June 17, 2008

Georgia Supreme Court Hailed as Most Productive

gasupremecourtfullcourt.jpg

As a plaintiff's personal injury trial lawyer who is genuinely concerned about maintaining the independence of the judiciary, I am proud to report the Supreme Court of Georgia is the most productive high court in the country, according to a recent study by The University of Chicago Law School. Among the 50 states’ highest courts, the Georgia Supreme Court issues 58 opinions per justice a year – more than any other state. The median is 23 opinions per judge in Kansas, and the low is 12 written opinions per judge in Oregon.

Other studies have sought to rank the nation’s high courts. But this one, entitled, “Which States Have the Best (and Worst) High Courts?” measured three areas of quality – productivity, influence and independence.

The study’s authors concluded that while no state is a clear winner in all categories, California probably has the “best high court.” But Georgia is ranked among the top five.

Productivity is a sign of the quality of judges, the authors state. High publication rates are an objective measure of “a high-quality judge,” and an indication that many disputes among people are being resolved, and the public is being informed about their reasoning.

“I am proud and honored by the results of this study,” said Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. “After 16 years of serving on this Court, I am keenly aware of how hard my colleagues work and of how committed each of us is to upholding justice for all Georgia citizens.”

The full study is available on line at: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/405.pdf

May 29, 2008

Gwinnett County, Georgia Jury Delivers Long-Awaited Justice in Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Trial

stethoscope.jpg
A Gwinnett County, Georgia jury has awarded $5 million in damages to the family of a new mother who drowned in a bathtub at Gwinnett Medical Center. An expectant mother, hospitalized with preeclampsia, drowned in a hospital shower after being told she was OK to shower without anyone there to check on her. This was a retrial of the case. The first trial ended in a hung jury. During this second trial, however, the jury, apparently, found that the Gwinnett Hospital nurses violated hospital policies and procedures regarding assessing a patient's condition, determining fall risk, showering unassisted, etc.

During the second trial it was discovered that the hospital had been hiding several relevant policies and procedures that had never been produced in the first trial, but should have been under Georgia discovery rules. In addition, there were surveillance cameras that would have established when or if the nurse went into the room and it was discovered that the tapes had been altered. There was a missing thirty minute section of the tape where two cameras that corresponded to the crucial time period suddenly went dark. Fortunately, this attempted subversion of the Civil Justice System did not prevail and the jury delivered a verdict that spoke the truth about the value of a 34 year old mother who, obviously, shouldn't have died while in the hands of the very professionals who had vowed to take care of her. My thoughts are with her family today so that they may take some relief that the jury system worked for them.

May 15, 2008

New Georgia Uninsured Motorist Law Signed by Governor Benefits All Georgia Citizens

Georgia Trial Lawyers Association

Protecting the Constitutional Promise of Justice for All by
Guaranteeing the Right to Trial by Jury,
Preserving an Independent Judiciary,
And Providing Access to the Courts for All Georgians

Governor’s Signing of Insurance Bill
Ensures Georgians Will Get What They Pay For
SB 276, a bill ensuring fairness for auto-insurance policy holders,
signed into law by Governor Sonny Perdue

Atlanta – Today, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed into law a bill that expands options for Georgia auto-insurance consumers. SB276 will permit Georgia consumers to purchase Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists coverage that can be stacked on top of insurance covering the at-fault driver in an automobile accident if the at-fault driver does not have enough coverage to help the injured consumer. Twenty three other states, including most of Georgia’s southeastern neighbors, already permit “UM Stacking.”

Stacking UM Coverage allows you to stack your coverage on top of the at-fault driver’s liability coverage up to the amount of your damages; whereas before you could only access that portion of your coverage – if any at all – that exceeded the at-fault driver’s liability coverage.

