Brain injury lawyer explains how Krohn v. Home-Owners will save auto insurance companies money — while devastating the hopes of people with TBI and spinal cord injuries

I was interviewed last week by the Associated Press on the new Michigan Supreme Court case of Kevin Krohn v. Home-Owners Insurance Co. This is a terrible case. I fear it will have devastating consequences for people with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injuries throughout Michigan.

Michigan accident attorney says waiting period should be at least 90 days and solicitation restrictions should apply to insurance companies and chiropractors, as well as injury lawyers

Bad news for accident victims. The Michigan Supreme Court looks like it’s backing off on the proposed rule to stop attorney solicitation of personal injury victims from being preyed upon after a car accident or truck accident. That’s unfortunate.

Michigan has had “tort reform” coming out of our ears and it has failed to deliver on a single one of its promises

Robert Raitt

This viewpoint was written by my partner, Robert Raitt, a past-president of the Michigan Association for Justice. It was written in response to the insurance industry’s campaign for ever more “tort reform” (ie. how to have politicians increase insurance industry profits), and published in several news outlets.

Here’s a PDF of the viewpoint: “Tort reform” - A failed experiment in legal-social engineering.

It’s interesting to read our state’s highest jurists equating a victims’ rights ruling with pending economic disaster — without any supporting facts or cases and of course completely neglecting to mention Michigan’s auto insurance companies’ record-breaking profit margins.

Last week I blogged about how our auto accident case law McCormick v. Carrier has survived in the Michigan Supreme Court... for now. But despite raking in the profits and charging excessive premiums, our auto insurance industry continues to have its bidding done by conservative Republican Michigan Supreme Court justices, and in particular, Chief Justice Robert Young.

Car accident victims, injury lawyers, dodge a bullet

Last week could have been the week that Michigan injury lawyers, insurance companies, and hundreds of others have been watching and waiting for.  Last week, McCormick v. Carrier could have been overturned.  Instead, in two auto accident cases that went up to the “new” Michigan Supreme Court — the first such cases since the November election in which the Republicans retook the highest court — the court took a pass. Those two cases were Wiedyk v. Poisson and Brown v. Blouir.

Here’s my 2 cents as to why.

Injury attorney says Rule 1.5 of the MRPC harms public and removes incentive to find the best lawyers

I recently discussed the recent interview I had with Michigan Lawyers Weekly about the proposed amendment to rules governing referral fees between lawyers. If passed, this rule would limit referral fees to 25 percent, among other harmful changes.

The Michigan Supreme Court clerk is taking comments on the proposal until Sept. 1, 2011. They can be sent by email to MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov, or in writing to: P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909. This is what I wrote:

Michigan Lawyers Weekly interviews Michigan Auto Law attorney on proposed new rule on lawyer referral fees in accident and injury cases

I was interviewed last week by  Michigan Lawyers Weekly on MRPC 1.5, a proposed Michigan Supreme Court amendment to rules governing referral fees between lawyers. Michigan Lawyers Weekly asked me for comment because my law firm does no public advertising - ie., no television, no radio, no billboards, no Yellow Pages, etc. But we have become the largest law firm in Michigan helping people injured in serious car accidents and truck accidents.

Which auto law applies to cases filed under Kreiner, before McCormick v. Carrier?

As I’ve previously discussed in my blogs about McCormick v. Carrier, I believe McCormick will apply retroactively to all auto accident cases that had been filed before the decision was released by the Michigan Supreme Court on August 1, 2010. In addition to writing on McCormick, I’ve also spoken on the topic to several hundred auto accident lawyers at the No-Fault Institute seminar and to the State Bar Negligence Section seminar in Grand Rapids, Michigan, last fall.

Now it’s official.

Restrictions on 7th Amendment, pain and suffering jury verdicts, and empowering a “ruling class” in America

Last Thursday, I commented on a piece by conservative darling Fred Thompson. I discussed why our civil justice system, especially personal injury lawyers and trial lawyers, represent “true” conservative Republican values.  Sadly, it is a notion increasingly lost in a Republican party establishment that opposes any restrictions on business - no matter how legitimate - and no matter how corrupt or reckless and negligent that business might be, or what harms it may cause.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Mary Beth Kelly’s major contributors also backed a justice known for ruling against personal injury victims and attorneys

I’ve been asked to speak at two upcoming seminars on a topic that is much on the mind of many  of Michigan’s personal injury attorneys: How is the Michigan Supreme Court’s newest Justice, Mary Beth Kelly, going to rule in personal injury cases?

Sadly, this is where politics rears its very ugly head.  And it’s also why Michigan desperately needs to change how it runs judicial elections.