The Daily Record reports that ethical complaints made against all Maryland lawyers dropped 24 percent in the last six months of 2008 as opposed to the same period in the preceding year.

More specifically, the complaints against Maryland personal injury lawyers dropped from 48 the year before to 37 for 2008. Keeping in mind that I graduated from a liberal arts college, my math says that is a 33 percent drop.

That is refreshing to see. I am a big proponent of continuing legal education and participation in professional associations because I think raising the skill level of the plaintiff's bar as a whole is good for our profession and our clients. I think every Maryland personal injury lawyer should be a member of the Maryland Association for Justice, and should regularly attend continuing education programs.

Hopefully the recent drop in ethical complaints is a trend that will continue. Even though the article points out that those numbers are preliminary results, I think this is a good sign.

I am presently representing several deaf clients in personal injury cases in Baltimore City, Prince George's County, and Frederick County.

Our firm frequently gets inquiries from hearing-impaired injury victims. I think this is because of the quality of the information provided on our website, and because our site has an interface where potential clients can submit their case facts or questions in writing. As a result, I have developed some useful tips for injury lawyers representing hearing-impaired clients.

First- telephone conversations can be conducted through a free relay service. The client calls in, and all conversation is interpreted by an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter. This is a lifesaver for communicating between face-to-face meetings, where email will not provide sufficient attorney-client communication.

Second- call ahead to arrange an ASL interpreter for all court appearances. This service is provided by the state free of charge, and is essential to constitutionally adequate proceedings. I have found that if you arrive early, the assigned interpreter is usually more than happy to provide interpretation for a brief attorney-client conference before the proceeding begins.

Third- law offices are considered public accomodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). This means we are required to provide an interpreter for client meetings. Even though arranging for an ASL interpreter for private meetings has a cost attached, that cost may not be passed along to the client in the form of a case expense. Moreover, there is a very real probability that the attorney will not be able to satisfy the ethical duty of client communication under MLRPC 1.4 without use of an interpreter.

Hopefully this is helpful. I confess, I didn't know about the ADA requiring lawyers to provide interpreter services until a client pointed it out to me. Check out some mroe useful information here: http://www.nad.org/legalservices

Today at lunch I was reading Baltimore Magazine. This month's issue includes the 2009 Salary Survey.

The material accompanying the survey states that the sources of the information used include first person accounts, publicly filed documents, and various trade asssociation and labor statistics.

The survey lists the average salary for a starting lawyer in Baltimore as $92,550.00.

My initial reaction was that I can't see how this figure could possibly be accurate. I would love to know the specifics of where this figure was obtained. Outside of a few large, well-known firms, the typical starting salary for a new lawyer is nowhere near this figure.

For one thing, new lawyers don't really know how to do a whole lot. This alone makes it hard to justify a 92k salary.

Ron Miller blogged about the following survey in May, 2008:

McGuire Woods LLP: $145,000
Miles & Stockbridge P.C.: $140,000
Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll LLP: $140,000
Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office: $52,800
Baltimore City Public Defender's Office: $52,949

It is easy to see the disparity between what "biglaw" pays its first-years and what young lawyers make working for the government. Where the data gets difficult is for private employers of attorneys. Salary data is typically not available for Plaintiff's firms or small to mid-size firms.

Ten years ago, when I was a new lawyer who didn't know how to do anything, I was working at one of the best-known plaintiff's firms in Baltimore. My starting salary was $35,000.00. At the time, this was about what new prosecutors or public defenders were paid. I can't believe the salary landscape has changed that much in the last ten years.

I can't help but wonder if the authors of Baltimore Magazine's 2009 Salary Survey contacted the career services offices of the local law schools. I can't prove the $92k salary quoted is inaccurate. If it is, I would love to see the raw data, because it sounds awfully high.

Also, congratulations to Miller & Zois lawyers Laura Zois and Rod Gaston, who were named Maryland Super Lawyers for 2009 by the publishers of Law & Politics and Baltimore Magazine. This is a second award for both.