“Before SB 276 was signed into law, a person who had elected to pay for UM insurance coverage and paid a monthly premium for that coverage, often was not able to recover the money they needed from their insurance company – even if they were in a catastrophic accident,” said Buck Rogers, an Atlanta attorney. “For roughly the cost of a gallon of milk per month, families who choose to purchase Stacking UM will finally get what they have paid for – and when they need it most. SB 276 is very pro-consumer and wise public policy legislation and we appreciate the Governor’s recognition of that fact.”

“Sadly, most people didn’t know that they could not access this coverage until they were in a bad wreck,” said Chan Caudell an attorney in Cornelia. “I would get calls from people who were injured, missing work, and didn’t know how to cover their bills and feed their families. They thought the insurance they had purchased would help them. Unfortunately, it did not. SB 276 changes that.”

SB 276’s passage was a two-year process that began with the Senate’s adoption of the bill in 2007. During the 2008 session, the House added a second pro-consumer piece of legislation to the bill. The new piece ensured that the Insurance Commissioner would still control the rates for the mandatory coverage demanded by state law while letting the other coverage compete within a free market.

“Governor Perdue appropriately rejected the doomsday rhetoric of bureaucratic regulators determined to hold onto their personal political power and did Georgia’s consumers a big favor by signing SB 276,” said Bill Clark, Director of Political Affairs for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. “Now Georgians can rest assured that they will be getting what they pay for.”

April 13, 2008

Robin Frazer Clark Obtains $2.5 Million Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case

On April 9, 2008 I tried a bench trial and secured a $2.5 million verdict in DeKalb County, Georgia State Court on behalf of my clients for the loss of their unborn child due to medical malpractice. The trial was at the DeKalb County Courthouse in Decatur, Georgia. This was a tragedy to my clients that, as with all medical malpractice cases, never should have happened. The case involved a claim for the wrongful death of a 14-16 week old fetus.
The medical malpractice action arose when a doctor failed to see the fetus on
sonograms. The obstetrician told my client he could not see a fetus in her womb on ultrasound and recommended she undergo a procedure to remove any "byproducts of conception." He then conducted a defective D & C and prescribed a medicine, Methotrexate, (which is essentially chemotherapy)
to make sure any "conception" was killed. After the D & C, my client returned home where
she gave birth to a fairly well formed, but now dead, fetus. I secured the cooperation and testimony of the subsequent treating obstetrician who testified that the
fetus was absolutely fine and would have developed properly.

The trial was brief. The DeKalb County State Court judge heard the evidence, took a 15 minute recess, and returned with a verdict of $2.5 million.

My clients will never get their child back (who, by the way, would be about two years old right now and delighting the family in everything he did), but at least the verdict might give them some small sense of justice.


April 1, 2008

Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Athens-Clarke County Jury Verdict of $13 Million Against Ford Motor Company

old%20law%20books.jpg

The Georgia Supreme Court has issued an opinion affirming an Athens-Clarke County jury's verdict of $13 Million to the widower of a woman who burned to death in a rear end collision on Highway 129. This is an important decision because it was based on the fact that Ford Motor Company refused to turn over relevant crash data in the case that it was required by law to provide to plaintiffs. The Georgia Supreme Court, in essence, has said in Georgia, we are going to hold big corporations, including car manufacturers, to the letter of the law. Below is an article from the Athens paper, the Athens Banner-Herald, with more details.

Family closer to award in fiery crash
Ford loses appeal in gas-tank explosion, death
By Walter C. Jones | Morris News Service | Story updated at 11:24 PM on Saturday, March 29, 2008

ATLANTA - The family of a Clarke County woman who burned to death when her car's gas tank exploded during a 1999 rear-end collision is closer to getting a $13 million jury award after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in their favor Friday.

Ford Motor Co. and the maker of a trailer hitch on the woman's car lost their appeal when the supreme court unanimously upheld the verdict of an Athens-Clarke State Court jury.

Anne Marie Gibson died at the scene when a pickup slammed into the back of her 1985 Mercury Grand Marquis as it was stopped on U.S. Highway 129 waiting to make a left turn. Her car was hit again when it was forced into oncoming traffic.

