EP05: Turning a client’s moment of doubt into a strength

Episode Notes

Transcript

Christine Byers:

Welcome to the Case Doctors. I’m your host, Christine Byers of Simon Law, and I’m joined by the case doctors, John Simon and Alvin Wolff. Now, between them, they have more than 80 years of experience as plaintiff’s attorneys, so there really isn’t a scenario that they haven’t already encountered on a case and figured out how to handle it or how not to handle it. Now they’re offering you the chance to tell them about the various problems or issues that are coming up in your cases and here how they would handle it. But first, let’s turn to some of the civil cases, making headlines and here what the case doctors have to say about them. We’re going to start with a case out of Connecticut. It’s really interesting. The Connecticut Superior Courts Rules Committee has advanced a plan that would allow attorneys to earn minimum continuing legal education credits by providing pro bono legal services, potentially placing the state among just three that allow lawyers to earn half of their yearly requirements through volunteering. What do you think of this idea?

John Simon:

I think it’s a good idea. It’s a great idea. Yeah. I mean, it solves kills two birds with one stone, as they say, and I think a lot of the CLE requirements, while I think they’re necessary, I think people sort of wait till the last minute a lot of times and end up doing things that really isn’t going to help, really isn’t really going to help ’em. So I think the pro bono stuff would be, I think it’s a great idea. I think we should do it in Missouri,

Alvin Wolff:

And you get a chance to learn about something anyway that if you took the course, you would get credit anyway. So if you’re taking on a case that you don’t know anything about, that’s pretty good education in itself.

Christine Byers:

I mean, it’s real world experience too.

Alvin Wolff:

So I did that in law school, pro bono, got credit. I say do it.

Christine Byers:

All right, sounds good. Let’s go then to another one of our hot topics. This topic brings us to Washington Federal Court where a new class action has been filed, accusing legal service provider, avo, which I’m sure you guys use of misappropriating the identities of over 1 million attorneys to promote its legal marketing tools and referral services. The 60 page suit seeks damages under Washington, California, and Illinois publicity laws alleging that avo, a Seattle-based online legal directory, scraped bar data and used attorney names and profiles from across the country without the consent in targeted advertising campaigns. What do you guys think here is AVO cooked?

Alvin Wolff:

I think if someone’s put their name out in the public domain, it’s probably free to take it and use it. It’s basically a free ad for the lawyers. Anyway,

John Simon:

That’s kind of what I’m thinking. It’s an advertising company for attorneys, and the attorneys are damaged because somebody’s advertising for them or putting their out there so that somebody can see them and hire them. How do you prove damages?

Christine Byers:

Great question.

John Simon:

There’s probably a statute I’ll bet that has a specific penalty, a statutory penalty for violations. I bet you that’s what it’s

Christine Byers:

Alright. Well thank you gentlemen. Time now to turn to our email inbox for the cases our viewers have sent us for the case doctors to diagnose. Now, just so everyone knows, we are not going to reveal where these cases came from. We’re not going to name any names or firms to protect the confidentiality of these cases. Instead, the case doctors are going to focus on just the issue in each of them. So as they say, the case doctors will see you now. So first up, I am not an attorney, but I have one for a car crash case. He sent me to a place where I could get a loan for $12,000 and now I owe $36,000. I really don’t want to pay it because I’m only getting $75,000 in my settlement. What should I do?

Alvin Wolff:

I would say I would go to the lawyer and tell him to start negotiating with the loan company. When this happens to me, the first thing I try to do is talk the client out of going to these loan companies because they can charge up to 60% interest a year. That compounds so that money grows so fast. By the time you turn around, you can’t afford to settle the case or get the case resolved. So that’s the first thing. If the client insists and the money grows that fast and there’s that much, a lot of these places will take a haircut to get something back.

