A Little Humor......

This article of mine is reprinted here, with permission, from the October 22, 2007 issue of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. 

LEARNING LESSONS FROM LAWYER JOKES:

Don’t be upset – use them as a motivator to improve, and discredit their sting

by

DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQUIRE

Lawyer jokes are an amusing, sometimes annoying, part of the practice. You’ve heard one, you’ve heard them all. With the negative sting of many of the lawyer jokes, it is easy to wince and give a wan smile while others laugh out loud with forced glee at the telling of such jokes.

Q: What’s the problem with lawyer jokes?

A: Lawyers don’t think they’re funny, and no one else thinks
they’re jokes.

Unfortunately, it is said that jokes in general require some modicum of truth to help make them funny. The act of getting upset at being the brunt of such jokes may lend them credence and may only serve to foster the telling of lawyer jokes. Perhaps a better way to react to lawyer jokes is not to be upset by them, but rather to use them as a motivator to better your practice and thereby contribute to improving the image of attorneys as a whole.


Q: How do you get a group of lawyers to smile for a picture?
A: Just say, “Fees!”

A main complaint by the public with lawyers is the fees charged and the manner in which they are charged. One way to avoid such criticism is to, wherever possible, politely remind the client that the result they seek, or have obtained, may not have been realized without the legal expertise provided.

In other cases where a favorable result for the client is not likely, the better practice may require an attorney to be up front with clients early in the attorney-client relationship about the futility of their claim or defense. This may serve to streamline the case, result in a quicker resolution, and save the client money in the long run, thereby improving the reputation of the attorney in terms of fees saved as a result.

Another way to avoid client complaints regarding the fees charged is to provide detailed, itemized bills that fully describe the services rendered. Clients may also be better served, as well as attorney reputations, if the clients are not unnecessarily double billed in the form of multiple attorneys or staff working on a single task.

Where a dispute arises with the client over attorney charges, it may also be the better practice to immediately attend to client questions about a bill with a willingness to compromise hopefully being present on both sides of the issue. A satisfied client obviously may be a repeat client or a source of other referrals. Therefore, a squabble over a few dollars in a present matter may not be worth the cost of other cases that could be realized in the future.

Another proactive way lawyers may offset the negative public perception regarding attorney fees may be through giving back to the community. Donations to local charities, volunteering time at local fundraisers, and participating in pro bono legal work all serve to display attorneys in a better light.


Q: Did you hear about the lawyer hurt in an accident?

A: An ambulance stopped suddenly.
There is probably no more common complaint against attorneys than their sometimes voracious pursuit of new clients. Yet, in a competitive world with a glut of attorneys, it appears that seeking out clients and attorney advertising is a necessary evil to support one’s practice.

Lawyers are commonly criticized for their rampant and sometimes crass advertisements and commercials. Perhaps a way to blunt such criticism is to instill more creativity into the advertising, maybe even humor, as opposed to the standard commercial of a somber attorney lamenting the woes of personal injuries and his or her ability to make all well again through a lawsuit.

One way to perhaps attract other clients is to include past clients in the advertising praising the positives of their experience with that attorney or firm. In this manner, rather than having the attorney patting himself on the back, the public will be hearing another member of the public speaking favorably of his or her experience.

In any event, attorneys should be mindful of the Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2 and 7.2 regarding “ambulance chasing” or direct contact with potential clients. Generally speaking, direct in-person solicitation of a prospective client by a lawyer is also frowned upon by the disciplinary board and should be avoided.

Q: What do you get when you cross a librarian with a
lawyer?

A: All the information you need, but you can’t understand a word of it.

* * * * * * *

Q: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a
lawyer?

A: An offer you can’t understand.
Another common complaint about lawyers and legislators is their obstinate refusal to speak in plain, ordinary terms. Lawyers insist on using big words when little words would suffice [uh, when little words would do]. Legal jargon and Latin terms are still routinely used even though they should be avoided wherever possible when dealing with the public.

The problem of some lawyers refusing to utilize plain language has grown to the extent that awards are given out by the Bar when a lawyer is found to have fostered the use of plain English in his practice. So perhaps lawyer jokes in this regard can serve as a reminder to use plain English in our speech and writing whenever possible.


Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None, they’d rather keep their clients in the dark.
Since the dawn of legal practice, clients have complained about the failure of lawyers to keep them apprised as to the status of their case. The problem had apparently more recently become so common that Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 was promulgated which, in part, requires every attorney to “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information” and to otherwise “keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.”

Perhaps if attorneys strived to keep their clients informed with a call or a letter every thirty to sixty days, there would be one less ‘how many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb’ joke.