Bolts from the trailer hitch gouged into the car's gas tank, causing it to burst into flames as the passenger doors jammed and Gibson's seat collapsed, dropping her back into the flames.

Gibson's widower, Artumus Gibson, filed suit and won.

His attorney, George W. Fryhofer III of Atlanta, said as many as 50 other people have been killed or seriously burned in similar accidents involving Fords.

"The great tragedy in this case, however, is that Ford's exploding gas tanks continue on the road, and Ford has never warned a soul," Fryhofer said.

The family's long wait for a check should be about to end, according to Fryhofer - the only option for Ford and trailer-hitch maker Draw-Tite to delay the case would be to appeal in federal court, but Fryhofer says there are no federal or constitutional issues to base an appeal on.

"I think this is pretty close to the end of the line for Ford in this case, but that doesn't address the other possible victims," he said.

Ford would not release information about other suits filed about similar cases of exploding gas tanks. It only released a brief statement about the Gibson case.

"We are disappointed that Ford will not receive a fair trial in this case, in which the jury will decide the issues," wrote company spokeswoman Marcey Evans. "We have not decided at this time whether we will seek further review."

In the appeal, Ford was contesting a decision by state court Judge Kent Lawrence to punish the automaker for refusing to turn over records about crash tests it had conducted on that model. Ford contended the documents should remain confidential as attorney-client communications.

Lawrence ruled that if the company wouldn't supply the files, then the jury should consider that an admission that the seats and fuel tank were defectively designed.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Harold Melton, concluded Lawrence was within his authority.

"Specifically, the requested evidence documented past car-to-car crash tests conducted by Ford on a line of vehicles that included the Mercury Marquis, and that had similar fuel tank locations and performance as the Mercury Marquis driven by Ms. Gibson at the time of the incident involving (the other) car," the decision read. "As evidence that could have shown Ford's prior, direct knowledge of fuel system, car door, and seat back design problems in car-to-car collisions such as the one that resulted in Ms. Gibson's death, we cannot say that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in concluding that Gibson had a substantial need for these documents."

Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on 032908


March 31, 2008

Dangerous Times for Georgia Citizens' Rights at the Georgia Legislature

courthousedome.jpg
Today is Day 37 (out of 40) of the Georgia Legislature and it can be a dangerous time for Georgia citizens' rights during these last four days. A prime example is what occurred last Friday when an amendment was attached to a bill at the last moment that would adversely affect Georgia citizens' rights who wish to bring a products liability case against certain manufacturers. This products liability amendment was attached to, of all things, a bill that seeks to change the words "seat belt" to "life belt" in the Georgia Code. Fortunately, the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association was ready to defend Georgia citizens' rights and not let the Civil Justice Dismantlers get away with it. For an inside look at this, below is the "Political Insider's" take from The Atlanta Journal and Constitution this morning.


Buckle up your life belts. We’re in for a bumpy finish
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 04:00 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

We have entered the dangerous, final days of the Legislature’s winter session — a season of desperation in which innocent bills are forced into sudden, shotgun marriages with amendments they’ve never met.

Legislative dogs are wedded to feline decrees-to-be that streak through the Capitol. Often, the unions are conducted in such secrecy that even professional spectators remain ignorant — until, after several months’ gestation, the unpleasant results begin crawling around.

Lawmakers have until Friday, when the Legislature is to adjourn, for such last-minute mischief. Supervision is lax. Gov. Sonny Perdue is far away on a Chinese trade mission, struggling through the hell of chopsticks and endless toasts with sorghum-based paint-thinner.

But most of the funny stuff happens out of the schoolmaster’s line of vision anyway — unless the schoolmaster decides to join in.

An example of the shenanigans to come snuck up last week. The locale was a meeting of the House Motor Vehicles Committee, a small collection of part-time legislators whose life experiences have included real estate, law enforcement, personnel management, business and the pharmaceutical industry.

The topic at hand was S.B. 412, the epitome of do-good legislation.

Its sponsor, state Sen. Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur) wants every reference to “seat belts” in the Georgia code changed to “life belts.” He wants “air bags” to become “life bags.”

