issues relevant to litigation at Mississippi Consumer Lawyer here. You can also follow Brian on twitter.

{ 0 comments }

Recently, Greg Lambert at 3 Geeks And A Law Blog wrote a favorable post about my use of twitter in my law practice.

First, I appreciate the kind words. Second, this reinforces my opinion that twitter is yet another tool for a lawyer in both marketing his/her law practice as well as in continuing his/her legal education and staying on top of the latest developments in a related legal field.

{ 0 comments }

Please read the story below, reprinted in its entirety from the website of the Center for Justice & Democracy. The story is about contingency fees. Simply put, contingency fees allow lawyers to front the costs of litigation for clients who cannot afford to pursue their cases. The lawyer takes all the risk and does not get paid until the client gets paid.

Contingency fees are crucial to our civil justice system because they allow the courthouse to remain open for everyone regardless of how much money they have — remember, the courtroom is the only place on Earth where the poorest individual can stand on equal footing with the richest multi-national corporation. Contingency fee contracts must be upheld. We do not need judicial activism or legislation impinging on this vital entry point into the civil justice system.

If you hear of others talking about the evils of trial lawyers, remind them that trial lawyers and the contingency fee contract are the last line of defense for most individuals.

Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Crash Award: Future Victims Could Pay

Imagine for a moment you are James McMillan—a forty-four-year-old former Fulton Fish Market worker in New York City and victim of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash which killed 11 people and injured scores more. On that horrible day, while standing near the ship’s bow, you are pinned facedown by debris and several bones in your spine are crushed, rendering you permanently quadriplegic. You now require the assistance of an aide for even the most basic activities. You also suffer migraine headaches and cannot regulate your body temperature, among other complications.

You know you need the services of a reputable attorney, but unfortunately, you are unable to pay for one since you have lost the use of your arms and legs and are totally unable to work. Luckily, Attorney Evan Torgan agrees to take your case on a standard contingency basis—that is, you pay nothing up front, and Torgan agrees to cover all litigation costs (which could total thousands, and perhaps even millions of dollars). In return, if you win, Torgan’s compensation will be one-third of your award. If you lose, Torgan will receive nothing.

The city initially offers to settle for a completely inadequate sum, but Torgan knows a lowball offer when he hears one—so he advises you to go to trial, and you agree. Following the trial, you are awarded 83 percent more than the city originally offered. But most importantly, you’re in a far better position to pay for the life-long expenses you will incur as a person who is completely paralyzed from the neck down.

Now put yourself in Attorney Torgan’s shoes. By any measure, you have done a magnificent job in obtaining justice for your client. Nevertheless, following the trial, the judge (Judge Jack B. Weinstein) inexplicably decides to reduce your fee to 20 percent—leaving you with roughly the same amount you would have received had you not invested your time and resources in preparation for trial, and simply accepted the city’s lowball offer.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened—and it could have a very chilling effect on the ability of future injury victims to obtain justice from the courts.

Simply put, if Weinstein’s decision is allowed to stand and/or signals some sort of new trend in judges inserting themselves into attorney/client fee agreements, attorneys may no longer be able to accept the risk of representing clients on a contingency. And even if they do, they’ll be tempted to settle immediately no matter how unfair the offer may be to the client, knowing that the resources they expend in preparation for a trial may never be recouped.

Thankfully, Weinstein stayed his judgment for 20 days to allow the parties to seek relief from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime, for the sake of injured people everywhere, let’s hope the 2nd Circuit responds appropriately to Judge Weinstein’s ridiculous fee ruling—by tossing it out with the other garbage.

Source

{ 0 comments }

Please check out our new look here. At our website, you can read more about us and what we do to help consumers across the country.

{ 0 comments }

The news article linked to below is not sensational in and of itself. It is newsworthy in that the current Mississippi Supreme Court has overturned a trial court’s order disallowing a case to be heard by a jury. The Mississippi Supreme Court, in its written opinion, ruled that the case should go to the jury. Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging back to a more moderate stance for this Court.

