Illinois Lawyer Blog

I was excited to see President Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th president on Tuesday. I was a big Obama supporter early on, when all the political types were saying it couldn't be done. And I was impressed with his inaugural address as well. He wisely elected to dial down the inspirational content and instead focus on the serious challeges facing America.

In addition, I'm impressed with his decision to freeze White House wages and enact tougher lobbying restrictions. Sure it's very, very early. But thus far, he seems serious about reforming the environment in Washington.

But enough about all that. Let's talk, just for a moment about Jill Biden. America suddenly has, and I say this respectfully of course, a smokin' VP spouse. I was doing some online research on Ms. Biden[would she be the Second Lady?]when I came across this Jezebel article about her reaction to some political types trying to drag Joe into the 2004 presidential contest. No idea if it is true or not. Doesn't really matter - I just like the story.

Recently met with a new client who was had been injured in an automobile collision. The other driver was insured by a carrier lawyers often describe as a "substandard". The "substandard" designation is essentially code. First, it means that the available coverage is probably the minimum acceptable under the law. Secondly it means that the carrier will never, under any circumstances engage in any meaningful pre-suit settlement discussions. And finally it means that the carrier will hire a law firm that delights in doing everything possible to make the entire litigation experience miserable for all concerned. I was in the process of explaining all of this to the client when he interrupted, and told me that many years ago he had filed suit against a similar carrier. The case had gone to trial and he lost.

When I explained that if he faced the same ritual if he went forward with another lawsuit, he hesitated, and then informed me that he would rather, and I quote, "...enjoy a public prostate exam". He decided not to go forward.

Based upon my experience, I can't argue with his decision. His situation reflects a sad fact of life for trial attorneys. The insurance industry and their minions have decisively prevailed in the battle of public opinion. They have managed to convince consumers[i.e. jurors]that automobile cases that don't feature devastating, obvious injuries are nothing more than "whiplash" cases and, as a result, shouldn't be taken very seriously. As a result, lots of people, with painful, permanent injuries caused by the carelessness of another driver are not compensated appropriately, if they are compensated at all. And that isn't likely to change.

A man previously convicted of murder for setting a fire that caused multiple deaths, now stands to collect a multi-million dollar payout arising out his prosecution and conviction. Madison Hobley was initially charged with setting a 1987 fire the killed seven people - including his wife and young son. He was convicted in 1990 and sentenced to death. Hobley spent 13 of the next 16 years on Death Row. All the while Hobley claimed he had been tortured by Jon Burge and other Chicago Police Officers. In 2003, Hobley was pardoned by former Governor George Ryan . Hobley then sued the City for the prosecution and imprisonment. That lawsuit was settled for 1 million dollars. In addition, the City agreed to pay another $6.5 million if Hobley wasn't indicted again for the crime by January 3, 2009.

The FBI and federal prosecutors re-opened the case in 2007. The agents obtained police department records and interviewed several of Hobley's relatives. In addition, Hobley spoke with investigators and prosecutors for several hours. The decision was made not to re-indict Hobley.

Under the terms of the previous settlement, the City had 60 days to pay Hobley, who has since relocated to North Carolina. A spokesman for the City of Chicago indicated that the payment process has already been started.

Holidays are over, time for the first post of 2009...

I haven't included many posts related to my own cases of late. Here's a summary of a case that recently reached a very favorable conclusion.

Client comes to me saying he was struck by a car while crossing the street on his bicycle. Due to the impact, he suffered a fracture of his leg, and a couple of painful surgeries. Actually, there was a little more to the story[there always is]. He was riding his bike in the middle of a busy, but poorly-lit Riverdale street in early April. I had some concerns about the liability aspect of the case so I got the Police Report. The Report was a combination of good and bad facts. The diagram showed my client smack dab in the middle of the road at the time of impact. Bad fact. And it was dark. Another bad fact. And, the report indicated an absence of any reflectors on my client's expensive Bianchi bike. Again, not helpful.

But the report also indicated that the defendant driver left lengthy skid marks after impact. And the force of the collision threw my client[6'2" tall and about 180 pounds]a long, long way from the point of impact. Those facts suggested that either the defendant never saw my client until after impact, and/or was going well in excess of the posted speed limit. Finally, the bike had been preserved and an inspection did show a couple of reflectors still intact. Perhaps there was some hope.

The collision had taken place just west of the Riverdale Police Department, right before a shift change. The Police Report indicated several officers had seen my client prior to the collision on their way into the station. And they confirmed they had seen him in their depositions. Casually riding right in the middle of the street. Nowhere near the right side of the road, as required by Section 5/11-1505 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. Ouch.

But then we took the defendant's depo. And in the course of two hours, he offered at least 3 versions of the event. At one point he denied ever making contact with the bike rider. He was, to be charitable, not particularly credible.

The parties agreed to have a binding arbitration at ADR. The judge who presided, a veteran trial lawyer and former judge, was not impressed with the testimony of the defendant. I argued that the location of the plaintiff and his alleged lack of reflectors was ultimately irrelevant, as the defendant never saw him until impact. The judge agreed and entered a gross award of $181,000.