Basket
Clean basketTotal:
Navigating The Legal System: Tips About Attorneys
June 16, 2021 2:32 - no comments yet
Have you recently gotten into some legal trouble? britfox Maybe you are the victim of a crime? Perhaps you just want to set up a living trust. Whatever your reasons, you are going to need a good lawyer. Unfortunately, finding a good lawyer can be a bit difficult. Read the following article for some key tips that will help you hire a good lawyer.
Don't choose the very first lawyer you find. Research thoroughly. If you don't, you may regret it. Get all the information you can about those you're considering hiring.
Make sure that you have a decent interaction with any attorney before you invest any money. You may have to spend a good amount of time with your lawyer, so it is important that you choose one that you don't have any issues working with. Take the time to sit down with any potential attorneys and see if you get a good feel for them.
You should agree on how much you will pay your lawyer before hiring them. Ask your lawyer for a quote after explaining what you need help with and sign an agreement. Do not hesitate to contact different lawyers so you can compare quotes and choose a lawyer you can afford.
Make it clear up front that you would like your legal fee agreement in writing from your lawyer. This will help you avoid the surprise of an unexpectedly high bill. Make sure that all expenses and fees are itemized, so that you'll have a clear understanding of what exactly you are paying for.
Don't just accept the first lawyer alphabetically in the Yellow Pages as your choice! Rather, you need to do adequate research so that you end up with the best possible candidate. You may even find that you've hired a lawyer without a valid license or one who has been sued for malpractice. You want an honest representative.
You shouldn't be hesitant of asking your lawyer numerous questions. If you have chosen a good and fair lawyer, he will understand your anxieties and will take the time to explain how things work and how they are progressing. Find another lawyer if you cannot get detailed answers.
Use Google to your advantage when it comes to hiring a lawyer. Look for reviews about any attorney you are considering. If the general consensus is that the attorney you are interested in is lazy and incompetent, you should do your best to look for another attorney to handle your case.
Make sure you know how much you are going to spend before you hire a lawyer. Lawyers can be very expensive. Their hourly rates can break your budget before they even begin to help you. Make sure you know the costs upfront and if you cannot afford a particular lawyer, search for one that you can afford.
When looking for a lawyer, time is significant. However, it is not so important that you hire the first lawyer you meet. Always consider more than one lawyer. You need to make sure they have the skills you need, that you can afford them, and they will fight for your best interests.
If you need a good lawyer for your business, use your network. You could ask your banker, partners, insurance agent or even your distributors if they know any good lawyers in the area. Do not hesitate to refer this lawyer to people you know if you have a good experience.
Everyone wants to find the best legal representation for the best price. However, remember that many times you get what you pay for and you surely want the best outcome of your case. Do some research about the reputation of several different lawyers as well as asking acquaintances for personal recommendations.
Ask those you know for their lawyer recommendations. You may be surprised at the results here! People you would never have expected to know a good lawyer, may have the best connection of all. It's this word of mouth recommendation that means the most, so take it seriously and make this your first step.
When it comes to hiring legal representation, you want to make sure that you are getting the best help you can afford. These days, it is all too easy to get stuck with a lawyer who just isn't going to give you all their attention. Use the tips given in this article if you want to make your lawyer search more successful.
Plaintiff employer fired an injured employee
May 21, 2021 3:48 - no comments yetPlaintiff employer fired an injured employee in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 132a. A jury in the Superior Court of Fresno County (California) found defendant workers' compensation insurance carrier liable for insurance bad faith because it mishandled a "courtesy defense" and refused to indemnify plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are restaurant attorneys San Diego
Overview
Employee was injured while working for plaintiff. Defendant disputed and denied plaintiff's claim. Later, employee filed a petition with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, alleging plaintiff fired him in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §132a because he intended to file a workers' compensation claim. On appeal, the court held that §132a liability was within the policy's general coverage for "compensation and other benefits" required under the law. Because plaintiff's discriminatory act was intentional, it was not precluded by the "accident" limitation nor by public policy. Further, defendant did not disclaim responsibility for § 132a liability for any reason. Rather, it provided plaintiff with a defense without explicitly reserving its rights to disclaim coverage. Defendant never raised the expiration of the policy period as an argument. As a result, plaintiff was denied the opportunity to tender his defense of the § 132a claim to his subsequent carrier in a timely manner. Thus, defendant was estopped to argue plaintiff's § 132a liability was not covered due to the policy's expiration.