The article is in The Clarion Ledger here.

{ 0 comments }

Yesterday, the Federal Drug Administration issued a press release, reprinted below in full, stating that manufacturers of cold and cough medicines have agreed to a label that will read, “Do not use in children under 4 years of age.” The purpose of this labeling change is to hopefully cut down on misuse of the medicines in children below age 4.

FDA Statement Following CHPA’s Announcement on Nonprescription Over-the-Counter Cough and Cold Medicines in Children

Background: The Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), an association that represents most of the makers of nonprescription over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold medicines in children, recently announced that its members are voluntarily modifying the product labels for consumers of OTC cough and cold medicines to state “do not use” in children under 4 years of age. Additionally, the manufacturers are introducing new child-resistant packaging and new measuring devices for use with the products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration supports the voluntary actions by CHPA members to help prevent and reduce misuse and to better inform consumers about the safe and effective use of these products for children. The FDA continues to assess the safety and efficacy of these products and to revise its OTC monograph (list of approved ingredients and amounts) for these medicines. Although this new labeling is inconsistent with the current monograph, FDA will not object, under the circumstances presented here, to the new label modification stating “do not use in children under 4,” which reflects a more restrictive use of the drugs in children.

The steps that are being taken by CHPA will not affect the availability of the medicines, but this voluntary action will result in a transition period where the instructions for use of some OTC cough and cold medicines in children will be different from others. FDA does not typically request removal of OTC products with previous labeling from the shelves during a voluntary label change such as this one. Therefore, some medicines will have the new recommendation “do not use” for children under 4 years of age, while others will instruct that they not be used for children under 2 years of age. If parents or caregivers have or purchase a product that does not have the voluntarily-modified labeling, FDA recommends that they should adhere to the dosage instructions and warnings on the label that accompanies the medication. They should not, under any circumstances, give adult medications to children. If parents or caregivers have questions or are just not sure about how to use a product, they should consult with their doctor or pharmacist.

Over the last year, FDA has been working on several fronts to address the safe use of nonprescription OTC cough and cold medicines in children.

FDA has held two public meetings to hear from stakeholders and consumers on the issue, most recently, a public hearing that focused on labeling of these products on Oct. 2, 2008. In January of this year, FDA issued a nationwide Public Health Advisory recommending that these products not be used in children under the age of two because of the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening side effects.

Another part of the agency’s work includes outreach to other public health agencies, consumer and patient groups companies that manufacture these products, and CHPA.

FDA will continue to work with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor the ongoing use of these products and to develop educational materials for parents and consumers. The Agency will also continue to reach out to the scientific community to obtain more up-to-date information and scientific data about the effects of these products in children so that it can take the appropriate regulatory steps moving forward.

All these areas are vital to support the development and review of data regarding the safe and effective use of these products.

FDA is proceeding with its rulemaking process to update the existing OTC monograph for cough and cold products for children, and will consider input from the recent hearing of Oct. 2. The rulemaking process affords additional opportunity for the submission of data and public comment.

Until all these issues are resolved, FDA continues to recommend to parents and caregivers the following:

* Do not give children medications labeled only for adults.
* Talk to your healthcare professional if you have any questions about using cough or cold medicines in children.
* Choose OTC cough and cold medicines with child-resistant safety caps, when available. After each use, make sure to close the cap tightly and store the medicines out of the sight and reach of children.
* Check the “active ingredients” section of the DRUG FACTS label of the medicines that you choose. This will help you understand what symptoms the “active ingredients” in the medicine are intended to treat. Cough and cold medicines often have more than one active ingredient (such as an antihistamine, a decongestant, a cough suppressant, an expectorant, or a pain reliever/fever reducer).
* Be very careful if you are giving more than one medicine to a child. If you are giving more than one medicine to a child make sure that they do not have the same type of “active ingredients.” If you use two medicines that have the same or similar active ingredients, a child could get too much of an ingredient and that may hurt your child. For example, do not give a child more than one medicine that has a decongestant.
* Carefully follow the directions for how to use the medicine in the DRUG FACTS part of the label. These directions tell you how much medicine to give and how often you can give it. If you have a question about how to use the medicine, ask your pharmacist or your doctor. Overuse or misuse of these products can lead to serious and potentially life threatening side effects such as rapid heartbeat, drowsiness, suppression of the respiratory system, seizures and other adverse events.
* Only use measuring devices that come with the medicine or those specially made for measuring drugs. Do not use common household spoons to measure medicines for children because household spoons come in different sizes and are not meant for measuring medicines.
* Understand that using OTC cough and cold medicines does not cure the cold or cough. These medicines only treat your child’s symptom(s) such as runny nose, congestion, fever and aches and do not shorten the length of time your child is sick.