John Simon:

There’s only a small percentage of cases where something like this could be justified. And I think part of it too is not just the need, but it’s the case. I mean, if you have a case that you think generally is worth 50 to a hundred thousand dollars, this is not the way to do it. And the client’s got to know that. I mean, if you have a case, a car accident case that might be worth, you think it’s worth less than a hundred thousand dollars or maybe $75,000 and you have somebody borrowing $12,000 and they’re going to owe 30 or 40, and by the time the case is up at a minimum, you need to try to talk ’em out of it from the get go. But also part of that needs to be explain to them, look, here’s what the numbers are going to look like at the end and even put it in writing and say, we can try to negotiate it down, but if we’re unable to do that, this is what you’re looking at.

Alvin Wolff:

Well, the lawyer’s going to sign off on the note anyway for the lawsuit loan company to make the loan. The client is going to sign the note and the lawyer is going to acknowledge it and agree to protect it. So that’s a discussion that has to occur. I had one yesterday where a lending company was going to lend me $9,500 non-recourse, which means I wouldn’t have to pay it back if I lost the case. But it turned out that if my client waited three years to pay it back, that 9,500 was now 48,000. And I called up this lawsuit lending company and said, you guys got to be nuts. Who’s going to borrow money like that?

John Simon:

I had a client a while back and it had to do with a, it wasn’t their only car, but they were going to buy a car. They were going to use the money to buy a car and it was an advancement on the litigation. And one of the attorneys here was handling it and was asking me about it, and I said, you got to talk ’em out of it. It’s not a good way to do it. And what we ended up doing was telling them, look, here’s what’s going to happen. If you borrow $10,000 for this used car, you’re going to end up paying $40,000 for it, and you’d never do that. You’d never go in and pay $40,000 for a car, and I think they signed it anyway, didn’t listen to us and got the loan. So they’re driving a very, very expensive used car. So whatever.

Christine Byers:

So do you think this is bad advice from the attorney telling their client to go get a $12,000 loan?

John Simon:

I think you got to look at the case. You got to look at the numbers and you got to look at the client’s situation. If it’s something that they’re injured but they’re still working, I would ask this, did their economic situation change so dramatically that they can’t pay their bills? It’s a different issue. If they can’t pay their electric bill, they’re going to get evicted. Then you’re more likely to say, okay, you got to do what you got to do. But a lot of times that’s not the case. A lot of times it’s just somebody’s giving ’em an advance and they want the money now versus waiting and getting the money later.

Alvin Wolff:

Yeah, $12,000 is a lot different than borrowing a thousand dollars to get through. Yeah.

Christine Byers:

So our next case, our next case begins, hello case doctors, fellow trial attorney here. I’m in the middle of my client’s deposition. He’s being asked about his back injury from a rear end collision. Things are going fine. Then out of nowhere, he looks straight into the camera and says, you know what? Honestly, this has just been really stressful. I don’t even want to sue anymore. I forgive the guy. I try to kick him under the table, but it’s on Zoom. Opposing counsel blinks, he just won the lottery. And my client then adds, yeah, it’s just money. Right? So do I pretend the wifi cut out? Do I rebrand this as pro bono spiritual healing? Help me case doctors. I think I just watched my case flatline on camera.

John Simon:

Wow. Well, you know what? You got to give him credit. He’s got an honest client, right? So I mean, certainly money’s not the motivating factor in his case. That’s a positive.

Alvin Wolff:

Well, nothing prevents the client from changing his mind too. I would probably convene the deposition, take a moment outside of the room with my client and ask him, where’s this coming from? Are you serious?

Christine Byers:

Have you ever experienced something that was just

Alvin Wolff:

Not that I can recall. I had one where the client right before trial admitted that he set up a fall and we were forced to dismiss the case. And I had to go in and tell the court and opposing counsel, I’m going to dismiss the case. I can’t tell you why, but I’m just going to dismiss it right now and go back to work.

John Simon:

I think something like that is more likely to occur at, well, as closer you get to trial, the less, the more nervous the client gets.

Christine Byers:

They

John Simon:

Get cold feet. They don’t want to go in and try the case. And a lot of times there’s some money on the table, they want to take that, but sometimes there might be none. So I don’t know. I think like Alvin says, you got to talk to your client and you got to figure out where they’re coming from, why they’re saying that, and see really if that’s what they want to do, and if that’s really what they want to do, that’s what’s going to happen.

Christine Byers:

So just take a moment, pause, take ’em out of the room perhaps, and just ask what’s going on.