I usually write this blog solely about topics of interest to personal injury lawyers, such as trial strategy, legal news, and "from the trenches" trial reports. This is for two reasons. First, I want my readers to get the most value from each post, and that is the content people come here for. Second, nobody really cares what I think about anything else.

Today I depart from that because the holiday season is a great time to reflect on the year that has been, and to prepare for the year that will be. Accordingly, here are some thoughts for the past and upcoming twelve months:

1. One of the things that has always struck me about being a personal injury lawyer is the way my relationships with clients begin. I have often observed that nobody calls me because everything is fine. They say that about fire and police- every day when they go to work they step into the middle of someone else's worst day ever. Now, what I do is a far cry from that kind of work, but it is helpful for me to remember that I am rarely dealing with clients or potential clients at their best.

One goal (or "resolution", if you like) for the new year is to keep that in mind by being more empathetic and patient in dealing with others, particularly those who are having hard times. What is routine for most personal injury lawyers is an extremely frustrating and upsetting event in the life of an injury victim. I resolve to do a better job in explaining how to resolve property damage, how to prove medical causation issues, and how the litigation process works. Anecdotally, I think these are three of the most confusing and frustrating issues for my clients, and a big part of my job is to act as a guide through the unfamiliar landscape of a personal injury claim.

2. I resolve to build better and stronger relationships with family, friends, clients, co-workers and colleagues. I think happier people make better lawyers, and there is a direct correlation between happiness and the quality of the relationships in one's life. My goal is to try and learn one new thing about each client I speak with. I am representing individual people, not phrases on a pleading form.

3. I resolve to be more efficient with my time. Self-explanatory. Improving my efficiency as a lawyer will help my clients by allowing me to get more done for them more quickly. The idea is this will also improve my non-work time through lower stress levels and providing more time to be a well-rounded person.

4. I resolve to avoid legal jargon in my writing. I think most readers, particularly judges with busy dockets, value brevity and clarity above all else in legal writing. I want to get my point across clearly and succinctly to make it as easy as possible to persuade my audience.

5. I resolve to look for the brighter side of life. To be more effusive in my praise and more gentle in my criticism. To be more thankful for what I have and more generous with my resources. To give more to my community, both the legal community and the community as a whole. In general, to use my knowledge, emotions, training and time to do more good.

In conclusion, I am thankful for my family and friends. I'm thankful I have the opportunity to help people. I'm thankful I work with a group of people I care about and respect. To paraphrase a Native American blessing I learned from Henry "Wild Goose" Niese, I am thankful for every day I walk on the earth and do not lie under it.

I wish everyone the best in this holiday season and for the coming New Year.

I spent this morning in the District Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County trying a personal injury case where my client was injured in a car accident.

This was a contested liability case, with somewhat interesting facts. The defendant crossed a median strip, two lanes of travel, a front yard and a curb before crashing into my client's car where she was stopped at a stop sign on an intersecting street. His defense lawyer from Progressive Insurance argued the accident was not the defendant's fault because he had recently begun taking the medication Lyrica, which caused him to "black out" and lose control of his car.

For some reason, he had not had this reaction the first three days he took the medication. He also went out driving alone despite being aware that the patient information sheet for the drug states "[d]o not drive a car, work with machines, or do other dangerous activities until you know how Lyrica affects how alert you are." There was no medical documentation that the medication affected the defendant's driving.

My client suffered a concussion, a neck strain and a shoulder injury. She was treated by her primary care doctor and the orthopedist he referred her to. The court's verdict was $15,000.00, including my client's $6,000.00 in medical bills and $1,200.00 in lost wages. Progressive Insurance's last settlement offer was $11,500.00.

This was a good result, and an interesting case to try.

Last week I wrote about a car accident injury case I tried in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County. This was a rear end collision with a soft-tissue injury. The damage to the vehicles was extremely minor- about $400.00. My client had $4800.00 in medical expenses.

The insurance carrier was GEICO. This was a "no offer" case. We just got a letter from GEICO saying they "were unable to understand the nature of the injuries claimed due to the minor damage to the vehicles involved."

Today I called in to the court to find out what the verdict was. It was $10,500.00. That is a very good result for this kind of case, especially considering I only sued for $10,000.00 in the first place.

