f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

  The Hammer’s braggadocio has been described here, and at Overlawyered. com.  This time, his transgressions involve a solicitation letter to a comatose hospital patient and a series of ads filled with swagger and the promise of more swagger.  As noted by New York’s 4th Department appellate division, in Matter of James J. Shapiro (April 30, 2004) (emphasis added):

“[W]e conclude that any reasonable attorney would know that a solicitation letter sent to a hospitalized comatose patient in the days immediately following a collision between her automobile and a train would reach the patient and her family at a time when they were unable to exercise reasonable judgment in retaining an attorney. Respondent, who had actual knowledge of the condition of the accident victim, will not be heard to argue that the disciplinary rule required him to be a “mind and body reader” in order to determine whether his solicitation letter could be sent.

“We also agree with the finding of the Referee that the television commercials aired by respondent contained false and misleading statements. The commercials depicted respondent as an experienced, aggressive personal injury lawyer who was prepared to take and had taken personal action on behalf of clients.”

•   “[R]espondent has not been actively engaged in the practice of law in this State since 1995.”
  
• “In contrast to the image of respondent depicted in the commercials, respondent has never tried a case to its conclusion and has conducted approximately 10 depositions.”
  
• We reject the contention of respondent that his television commercials consist of constitutionally protected hyperbole. The statements in the television commercials aired by respondent are false; they do not consist of hyperbole.

  It’s too bad we can’t ground state legislators until they significantly improve our small claims courts.   Yesterday, the legal reform group HALT issued its 2004 Small Claims Court Report Cards for each state.  As with its 2002 report cards, the results are disappointing.  

The 2004 Small Claims Report Card graded states in six categories: dollar limit, self-help, convenience, mediation, expedited collection and injunctive relief. Grades varied from the “B” range for top-ranked Georgia and three other states, to failing marks for Delaware, Kentucky, Mississippi and Missouri.  No state received an “A” grade.

The 2004 report card emphasizes the urgent need to raise jurisdictional dollar limits on small claims courts-as low as $1,500 in some states, which makes these courts a venue where only conflicts of nominal value are resolved. The report card also reveals the necessity of implementing reforms to make these courts a more consumer-friendly, accessible alternative to traditional litigation.

The National Summary of Grades shows the overall grade of every state, plus the grade in each category.  A press release covering each state is available at the HALT site, along with the state’s Report Card.  The Report’s summary notes:

 “Small claims courts – which use simplified procedures, require plain English, provide consumer aids and often prohibit lawyers – have tremendous promise as a means of empowering ordinary people to take charge of their own routine legal needs. By reforming these courts to fulfill this promise, state lawmakers can show a commitment to opening up the legal system to all Americans.”

Here is a summary of the grades received:

“a Key”  none                  “b Key”  five states

“c Key”  23 states            “D key” 19 states       “f Key”  four states

• 
  
  the Ten Best List: 1) Georgia; 2) California; 3) Colorado; 4) Utah; 5) New Mexico; 6) Tennessee; 7) Wisconsin; 8) Minnesota; 9) (tie) Alaska; 9) (tie) New York
  
  
• 
  
    the Ten Worst List: 1) Kentucky; 2) Missouri; 3) Wyoming; 4) Louisiana ; 5) (tie) Indiana; 5) (tie) Oklahoma; 7) Michigan; 8) North Carolina 9) Alabama; 10) (tie) Connecticut; 10) (tie) Kansas; 10) (tie) Massachusetts; 10) (tie) Rhode Island

Meanwhile, skepticalEsq keeps suggesting that it is the legal profession that is blocking efforts to reform small claims courts.