Issue Three (Spring '99)

Dear Clients and Friends,

The warm weather is here, and for me that translates to one word: triathlon! The season is approaching...and, sore muscles aside, I am once again in training.

Believe it or not, attorneys are people too, with passions and pastimes like everyone else. One of mine happens to be participating in this intensely challenging sport.

The triathlon is an arduous combination of swimming, biking and long-distance running. The distances vary depending upon the level of competition. It's a sport that demands rigorous training, discipline, pacing and endurance. In fact, it's just been declared an Olympic event.

That doesn't mean you can expect to see me on national television. However, I will be participating in several Midwest competitions this year, including my hometown Deerfield Tinman, held in June. (I'll let you know how I finish.)

In the meantime, I consider my training all part of the fun. More than once, while running or weight training, it's occurred to me how fortunate I am to enjoy good health and sound body...and how devastating it would be if that were taken away.

That, of course, is what personal injury law is all about---and that is why I practice it.

Enjoy your spring, your summer, and your health.

THE SYSTEM WORKS

UNDER THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WE ALL WIN

What is "Justice?" What is "Fair?" Over the centuries, from culture to culture, the words held different meanings and interpretations.

In our modern world, there is no "eye for an eye" definition of justice. The fact is, when a person is seriously injured and another person is at fault, the only form of compensation available is a monetary settlement. That is why we have the civil justice system.

Liability Lawsuits on Trial

While some personal injury lawsuits are admittedly trivial, the majority are truly valid. Injured individuals deserve to be compensated when their impairment results from another party's actions or negligence.

Most judges and attorneys agree that the civil justice system does work (or they wouldn't continue to work within it). Jurors do take their jobs very seriously. Most of the time, juries make intelligent judgements that are appropriate to a given case. As a result, big injuries result in large jury awards...and small injuries result in small jury awards. Rightly so.

If anything (and this may surprise you), juries tend to be conservative in their judgements, particularly on smaller cases. One survey of Illinois voters revealed that the public frowns upon frivolous lawsuits, and upon individuals who try to take unfair advantage of the system to obtain large damage awards.

The Role of Insurance Companies

Most compensation is paid by insurance companies, which are smart, powerful, profitable entities. (One study tallied the financials of 42 of the largest insurance companies. Together, these companies reaped over $21billion in profits and $2 trillion in assets in 1995.)

Insurance companies know how juries tend to react. As a result, their attorneys typically request trials for smaller, less serious cases...but attempt to settle out of court when it come to catastrophic cases.

That is also why in the early 1990s, Illinois insurance companies spent millions of dollars lobbying for The Tort Reform Act of 1995. That law capped pain and suffering in personal injury cases at $500,000---in effect, tying thejury's hands.

Tort Reform was struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court in December, 1997. Ruled as unconstitutional, the Court noted that the cap had "an adverse impact on those most seriously injured."

Obviously the insurance carriers weren't happy. But those of us who represent injured individuals---who see firsthand the kind of pain and irreparable loss that people suffer, often just by being a the wrong place at the wrong time---feel it was the right decision.

About the Rachel Barton Case

Consider the Rachel Barton case, which has received so much attention in recent months. Rachel Barton, as you know, is the young violinist who lost her leg when the strap of her violin case was trapped in the door of a commuter train.

Metra's attorneys argued that Barton was at fault for refusing to let go of her violin case. Barton's attorneys argued that the railroad was at fault for failing to utilize safety procedures that could have prevented the accident.

The jury, ultimately, agreed with Barton, awarding her nearly $30 million in compensatory damages---an amount that has triggered great discussion and controversy. Was it too high? Was it enough? In other words: was it fair?

I have been an attorney for nearly 25 years. I've resolved hundreds of cases, and studied thousands more. I truly believe it was fair compensation. What if it was you, or someone you loved, who lost a leg beneath that train, whose life was changed forever? Is there any value you could place on what was lost? I am certain that this young lady would exchange those millions in a heartbeat to have a whole body again.