Even if a motion is filed to reduce the verdict to the ad damnum, I am happy with this result. So is my client. Again, plaintiff's lawyers need to try these cases. 10k is a lot better than zero.

Today I had a trial in a car accident injury case in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County.

Most Maryland personal injury lawyers consider this to be a good venue for injury plaintiffs. My personal experience has shown that the Prince George's County District Court bench does a good job of fairly evaluating these cases.

Today I was in a position most personal injury lawyers like to avoid. My client sustained a soft-tissue neck injury in an accident that only caused minimal damage to the cars involved. As expected, the defense attorney from Geico Insurance put into evidence photos of the cars to argue that the accident was so minor that it couldn't cause injury, or that any injury caused must have been minor.

I have blogged before about the Court of Appeals of Maryland's opinion in Mason v. Lynch that says it is not an abuse of discretion to admit property damage photos for this purpose. The opinion does not say, however, what weight the trial court should give such evidence.

Today I tried a new argument. I quoted from the dissent in Mason v. Lynch, which was written by Judge Raker and joined in by Chief Judge Bell. The dissent reviews all of the scientific literature opertaining to the issue and concludes that "there is no correlation... between vehicular damage and personal injuries...."

I argued that just because the evidence may be admitted, the trial court is not obligated to give that evidence the weight the defense suggests. The court would have the discretion to give that evidence very little weight because the overwhelming bulk of the scientific authority says the inference the defense wants is incorrect. I am hoping that this will at least get the trial court thinking that if Judges Raker and Bell agree with my argument, there must be something to it. I know there are several trial court judges in Maryland that worked as law clerks for these two judges, and probably think they are pretty smart.

I wish I could say this resulted in a great verdict, but the fact is I don't know yet. The court held the case sub curia, and will announce its damages verdict Friday.

So stay tuned.

The Baltimore City Circuit Court has recently announced that it has changed its scheduling and procedural requirements for motor tort cases, to require mediation in all such cases with claimed damages exceeding $20,000. Mediation will be required to be completed no later than 30 days after the discovery deadline, the court said in a release, subject to the right to request exemption from mediation within 60 days from the date of the order. If the parties engage in mediation, either party may choose to opt out of the scheduled pre-trial conference upon demonstrating that mediation was completed in accordance with the order. Motor tort cases scheduled on a Short Track Schedule - cases where damages claimed are $20,000 or less and cases forwarded from the District Court due to a jury trial prayer - will not be referred to mediation.

I'm not sure how much this will help, though. I think the success of the program depends largely on the skill and experience of the mediators. If they use experienced personal injury lawyers or defense counsel, the mediation may be valuable. If not, I expect it will be a waste of time.

I periodically blog about judicial nominations and vacancies on Maryland's trial courts because I think a working knowledge of the local bench is important to properly advise clients in personal injury cases.
This is less important for cases in the Circuit Courts because those are usually jury cases where the injured victim's damages are determined by the jury, rather than by the judge. In contrast, in District Court cases, damages are determined by the judge hearing the case. Because of this, knowing your factfinder is essential to evaluating a settlement proposal or tailoring your presentation to your audience.

As I have noted in previous entries, there is a vacancy now on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and there is an upcoming vacancy on the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Today I was reviewing the nominees for the Baltimore City vacancy and I noticed something I can't quite figure out.

In Maryland judges are appointed by the Governor, and then must run for retention in the next general election for a full fifteen year term. Putting aside the issue of whether electing judges makes any sense in the first place, there are some things about the process that make no sense to me.

The Governor selects from a pool of applicants that have been vetted by the Trial Courts Nominating Commission for each jurisdiction. Once the vacancy is filled, the unsuccessful applicants are put in a "pool" which is then automatically submitted to the Governor for every vacancy on the same court for the next two years. Why? Since new applicants emerge with every vacancy, at least some new applicants are submitted every time. If the idea is to submit to the Governor only the best qualified applicants, why send the same names as before with a few new faces added?