Outcome
Judgment of liability was affirmed; plaintiff's retaliatory discharge liability was within defendant's coverage, and it was not precluded by an "accident" limitation or public policy. Because defendant did not disclaim coverage, it was estopped from arguing that plaintiff's liability was not covered under its policy.
Best Procedural Postures
May 18, 2021 5:34 - no comments yetPlaintiff, a first mortgagee, filed an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property that was executed by defendant mortgagors to secure a promissory note. The first mortgagee also named several subsequent mortgagees as parties defendant. The Thirteenth District Court (California) entered a judgment in favor of the mortgagors and the subsequent mortgagees. The first mortgagee appealed.
Nakase Law Firm are trial attorneys
Overview
The mortgagors gave the first mortgagee a promissory note and a mortgage on their real property. One of the mortgagors then conveyed his interest in the premises to a third party. After the four-year Statute of Limitations expired, both mortgagors reaffirmed their obligation on the note. The mortgagor who did not convey his interest then executed several additional mortgages on the premises in favor of the subsequent mortgagees. The first mortgagor filed his foreclosure action thereafter. The trial court ruled against the first mortgagor and it also gave lien priority to the subsequent mortgagees.In affirming the judgment, the court held that (1) where an action upon a promissory note, secured by a mortgage of the same date upon real property, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, the mortgagee had no remedy upon the mortgage, and that the limitation period was the same as to any other remedies he could pursue, and (2) a mortgagor, after disposing of the mortgaged premises by deed of sale, lost all control over them. His personal liability became separated from the ownership of the land, and he could by no subsequent act create or revive charges on the premises.
Outcome
The judgment that was entered in favor of the subsequent mortgagees and against the first mortgagee was affirmed.
Best Procedural Posture
May 10, 2021 4:17 - no comments yetIn a legal malpractice lawsuit based on defendant's failure to opt plaintiff out of a class action lawsuit, defendant appealed a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and partially granting a new trial following a jury verdict in plaintiff's failure. Plaintiff appealed the order granting a partial new trial.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains HS 11364
Overview
Plaintiff, a stockbroker, retained defendant to represent him in his lawsuit against his employer, who had misrepresented to its stockbrokers, and through them, its clients, the safety and profitability of investing in certain limited partnerships. A class action lawsuit was filed against the employer on behalf of the investors. Plaintiff informed defendant of that case and asked about opting out of the lawsuit, but defendant failed to act on the information. All of plaintiff's claims were deemed settled by that lawsuit, so plaintiff sued defendant for legal malpractice. The jury found for plaintiff. Because plaintiff would not agree to remittitur, the trial court ordered a partial new trial.Plaintiff appealed that order, and defendant appealed the jury's verdict on liability and on damages. The instant court reversed, finding that the trial judge misperceived the jury's role in the instant "arbitration-within-a-trial." Further, the trial judge's refusal to give certain jury instructions exacerbated its other errors, mandating a new trial. "Lost punitive damages" were not recoverable. Plaintiff's lost commissions evidence was, in part, speculative, but only in part.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court's judgment. The trial judge erred by allowing an expert to testify on how the arbitrators would have ruled on plaintiff's complaint against his employer. The judge exacerbated that error by refusing to instruct the jury on the rules of arbitration. Further, public policy precluded allowing plaintiff to recover "lost punitive damages." One component of plaintiff's lost commissions evidence was speculative.
Procedural Postures
May 8, 2021 8:34 - no comments yetAppellant policyholders sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which refused to overrule respondent Insurance Commissioner's determination of damages on appellants' claim for damages as a result of cancellation of non-cancelable disability insurance policies. The commissioner made the allowances as the liquidator of an insurance company.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a Business Lawyer in Los Angeles
Overview
Appellants were holders of non-cancelable disability insurance policies issued by their old insurance company. The old insurance company became insolvent. Appellants sought damages after rejecting reinsurance from the new insurance company. The insurance commissioner determined their damages and appellants challenged that determination, which the lower court affirmed. The court affirmed the order. The old insurance company's insolvency was a breach of the contract to which appellants were entitled to damages. The proper damages were not based on the replacement cost of obtaining similar insurance in another company because the insured under the old disability policy may not have been insurable under another insurance policy.
Outcome
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that appellants' measure of damages for cancellation of their non-cancelable disability insurance policy was not based on the replacement cost of obtaining similar insurance in another company, but was correctly determined by the insurance commissioner to be based on each policyholder's share of the reserve.