Jones hatched the five-paragraph idea with Adam Goldfein, the fellow at V103 radio who specializes in advice for car buyers. “Parents explaining to their children to buckle up their life belts really has meaning,” Jones, a car dealer, told the committee.

S.B. 412 has already passed the Senate, and now must run the House gauntlet. But several days ago, Jones was informed that his bill had grown a sixth, 113-word paragraph. “House leaders told me it had been added — they don’t ask permission,” the senator said later.

Jones was philosophical. If the addition could speed House passage of his bill, he was for it. If it proved a barnacle that would slow it down, he was against it.

Now, about that sixth paragraph. Printing it would only put you to sleep. But it contained phrases like “the proximate cause” and “industry-wide liability” and “public nuisance.” All terms were covered on that bar exam you took.

But even a layman could see this was another shot fired in one of the state Capitol’s never ending wars, over who should be permitted to sue whom. This one had to do with product liability.

State Rep. Tom Rice of Norcross, the committee chairman, embraced the addition. “I’d favor anything that would reduce the opportunity for what I call nuisance suits,” he said.

But Matt Dollar of Cobb County, the vice chairman, was more suspicious. He didn’t know what had been promised to whom, but nobody had told him. And he wondered why the paragraph had magically appeared in front of a motor vehicles committee, instead of a lawyer-laden House Judiciary Committee.

Who’s your client? Dollar asked the attorneys from Powell Goldstein, the firm that authored the paragraph.

The Public Nuisance Fairness Coalition.

Who’s that?

The attorneys couldn’t say. The members were Fortune 500 firms whose names — because of attorney-client privilege — couldn’t be disclosed right then and there. The lawmakers could be told eventually, but the lawyers would have to get permission first. One attorney let slip that a chemical company was involved.

“We’re not talking just about air bags, are we?” asked state Rep. Alan Powell of Hartwell.

The committee summoned Bill Clark, a representative of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, the group that does battle against business in the lawsuit war. He’d only learned of the sixth paragraph a few hours ago. He didn’t know what the language did — or didn’t do.

“I’ll concede it may be little or no change. It may be a very significant change in Georgia law,” he said. Clark advised removing the language first, and investigating the implications over the weekend.

But he was countered by Joel Williams of Powell Goldstein, who assured the part-time lawmakers that they were capable of understanding the implications of those 113 words. “You have the ability, you have the brain power,” Williams assured them.

Flattery didn’t work. On Dollar’s motion, the sixth paragraph was stripped out, and the bill was put on hold.

“There’s a rat in there somewhere,” muttered committee member and pharmacist Bobby Parham of Milledgeville as he exited the hearing. “There’s a rat in that one.”

Welcome to the final hours of the 2008 Georgia General Assembly, a period in which a law degree isn’t nearly as important as a sharp nose for vermin.

Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment

March 27, 2008

Seat Belts Save Lives

seatbeltsign.jpg
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution's Editorial Board came out on Monday in favor of legislation currently pending in the Georgia General Assembly that would toughen penalties for teenagers who are caught not wearing their seatbelts while they are driving or riding in a car. The legislation, HB 924, is currently "dead" because it was not passed by one house prior to "cross-over" day, the deadline for legislation to pass at least one house to be considered by the other house. The sponsor of the legislation, Representative Melvin Everson (R-Snellville), will be looking at other bills still alive to which he could attach his seatbelt legislation.

This legislation is a good idea. As both a personal injury trial lawyer in Atlanta and a mother of a teenager, any law that would stiffen penalities for teenagers who don't wear their seatbelts will save lives. Too often I have sat here in my office with parents who have either lost a child or had one seriously injured because they weren't wearing their seatbelts at the time of a car wreck. Parents often tell me they insist on their children wearing seatbelts while riding with them, but it is a different story when those same teenagers are in a car with their friends. Their parents' rules of wearing seatbelts are quick to fly out the window.