I think the issue of judicial selection is a complicated on on both the state and federal level. It clearly makes no sense to have judges elected by the public, since only a very small pool of litigation attorneys has a real appreciation of the skill level and aptitude of trial court judges. The process of judicial appointment by a President or Governor is also inherently political. I wonder if there may be a better way to ensure that the public gets the best judges? I don't know, but I can't help feeling there must be a way to improve this process.

There's an old saying that you should never put anything in writing that you don't want to see as an exhibit someday. There is a lot of wisdom in this.

Yesterday I was taking a deposition in a collateral dispute related to a car accident injury case. I was cross examining a witness about a very strongly worded letter he had sent to one of the people involved. The witness was not happy to be asked about every intemperate thing he had said in the letter, and whether he had any factual basis to say those things. Maybe it will not ultimately affect the litigation, but it sure made him look bad.

Write this down: don't write correspondence when you are mad! Now, you will most likely do this anyway, but do it in a way that doesn't cause harm or embarrassment. If you write angry, don't mail angry. Let it sit for a day and then reread it. Or show it to a colleague to see if it should be toned down. Angry missives seldom contribute to a real resolution of anything, and can be embarrassing when you have to explain them in a deposition or respond to them as exhibits to a motion.

Be especially aware of email. People tend to write email very conversationally. Don't email something you don't want to see again.

The Maryland Judiciary has announced that there is an upcoming opening on the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

This vacancy will be created by the retirement of the Hon. Dana M. Levitz. Maryland judges face a mandatory retirement age of seventy. I got to know Judge Levitz while I was interning for the late Hon. Edward A. DeWaters, because at the time the two judges shared chambers. Judge Levitz is very bright, and will be a loss for the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

I will keep an eye out to see who applies for the vacancy. It will be interesting to see who Governor O'Malley appoints to the seat.

Yesterday I spent the morning in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. I was there for a trial on an injury case from a Baltimore car accident. The defendant driver was a Russian immigrant who did not speak English. His defense attorney from Geico Insurance had done what she was supposed to do- file a request for an interpreter with the court. In fact, she had done it three times, because the first two times the court sent the request back to her, even though she had done it correctly. Ultimately the case got postponed because the interpreter the court selected had car trouble and wasn't able to get to the courthouse.

But the problems defense counsel had getting the interpreter scheduled in the first place got me thinking about how efficiently different Maryland courts are administered. For example, the District Court of Maryland is a statewide unified system. There are District Court locations in all of Maryland's counties and Baltimore City, but the system itself is funded and administered at the state level. This is great in that all of the locations have similar procedures, and share a common set of forms and rules.

But on the other hand, I think most experienced Maryland lawyers have shared my experience that some of these courts seem to work more efficiently than others. For example, in a multi-defendant case, some locations automatically continue a trial date when a new summons is requested for an unserved defendant, while others do not. This can be really confusing if you often practice in a variety of locations. At Miller & Zois, we practice in every locality in the state. This means we have to pay close attention to the procedures each locality uses in setting cases for trial.

It also seems like the procedures for specially setting cases varies by district. In some counties your case will be set on its own docket, in a particular courtroom. Other places, specially set means more than one case will be on the docket, but the docket will be only specially set cases. I have also had specially set cases that were for some reason left on the regular afternoon docket.

I can't figure out why there are so many differences in what is essentially a unified court system. It would have to be more efficient if these kinds of things worked the same statewide.

Today's Maryland Daily Record reports on the possible effects the recent Presidential election may have on appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Apparently there is one seat that has been open for over eight years. I won't pretend to understand all of the political aspects of the federal judicial selection process. But the lawyer in me can't believe that in eight years nobody could find a lawyer in Maryland who was experienced enough and acceptable enough to both ends of the political system to make it through the appointment process. I mean, at some point, this has to affect the quality of justice in the court system.

Today's article mentions that the Hon. Andre Davis, who currently sits on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, may be considered for one of the several open seats. Judge Davis was formerly a judge on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He is known for being an excellent judge, and was previously nominated for a seat on the Fourth Circuit by President Clinton.

I think it will be interesting in the coming months to see how President-elect Obama addresses the issue of judicial appointments, particularly since I expect the Democratic majority in the Senate will speed the selection process.