Q: “You seem to be in some distress,” the judge said to the witness. “Is anything wrong?”

A: “Well, your Honor,” said the witness, “I swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but every time I try, some lawyer objects.”
The lesson to take from this joke is to keep objections to a minimum at trial. By objecting only when truly necessary, an attorney may be able to avoid the public perception, by a jury no less, that the attorney is attempting to hide something, or worse yet, is a bully.

To prevent any adverse inferences by the jury to an objection, it may also be wise to give a short explanation for the basis of the objection. Giving this short explanation may not only explain to the jury the valid reason for the objection, but may also be crucial for properly preserving the objection as a basis for an appeal.

It may also be wise, whenever possible, to keep sidebar conferences with the judge to a minimum. Despite the best of instructions to a jury from a judge that sidebar conferences are a necessary part of a trial to deal with tangential issues, a jury will likely always feel that something is being kept from them and will also grow impatient with the delays caused by the conferences. The better practice may be to anticipate issues that may arise and address them with the court before the jury is brought into the room and put into the jury box.


Q: What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer?

A: A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows
the judge.
This joke brings to mind scenes from The Verdict with Paul Newman and Civil Action with John Travolta and Robert Duvall in both of which movies is a pivotal scene in which the underdog lawyer is called into the judge’s chambers only to find the more experienced opposing counsel already in chambers having a friendly ex parte chit-chat with the judge. While friendly and courteous relations are to be encouraged between lawyers and the bench, attorneys and judges should strive to avoid the perception of the public, and of out-of-town attorneys, of any favoritism once the matter gets underway.


Q: How many lawyer jokes are there?

A: Just three, all the rest are true.
Lawyer jokes have unfortunately been an undying breed since the time of Shakespeare. Even up to today, on any given week, Leno or Letterman will unleash a zinger against lawyers to the delight of their audiences. On the internet, a simple Google search will reveal numerous web pages devoted to lawyer jokes.

While such jokes may never become extinct, their impact can be lessened by improved attorney conduct. Unfortunately, lawyers are not always adept at displaying themselves in the best light possible which is in part due to the adversarial and competitive nature of the practice. There will also always be some bad apples who will continue to highlight and foster a negative view of lawyers as a whole.

Yet, continued efforts by all members of the bar to better the image of lawyers through open and plain communication, professional and courteous behavior in the public eye, community service, and the zealous but sensible pursuit of justice on behalf of clients can all only serve to discredit the sting of lawyer jokes.

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire is an insurance defense/coverage attorney with the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law (www.CumminsLaw.com). In addition to being a civil litigation columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, he also writes for his own blog, Tort Talk, which provides updates on Pennsylvania civil litigation and insurance law issues (www.TortTalk.com).

Claim of Spoliation of Video in Slip and Fall Case Rejected

In the case of Pace v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 18-3313(3d Cir. Jan. 28, 2020 Chagares, J., Greenaway, J., Greenberg, J.) (Op. by Chagares, J.)[Non-Precedential], the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defense in a slip and fall case.

Notably, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the Defendant store had spoliated any surveillance video of the Plaintiff where the Plaintiff fell.

In this regard, the court noted that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence that any such video existed in the first place, let alone that it was destroyed.

The court also noted that the record confirmed that the alleged fall took place in a blind spot in the Defendant’s store in terms of any video surveillance.

On the liability issue, the court noted that there was no evidence in the record to establish that the Defendant either created the hazard or had any constructive notice of an allegedly defected condition. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Bring Your Case To A Close With Cummins Mediation Services

Why wait to bring your case to a close?  Claims professionals are still working, albeit remotely, and desire to move your cases.

Please consider retaining CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES to assist in settling your cases.

We are willing to work remotely with all parties and participants and there would be no additional costs associated with the use of our in-house technology measures.

Your case can be moved forward and CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES is ready to assist in this regard.

Please contact Dan Cummins today at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net or at 570-319-5899 for a CV and a Fee Schedule and to schedule your Mediation.

First Time Skier Gets a Pass

In the case of Aldosari v. Tuthill Corp., No. 17-0626 (C.P. Carbon Co. Dec. 13, 2019 Nanovic, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a skiing accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, who was a resident of Saudi Arabia was a 17 year old individual who had never skied before the subject incident.  The Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was unfamiliar with the necessary skills or inherent risks of skiing.

After disembarking from the chair lift on her first trip up to the top of the slope, the Plaintiff developed cold feet and was too scared to ski downhill. The Plaintiff asked a lift attendant if there was another way for her to reach the bottom of the hill without skiing. The Plaintiff was told that there was no other way down.