And it has been proven in recent medical studies that teenagers simply don't have the brain development necessary to be able to make good judgment calls, such as always wearing seat belts. These new studies show teenagers are more likely to demonstrate impulsive behavior rather than sound judgments because the frontal lobes of their brains, that area where high thinking or executive functioning takes place, is not fully functional during teenage years. Teens simply don't have the appropriate level of brain functioning to make good judgmental decisions such as always wearing their seatbelts.

Perhaps tougher penalties for not wearing seatbelts would get through to them, such as points on your driver's license? Seems like that would get their attention. I am in favor of any legislation that toughens penalties for failure to wear seat belts. Simply put: seat belts save lives.

March 19, 2008

Car Accident Victims Really Are In Pain

wrecked%20car.jpg
Finally, scientific proof that car accident victims aren't crazy, they really are in pain. If only their doctors would listen to them and take them seriously when they say, even a full year after the car wreck, they are still in pain. A recent study published on Monday in the medical journal Archives of Surgery showed a year after the injury, 63 percent of car wreck victims reported that they still experienced pain related to the injury, with most having pain in more than one region of the body. On average, the patients assessed their pain at 5.5 on a 10-point scale -- a level at which they would be expected to have moderate to severe interference with daily activities. The overall conclusion of the study: physicians need to offer better treatment for their patients.

As a plaintiff's personal injury attorney here in Atlanta, Georgia, whose practice consists largely of helping people who have been severely injured in car wrecks or trucking wrecks, I have heard this from my clients consistently over the last twenty years. Yet, they often can't seem to get the right treatment from their doctors, or even appropriate referrals to other physicians who might be able to help with alternative treatments. I have always suspected the physicians, strapped for time due to health insurers' controlling their practices, just aren't listening to their patients' complaints. This study seems to confirm exactly what I have thought, and validates the complaints of many of my clients. Doctors simply need to do a better job listening to their patients.

The physician who led the study admitted as much. "I was surprised that the pain was as common and as severe as they reported it to be," said Dr. Frederick Rivara of the University of Washington in Seattle, who led the study. "The implications are that we need to do a much better job of identifying pain in these patients, treating it adequately and treating it early," Rivara added in a telephone interview.

I hope the nation's physicians, especially those right here in Georgia, take notice of this study and change their practices. Their patients, and my clients, really are telling the truth when they say they are in pain.


March 17, 2008

Weak Roofs on SUV's Kill SUV Passengers

car-roofcrush.jpg
Plaintiffs personal injury lawyers across the nation are resisting the urge to say "I told you so" after the recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) confirms what we have been saying all along: if SUV manufacturers would simply make the roofs of SUV's stronger, it would save lives. The study concludes that more than 200 deaths could have been prevented in rollovers in 2006 if just a few more SUVs had roofs as strong as the best one it tested, and, of course, it follows that thousands of serious personal injuries, likewise, could have been prevented.

The IIHS study is extremely important because it proves what plaintiffs' lawyers have been saying all along; that inadequate roof strength can be the cause of death of an occupant in an SUV during a rollover. That an SUV will, in fact, experience a rollover is a given, and manufacturers are supposed to design and plan for that occurrence. The study is also important because it exposes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for what it is, a co-conspirator with automobile manufacturers to require only the most minimal of "standards," (if they can even be called that) so that automobile manufacturers can continue to make hundred of millions of dollars on the backs of American citizens without reasonable attention to safety. Automobile manufacturers for years have defended against such cases by claiming to have complied with the NHTSA "standards," but this study shows such compliance is mere window dressing, and really meaningless when it comes to actual occupant safety. Much research has been done that shows for less than $100.00 per car a manufacturer could double the strength of the roof regarding strength to weight ratio. It is unfortunate that American car companies care more about their bottom line than their customers' safety.