I just finished writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Maryland Association for Justice. The name of the case is Grady v. Brown, which is pending in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. This is a Boulevard Rule case.

The Boulevard Rule is the name of a legal doctrine in Maryland and elsewhere governing the right of way of drivers at intersections. Certain roads are favored, and any traffic entering those roads must stop and yield the right of way.

The issue in the case is that the defendant driver entered the favored roadway, but only to a degree that he didn't think would interfere with the flow of traffic. He was wrong, and there was an accident.

The trial judge in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City allowed the question of the defendant's negligence to go to the jury, despite the Boulevard Rule. The appeal is on the issue of the court's denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the issue of the defendant's negligence. Plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law.

The plaintiff in the case is represented by my colleague and fellow MAJ member Irwin I. Weiss, of Baltimore County. The defendant is being represented by Mark Brown of H. Barritt Peterson & Associates, also in Baltimore County. Talented, hardworking lawyers on both sides. I am involved in this case as counsel for the Maryland Association for Justice.

Because the resolution of this issue may affect the rights of car accident injury victims across Maryland, the MAJ petitioned for and was granted permission to file a brief as a "friend of the court." This means that I wrote a brief for the court's consideration addressing the policy implications of this decision for all drivers in the state.

I have done this before- I have served on the MAJ's Amicus Committee for three years. I also wrote the amicus brief in Mundey v. Erie Insurance. I love appellate writing, and writing as amicus often allows a little more creativity than representing one of the parties to the case. Plus, this is a way to directly affect the development of the law in my primary area of practice.

The trick in writing an effective amicus brief is to remember that you have a different goal than the attorneys representing the parties. The parties are stuck with their facts, good or bad. You're not. Amicus have the ability to change the facts or argue hypotheticals in order to illustrate to the court the potential policy implications of the matter before them.

For example, in Mundey, the issue was a requirement that an insured must "physically reside" in the covered household in order to be eligible for uninsured motorists benefits. Unfortunately, the plaintiff in the case had bad facts. He had been kicked out of his parents house for getting in trouble with the law, and other misbehavior. I argued in my brief that the court should ignore the reason the plaintiff was temporarily not residing in his parents household. I argued that what was important was that the decision would affect other people who were temporarily absent from their households for a variety of beneficial reasons, and that it wouldn't be fair to issue a decision making all of those people uninsured. In order to do this I contacted the Peace Corps, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Marayland National Guard. They were more than happy to send me statistics showing the number of Marylanders who were temporarily absent from their households for national service, religious missions, or military service. I included these statistics in the Appendix of my brief. I think this was effective because even though Mundey lost his case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland limited its holding to the facts of that particular case.

In writing amicus briefs it is also important to remember to avoid filing what is called a "me too" brief. The court's time and attention is valuable. It doesn't help them to read a regurgitation of the arguments and analysis made by the parties. Brevity is key.

I think it is a lot more difficult to write an amicus brief where the parties are represented by quality appellate counsel. In the Grady case, Mr. Weiss did such a good job that there were policy arguments I avoided entriely in the amicus brief, simply because they had been ably addressed, and I didn't think there was value in telling the court "yeah, what he said."

The only part of writing as amicus I don't like is that under the Maryland Rules, only the parties get to present oral argument to the court. I am not sure exactly when this case will be argued, but I will be watching closely for a decision because this is an important issue in determining the rights of Maryland drivers.

Last night I attended the final membership meeting of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association. Following the lead of our national association, the membership voted to change our name to the Maryland Association for Justice.

The rationale for this decision is that our organization is better served with a name that describes our mission and what we do. And that is advocate for justice for our clients.

There is also an element of branding in this decision. Apparently nobody likes trial lawyers, but everyone is in favor of justice. I guess there's a reason the Patriot Act wasn't named the Civil Rights Deprivation Act of 2001.

I am and always have been proud to be called a trial lawyer. I think convincing the six people in the box is more than enough of a check on so-called "frivolous lawsuits". Anyone who disagrees should try it sometime- its harder than you think it is.

But on balance, I think anything that makes the public more receptive to our message is a good thing for us, for our clients, and for the civil justice system.