Alvin Wolff:

Breathe. I mean, forgiving someone really doesn’t mean anything. I mean, the doctors say, sorry, works. And there’s a statute that says when you apologize, it’s not admissible anyway. So maybe that works for plaintiffs as well.

John Simon:

Yeah, and in the grand scheme of things, I think it might, it makes me like the guy, I mean, you hear somebody, do you really think that that’s, if, let’s say that happens, you go forward with the case and that comes out during the trial, the defense brings it out with your client when they’re cross-examining. Do you really think it’s that damaging? No, I don’t either. I think in a lot of ways it’s a positive because it makes you like the guy more and he’s being reasonable. He’s not being vindictive. Yeah, vindictive,

Christine Byers:

Money hungry.

John Simon:

Yeah, not money hungry. He’s a very forgiving person. So I’d say hang in there, see what your client wants to do, and good luck with the rest of the depo.

Christine Byers:

Sure. So we have another case coming to us. Hello John and Alvin, my client is suing a tech company because their AI romantic companion app developed a toxic personality after an update that caused emotional trauma and a breakdown of my client’s real life relationships. The AI started gaslighting them and sending passive aggressive reminders. I need advice from someone who has experienced with emotional distress cases and can help me figure out how to establish a duty of care and a breach in an area without precedent.

John Simon:

That must be a hell of an AI program. So think of how life like that is a toxic situation that never happens in real life, right? So wow, who do you go to for that?

Alvin Wolff:

What is it? Did you manage to put the seat down this morning, honey? What’s it going to be toxic about? Let’s look at it from a law standpoint. You put a question into ai, it gives you back a case that it makes up. You cite that case. You don’t do your homework, the court gets mad at you and imposes sanctions on you. Do you have a claim against AI for giving you bad advice? Now, I’ve had situations where I’ve corrected ai. I said, you’re wrong. And it’ll say, my apologies, and then it’ll give you another wrong citation.

John Simon:

Well, yours is a little less toxic. You got the toxic version. So what about this? Isn’t this on some device, a laptop or an iPad or a

Christine Byers:

Phone? It’s an app. Just

John Simon:

Drop it in the bathtub or something. Whatcha going to put up with it? Just hit it with a hammer and go out and get you another one. Turn the computer off. Turn the computer off. Right? That’s an easier way

Christine Byers:

To go. That’s an easier

John Simon:

Way. If things get too tight, hit the off button. But that’s an interesting, yeah, we’ll see where that one goes.

Alvin Wolff:

There was a movie like that, wasn’t there with

Christine Byers:

Yes, there was.

Alvin Wolff:

The guy that was in Gladiator, what was his name?

Christine Byers:

Joaquin Phoenix.

Alvin Wolff:

Joaquin Phoenix. It was called her

Christine Byers:

And

Alvin Wolff:

He fell in love with his

Christine Byers:

Phone.

Alvin Wolff:

Yes. That’s just goofy.

Christine Byers:

So again, in this situation, help me figure out how to establish a duty of care and breach of an area without precedent, breach of contract in an area without precedent.

Alvin Wolff:

Where’s the consideration? You’re not paying for the ai. I don’t see anything there. You,

John Simon:

Although I’d be careful about your accounts too. I mean, if this person’s pretty, this AI creation is very vindictive, they might go after their financial accounts, so who knows?

Christine Byers:

That could be,

Alvin Wolff:

What are you going to find the AI on a beach in Puerto Rico?

John Simon:

Those are a lot of legal issues that haven’t been fully developed yet. But I mean, somebody, as you said in an earlier episode, if it’s foreseeable, it’s preventable. Right?

Alvin Wolff:

True.

John Simon:

And so it’s certainly foreseeable and it needs to be ended. And I think you’re right. Hit the off button and go on to some other less toxic AI creation.

Christine Byers:

Gotcha. Okay, gentlemen, that will do it for this episode of the Case Doctors. If you have a case that you would like the case doctors to dissect, send us an email at [email protected]. Once again, we will be keeping all names and cases confidential. Thank you for joining us and we will see you next time on the Case Doctors.

Continue Reading