March 10, 2008

Georgia Landowners Should Remain Responsible for Their Premises

pumpkin_farm_1.jpg
The Georgia General Assembly remains in session today, and with every day, some other Georgia citizen's rights are limited or even eliminated by that body. The latest example is the attempt by the Georgia Senate to extinguish a landowner's liabilty when that landowner operates, for profit, a business that could loosely be described as agricultural in nature. This would include lucrative dove and quail hunting plantations, as well as the pick-your-own strawberry and pumpkin patches that many of our school age children go to on school sponsored field trips. The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association has consistently opposed giving immunity to the landowner in that scenario, especially where the landowner has advertised to get you to come onto their land and then has charged you a fee for being there. I think any normal Georgia citizen would believe and expect that landowner to make sure his premises were safe for his customers in that setting. But the current bill, passed by the Georgia Senate last week, would allow that landowner to get off scott free from any responsibility for injuries his property, if not kept in good repair, may cause a paying business visitor.

The editorial board of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution has published an opinion against the bill in today's paper and I have copied it for you below. The bill now goes to the Georgia House to be voted on. Georgia citizens should call their respective State Representatives and ask they vote "no" on the so-called Agritourism Bill, Senate Bill 449. It is a cop-out for wealthy landowners and leaves ordinary Georgia citizens, like you and me, and our precious children, to hang out to dry. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your actions? Under this bill, landowners could take your money and never worry about whether you're safe on their property. Outrageous.


OUR OPINIONS: No immunity for agritourism

By Maureen Downey
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/10/08
Senate passage of a bill giving agritourism broad immunity from civil liability demonstrates the power of special interests in Georgia.
Senate Bill 449, the Landowners Protection Act of 2008, exempts agritourism businesses —- petting zoos, pick-your-own orchards, hunting preserves, farm/vacation sites —- from the standards of liability that govern all other businesses.

Under current law, business owners can be held liable for injuries on their property if they fail to exercise reasonable care. Promoted by Gov. Sonny Perdue, SB 449 erases current liability standards and says that agritourism owners can only be held liable if they are wanton and willful —- a boon to the insurance policy writers who cover farms.
"This is a solution looking for a problem," said state Sen. David Adelman (D-Atlanta). "There hasn't been a single case that I know of where agritourism has been threatened by lawsuits. The current Georgia law with regard to farms and agritourism requires them to exercise ordinary care and take care of their facilities the way any other business does."
Republicans also worry about the impact of the bill. "If I knock on a farmer's door and ask if I can fish off his dock, I don't expect the dock to be in good repair," said Sen. Dan Weber (R-Dunwoody).
"But if I come with friends to fish as a result of advertising by that farmer, and pay, I expect that dock to be in good repair. If I am hunting and fishing free of charge, the farmer has immunity. If he charges me money and I get hurt as a result of his negligence, he should be liable."
Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland) gave the example of a farm tour in which the farmer left a tractor running and someone jumped in and ran down other tourgoers.
"Today, there would be recovery against Farmer Brown for that accident," he said. "If you raise the standard to gross negligence, then you would have to prove that Farmer Brown willfully and wantonly neglected to turn the tractor off, which is a far higher standard."
Proponents argue that the bill will encourage agritourism in economically depressed areas of rural Georgia. But rural Georgia could also benefit from a Wal-Mart or Target. Why can't those chains —- or every mom and pop antique store, cafe or gift shop —- argue that they, too, should be handed a reprieve from the reasonable-care standard of legal liability?
The Senate is on a dangerous path with this bill, which will end up hurting Georgians. What happens to the family of five when the dad is paralyzed after falling out of a poorly secured tree stand in a commercial hunting preserve?
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Bill Heath (R-Bremen), argued in favor of personal responsibility, but never mentioned the responsibilities of the landowners who open their land to the public for profit.
-- Maureen Downey, for the editorial board

February 25, 2008

Health Insurance Carrier Caught Red-Handed

pen_and_book.jpg
Congratulations to Patsy Bates of Los Angeles, California, who just was awarded a $9 Million arbitration award by an arbitration panel against HealthNet, her health insurance carrier, for it's illegal cancellation of her coverage at the beginning of her treatment for breast cancer. The award came a day after the Los Angeles city attorney sued Health Net, claiming it illegally canceled the coverage of about 1,600 patients. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo also said the company illegally ran an incentive program in which it paid bonuses to an administrator for meeting targets of policy cancelations. Health Net acknowledged that such a program existed in 2002 and 2003 but was subsequently scrapped.