The Plaintiff alleged that she was therefore forced to assume the risk of skiing downhill on her own as the only means of returning to the bottom.

When the Plaintiff began to ski down, she turned to avoid another skier, lost control, and skidded or rolled into a wooded area beyond the edge of the trial and sustained injuries as a result.

In her lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that, by failing to provide an alternate means for her to come down the mountain under the circumstances presented, the resort was negligent and breached a duty of care that it owed to her as a business invitee.

The Defendant resort filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred under the Skier’s Responsibility Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102(c), given that the Plaintiff’s injuries were a direct result of one or more of the inherent risks of skiing for which she assumed the risk of injury.

In his Opinion, Judge Nanovic wrote that, as a matter of law, a person who participates in the sport of downhill skiing is charged with knowing and accepting the danger of injury from risks inherent and necessary to the sport, even if the skier is in fact ignorant of these risks and does not consent to assume those risks.

Yet, although the Plaintiff  in this matter was engaged in the recreational sport of downhill skiing at the time of her injury, the court found that the risk that a first time skier would vacillate and change her mind was beyond the scope of the Skier’s Responsibility Act.

The court noted that the circumstances presented in this case did not alter the otherwise applicable common law standards of reasonable care in determining whether the ski resort owed a duty to the Plaintiff after she reached the top of the mountain and told one of the resort’s employees that she was too scared to ski downhill and needed help getting back down.

The court also noted that, under the case presented, an issue of fact was raised for the jury to consider as to whether the Plaintiff had voluntarily engaged in the sport of downhill skiing at the time of her injury. To the contrary, it appeared to the court that the Plaintiff was compelled to attempt to ski down and, therefore, may not have voluntarily assumed the risk in the same sense of one who, freely by choice, purposefully elects to ski down the side of a snow covered mountain.

Given these issues raised, the court denied the request for summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 18, 2020).

CUMMINS LAW DEFENDS POST-KOKEN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT MATTERS

The Attorneys at CUMMINS LAW defend Post-Koken motor vehicle accident matters in all Counties all across Northeastern Pennsylvania.

We pledge to deliver our legal services in the most prompt, efficient and responsive manner possible.

Attorney Cummins is the only insurance defense attorney in all of northeastern Pennsylvania to be selected to appear in The Best Lawyers in America Directory under the category of Personal Injury Defense.   He is also AV-Rated by the Martindale-Hubbell Directory and is a past recipient of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute's "Distinguished Defense Counsel of the Year Award."

Call or write today to discuss the defense of your claim:
Phone:  570-319-5899
Email: dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

"Threadbare" Facts Found Not To Support Insurance Bad Faith Claim

In the case of Diaz v. Progressive Advanced Ins. Co., No. 5:19-CV-06052-JDW (E.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2020 Wolson, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court dismissed a first party property damage bad faith case under a finding that the Plaintiff did not state a valid cause of action based upon a pleading of  “threadbare” facts.

The court noted that the Plaintiff basically asserted in the Complaint that he had a policy with the carrier, that his car was damaged in a vandalism event, that he had submitted a proof of loss, that he had been truthful throughout the investigation, and that the carrier denied the claim. The court noted that these allegations did not establish any plausible claim of bad faith.

The court also confirmed that there is no common law bad faith cause of action in Pennsylvania for refusing to pay benefits or as to claims handling. It is noted that the Plaintiff did not oppose this part of the Motion to Dismiss. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to fellow blogger, Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia law offices of Fineman Krekstein & Harris, for bringing this case to my attention. Attorney Applebaum is also the creator and writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law Blog which can be viewed HERE.

Claim of Bad Faith Delay of 6 Months in Opening UIM Claim Allowed To Proceed Forward

In the case of Angeli v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-703 (M.D. Pa. March 11, 2020 Mariani, J.), the court issued a lengthy Opinion in which it denied the carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this bad faith claim arising out of a UIM matter.

Of note, the court addressed whether a delay by a carrier in opening a UIM claim as requested by its insured could amount to reckless indifference in order to support a bad faith claim.

According to the Opinion, there was an undisputed delay of about six (6) months in opening the file. During that time, the insured’s attorney had written to the carrier on multiple occasions making a claim, sending a demand, and asking for documents. However, the attorney did not receive any response to these inquiries and no UIM claim file was opened over the first six (6) months of the claim.

It was allegedly only after the insured called the carrier directly and asked to speak to an adjuster that a file was opened and an adjuster was assigned.

The court found that the issue of whether this alleged lack of responsiveness and lack of activity over a six (6) month period could amount to reckless indifference was a question for the jury to decide.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum, the writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog for bringing this case to my attention. Attorney Applebaum is affiliated with the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris.