Emergency Room Doctor Compliments NY Medical Malpractice Lawyer

Emergency room physician Chuck Pilcher offers this nice comment about my videos and an article I wrote about questioning doctors at their deposition:

"Questions to ask. Questions you might be asked. Depends on which side you’re on.
Most plaintiff attorneys know how to ask questions. Most defense attorneys know how to prepare their clients to answer them. New York plaintiff attorney Gerry Oginski’s refreshingly rational blog posts include one with several examples here. I also recommend his surprisingly objective video tutorials directed at patients who feel they may have been the victim of malpractice. They strike this viewer as doing more to discourage frivolous lawsuits than the AMA."

-A thank you to Dr. Pilcher for his kind comments.

Twitter, Facebook & Internet Lead to Mistrials

Well it finally happened. A lengthy federal criminal trial in Florida resulted in a mistrial after a juror admitted to doing Internet research, despite the judge's instructions not to.

Eight weeks worth of trial were wasted because of one juror's failure to follow the court's instructions. There's a shocker.

John Schwartz, a writer for the New York Times, also noted that an Arkansas court is being asked to overturn a $12.6 million judgment claiming that a juror used twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

Also, in Pennsylvania, defense lawyers in a federal corruption trial requested a mistrial because a juror posted updates in the case both on Twitter and Facebook.

In today's day and age of social networking sites and the ability of people to communicate via iPhone, Blackberry, and text messages, it has never been easier for jurors to do their own independent research about the issues involved in a trial. Not only that, but today's communication devices allow anyone to immediately do a Google search on anyone involved in the trial including the lawyers and the judge.

Pretrial instructions by the trial judge in New York routinely advise potential jurors that they are not do any independent research outside of the court. The reason is simple: we don't want jurors basing their decisions on any outside influences that have not been subject to the scrutiny of the court and the attorneys.

When jurors obtain information outside of the courtroom, the attorneys and the judge no longer have an ability to know what information the juror has obtained and how it could possibly influence them when reaching a decision.

In civil cases in New York, where jurors are never sequestered, no one really ever knows whether jurors talk to friends or family members or do their own research. It's only when someone has observed them investigating on their own can this breach of a juror's duty come to light.

Just last week I posted an informative and educational video about this exact topic. The title? "Twitter and Facebook jury instructions in New York." in the video I posed the question: "Should judges be required to give jurors warnings that they are not to use twitter, Facebook, my space and other social networking sites to blog about the case?" Watch the video to find out the answer.

Interestingly, in the cases discussed in the New York Times article, jurors were warned not to do online research. Despite these explicit warnings jurors disregarded them to investigate on their own.

Ah, what's a Twitterer supposed to do while serving jury duty?

Are You The Perfect Client? NY Negligence Attorney Explains

Every person who calls my office thinks that they are the perfect client.
Every person truly believes they have a valid case.
Every caller believes their injuries are worth more than the national treasury.

From an attorney's perspective, just who is the perfect client?

A perfect client is one who is willing to listen.
A perfect client is one who is willing to learn.
A perfect client is one who is willing to go on a stressful journey with someone they trust as their legal guide.

A perfect client it one who communicates with me.
A perfect client is one who does not demand, yell, scream or give ultimatums.
A perfect client is one who, after listening to my lawyerly advice, makes an intelligent decision about how to proceed, regardless of whether they agree with my advice or not.

A perfect client is one who responds to my letters, emails and phone calls.
A perfect client is one who is helpful and assists me when I prosecute their case.

A perfect client respects me, my time and my secretary.

Does every client have to be the perfect client? No. But having a perfect client makes the attorney-client relationship that much more enjoyable.

Should Your Lawyer Pay $500 to Impress You?

Just today I received mail from a company called Elite Lawyers of America asking me to join their organization to promote my success stories. How did they propose to do that? By joining an organization that supposedly restricts its membership to attorneys who have had awards, settlements or verdicts of at least two million dollars. "Acceptance in this organization represents an incredible accomplishment by the civil trial attorney."

You may ask, "What do I get for joining this Elite group?"
Well my friends, I get a lucite object to put on my desk which is etched with the name of the (previously never heard of) organization and a statement that says "Membership limited to civil trial lawyers who have obtained a verdict or settlement of at least 2 Million dollars." Then there is a place for your name, and the accompanying photo says "Your name here."

How nice. And the cost to have this company pay a few dollars to put my name on a generic lucite obelisk and for a fancy certificate I can impress you with? Only $500. Payment of this fee guarantees lifetime membership. Ooh, I feel so lucky.

Guess what? I personally don't need to spend $500 to show my clients that I have obtained settlements in excess of $2 million dollars. All they need to do is read my website and realize some of my accomplishments include settling a failure to diagnose heart attack case for $6 million dollars.

Why do I tell you about this? The next time you walk into an attorney's office and are impressed with their certificates and fancy objects on their desk, look closely at it and ask them how they got it. The answers may surprise you.

NY Negligence Cases-Facebook & Twitter Jury Instructions?

In negligence lawsuits in New York, attorneys must pick impartial jurors to sit in judgment and determine whether the injured victims' version of what happened is more likely right than wrong. As the trial gets underway, the trial judge typically gives the jury preliminary instructions about what they can and cannot do as jurors.

One of the most common instructions in New York is that jurors should not discuss the case with either their fellow jurors, or with anyone outside the court room. They are often told not to go to the library to research the issues in the case. With today's prevalence of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter and Google as the king of search engines it becomes hard for a juror not to have the curiosity to find out more information about the lawyers in their case, the litigants, and even the judge.

So, should pre-trial instructions to jurors in New York now include specific warnings that they should not do a search on Facebook or Twitter for the parties to the lawsuit? Should they be told not to Google the lawyers? Is the judge immune from having his decisions exposed by inquisitive and internet savvy jurors?

In my opinion, most of today's jurors who come into Court in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, Staten Island, Nassau & Suffolk are smart enough to know about Google, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. The question that always arises is: Even though jurors are told not to do any outside independent research on the issues in the case, and told not to investigate the parties, how do you really know whether they listen?

The difficulty with our system is that you don't. As an attorney, I must rely on a juror's statements and assurances that they will uphold the law that the trial judge gives them.

Twtitter & Facebook Comments-Can They Be Used Against You in a NY Negligence Trial?

You've brought a lawsuit in New York for injuries you received in a car accident. You are seeking money to compensate you for those injuries. You've just given a deposition (a question and answer session) under oath where you explained in detail how your injuries prevent you from playing sports and doing many of your life's daily activities.

A few weeks later you are on Facebook telling your friends how you just went skiing and had no problem speeding down the double diamond slopes on this awesome mountain. While on Twitter, you posted a few quick comments about how you spend your day working part-time for a carpenter as a helper carrying heavy items in and out of the job site.

A bright defense attorney decides to check out your Facebook profile while he prepares his report to the insurance company. He also does a Google search of you to see where your name pops up. He finds your Facebook comment about your skiing adventure as well as your Twitter posts saying that you're working part-time.

What does this mean for your lawsuit in New York?

The short version is that you're in trouble. The longer version is that you have created contradictions between the injuries that you claim to have suffered versus information that you have put out for public consumption on at least two social network sites.

Many people using Facebook and Twitter fail to recognize that by using and posting on these sites they generally have no expectation of privacy. It's not like having a private face-to-face conversation with one person. When you post to Facebook and Twitter, you are talking to the world.

Will a trial judge allow a defense attorney to cross-examine you with the statements that you made on Facebook? Will your contradictions show that you were less than truthful under oath? Will you be able to overcome your posts that bragged to your friends about your part-time work? In my opinion, a trial judge will allow this information in.

What do you think will happen to your credibility once you are portrayed to have lied? A jury will no longer believe what you have to say. I'm not even going into the possibility of fraud or an intention to lie.

So what's the take home message? Remember, that when you post comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites, the entire world can see them. Contradict yourself at your own peril.