This is a clear example of the callousness, and sometimes outright illegality, of the way in which insurance carriers attempt to avoid payment of legitimate insurace claims. Only this time, HealthNet got caught. This was an unusual situation because, apparently, there was an arbitration clause in the health insurance policy that allowed for pain and suffering damages. Most issues regarding payment of claims by a health insurance carrier are preempted by ERISA, and the injured policyholder is unable to sue in court to assert his or her rights under the policy.

Can we presume insurance carriers right here in Georgia are doing the same thing, i.e., cancelling a policy to avoid paying out on a legitimate claim? Yes, probably, they are. The little guy who is injured must continue fight the denial decision, and often at a time in that person's life when he or she needs to be focusing on another fight, like one against breast cancer, as Ms. Bates did. Fortunately, we have Georgia trial lawyers, like me, ready to take on that fight!

February 18, 2008

Georgia Trial Lawyers Condemn the Solicitation of Victims of the Savannah Sugar Refinery Blast

I am proud to be a Past President of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. It is made up of true trial lawyers who love representing the underdog against enormous odds. Our members are some of the finest lawyers in the State of Georgia and professionalism in all aspects of the practice of law is our hallmark.

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution has reported that following the Savannah Sugar Refinery blast last week, a lawyer from Texas took out a full page advertisement in the Savannah paper soliciting victims of the blast. There have also been reports that lawyers from a silk stocking law firm here in Atlanta, with an office in Augusta, has been soliciting victims who are currently being treated in the burn clinic in Augusta. This silk stocking (meaning big and expensive) firm typically defends very big corporations rather than representing individuals who have been harmed by the negligence of big corporations.

To be absolutely clear, the leadership of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA) condemns such solicitation. These victims and their families need to be focusing on healing, not on such high pressure tactics as direct solicitation of victims immediately after the tragedy. Below is a statement from the President of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Joe Watkins, on behalf of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, condemning the practice and rightfully putting focus on the needs of the victims and their families. Our thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult time.


Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Protecting the Constitution’s Promise
For Justice for All

Media Release:

For Immediate Release For More Information Please Call:
February 14th, 2008 Rebecca Bukant (404) 376-3495

Georgia Trial Lawyers Condemn the
Practice of ‘Trolling for Victims’

Atlanta-The tragedy resulting from the Imperial Sugar Refinery has been made worse by the solicitation by unprincipled lawyers vying for the victims' cases. The news has reported that TV ads, print advertisements and even visits to the Augusta Burn Center by lawyers have occurred. Members and leadership of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association are outraged by this reprehensible behavior.

"The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association unequivocally condemns these unconscionable acts by attorneys," said the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Joe Watkins. "We are shocked that attorneys from Georgia and other states are attempting to solicit the families while they are mourning the loss of loved ones and praying at bedsides at the Augusta Burn Facility."

The State Bar of Georgia Rules prohibit attorneys from contacting victims immediately following a tragedy. “This is not the time for lawyers from Georgia or any other state to harass families and victims of a tragedy. To say that is in 'poor taste' is putting it mildly," said Watkins. "The families and survivors will decide if and when they will seek legal advice."

The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, and its leadership, strongly believes that the Rules governing Georgia’s State Bar regarding such solicitation should be strengthened and the Association urges the State Bar to take appropriate action regarding this matter.

"Unfortunately, it is the unscrupulous behavior of a few attorneys, often from out of state, that reflects poorly on the image of all attorneys. That conduct is in no way a reflection of the principles, ethics and the integrity of the members of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association,” said Watkins. “I speak for not only myself, but for our entire Association when I say that my thoughts and prayers are with the workers of the Imperial Sugar Refinery and their loved ones."