Source

{ 0 comments }

Our Blog Has Moved

by Brian Herrington on October 25, 2008

in News

We’ve moved our blog here. Please click on the link to get the latest news and insight on how the law affects you and what you can do to protect your legal rights.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Recently, a great letter to the editor was published on the need for Congress to pass a pending bill that would limit the abusive use of mandatory binding arbitration agreements in nursing home admission forms.

Our elderly family members and friends deserve access to the courthouse just as much as, if not more than, anyone else when they’ve been the victim of nursing home abuse. Mandatory binding arbitration agreements shut the courthouse door. Please contact your representative and senators and urge them to support this bill.

Letters – Nursing Home Disputes – NYTimes.com.

{ 0 comments }

Recently, The Clarion-Ledger, Mississippi’s statewide newspaper wrote an article on various social networking sites such as facebook, MySpace, and twitter.

I was featured on the section on twitter. I use twitter as both a news feed and a way to follow people who are sharing information relevant to both the practice of law and the marketing that is a necessary component of running a law firm. Below is an excerpt of my interview regarding twitter. The link to the entire article follows.

If you’d like to follow me on twitter, click here.

Brian Herrington, 40, became a fan of the social networking site Twitter 15 days ago and now has more than 20 people following his posts. Lately, he’s been Tweeting about politics, Oklahoma City restaurants and his law firm.

He social networks as a method of nontraditionally growing his business and uses Twitter to keep up with headlines.

“Because The Clarion-Ledger, The New York Times and NPR are on Twitter, I can follow them and have all the headlines that are going on in the world on my desktop,” he said. “That’s how I found out about this story,” said Herrington, who contacted The Clarion-Ledger when an inquiry was posted about the story topic.

He also uses Twitter to keep up with colleagues. “A lot of us blog now, so if people are writing about topics I litigate, it’s a quick exchange of useful information.”

Source

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Recently, The Clarion-Ledger, Mississippi’s statewide newspaper wrote an article on various social networking sites such as facebook, MySpace, and twitter.

I was featured on the section on twitter. I use twitter as both a news feed and a way to follow people who are sharing information relevant to both the practice of law and the marketing that is a necessary component of running a law firm. Below is an excerpt of my interview regarding twitter. The link to the entire article follows.

If you’d like to follow me on twitter, click here.

Brian Herrington, 40, became a fan of the social networking site Twitter 15 days ago and now has more than 20 people following his posts. Lately, he’s been Tweeting about politics, Oklahoma City restaurants and his law firm.

He social networks as a method of nontraditionally growing his business and uses Twitter to keep up with headlines.

“Because The Clarion-Ledger, The New York Times and NPR are on Twitter, I can follow them and have all the headlines that are going on in the world on my desktop,” he said. “That’s how I found out about this story,” said Herrington, who contacted The Clarion-Ledger when an inquiry was posted about the story topic.

He also uses Twitter to keep up with colleagues. “A lot of us blog now, so if people are writing about topics I litigate, it’s a quick exchange of useful information.”

Source

{ 0 comments }


Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '<' in /home1/bherring/public_html/wp-content/themes/thesis_16/footer.php on line 7