Thursday, April 25, 2013

Routine Inspections Impact CSA Ratings for "Out of Service"

State rankings for overall inspection intensity are based on two measurements:
• Total truck and driver inspections performed over the first two years of the Compliance Safety Accountability program from December 2010 to December 2012.
• Total lane-miles of National Highway System roadway within each state. The March 13 report from the Commercial Carrier Journal concluded that in Louisiana, for example:
 
10 inspections/lane-mile

Brakes

18%
Lights
12%
Observed vehicle defects
12%
Lack of periodic inspection
6%
Tires
6%
Seat belt
4%
 
 
The following was submitted by fellow attorney, Garner Berry, who practices in Mississippi. You may find the analysis worthy of consideration relating to routine inspections, CSA and how the information may be misused by the plaintiff's bar.
 
The report analyzes State Inspection Intensity looking at the overall inspections performed on trucking companies in all 50 states for the first two years of CSA implementation (December 2010-December 2012).  The report also analyzes the Top States by Violation Types (i.e. moving violations, hours of service violations, maintenance violations, etc.) and compares the states to the national average. 
 
For Mississippi, you will notice in the State Inspection Intensity that the top three percentages of violations for all inspections in the state were given for maintenance issues (lights, brakes, vehicle defects).  You will also note in the Top States by Violations, Mississippi ranked fourth in highest violations issued within the state for maintenance violations, and was also in at least the top 15 for violations involving brakes and lights.  You can apply the same rational to Louisiana.
 
I find this information most compelling when you consider the information contained in the presentation I drafted and recently sent to you (Mississippi Overview of Trucking Claims).  Plaintiff's attorneys are continually including "out of service" claims against trucking companies following an accident in an attempt to prove that mechanical failure/defects contributed to an accident.  While there are many defenses to these types of claims, it is very helpful for companies and their attorneys to be knowledgeable about the information out there to vigorously defend against these claims. 

I hope that you and your clients find this information useful.  Should you desire to discuss it in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me.  And should I be able to be of any assistance to you, please don't hesitate to contact me day or night at the below cell phone number.

M. Garner Berry
Markow Walker, P.A.
599 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 100
Ridgeland, MS 39157
(W) 601-853-1911
(F) 601-853-8284
gberry@markowwalker.com
 
 
Good work Garner! Thanks for the insight. If you need assistance in Mississippi, please consider contacting Garner. If you need assistance in  the defense of trucking in Louisiana or Texas, particularly North Louisiana or Northeast Texas, feel free to call me day or night.
 
Mark Perkins
Perkins & Associates, LLC
318-222-2426

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Why Trucking Companies are not easy to defend…

I enjoy working with trucking companies and truck drivers, but it's no place for sissies or those who want to "win" every case. Why? 

Because of three stereotypes:

Trucks are bullies

Trucking accidents are always horrific

Trucking companies don't care about drivers or the public


Of course, we know better because we work with these people every day, but the perception prevails. Huge verdicts are a direct consequence of these stereotypes, so what can be done to address these problems? Well, because I don't know if the plaintiff's bar may view these blog posts, I don't want to reveal ALL of the strategies, but I will address a few facts.
 

Fact #1: Trucks scare people

 
I take methodical time to explain the purpose of transportation and the good that it does. I show the many safety features that a company implements. I show the millions of miles driven without incident. In other words, we have to change the perspective.
 
Fact #2: Jurors are more put off by the trucking industry than by truckers.
80% of the public has a positive overall view of truckers. So we have to learn personalize the company. We must never overlook telling a story about the company and the good that it does.
 
Fact #3: Jurors assimilate trucking companies to general corporate greed.
The good is ignored. The bad over-stressed. The underlying reasons for unfair verdicts
1. Thoughts of Self-Preservation
2. Expectation of Safety
3. The Desire to Improve Things
4. The Generation X Factor

There are so many factors that go into defending the trucking company and truck driver. Knowledge of the regulations and case laws are basic, but you also have to know the locality of the venue. You know what will work well and what will not. You have to press for the best defense, even if the client who is paying the bill doesn't want to spend the money on certain tests, surveillance or activities that can help you win the case.

Hey, I get that costs must be maintained, but we have duty to provide the best defense available, and sometimes, it takes time...and money. Particularly to overcome the biases that are often unfairly imposed on our clients.

Sorry for the short blog this week, but I have been extremely busy with DOING the work, that I have not had time to write about it. I hope these blogs are interesting and helpful to you.

Let me know if there are other topics I can cover that are of interest to you and others in the industry. Call if there is anything we can do for you.

Mark Perkins
Perkins & Associates, LLC
318-222-2426

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Why the Billable Hour Gets a Bad Reputation!

“THAT bill shall know no limits,” wrote one DLA Piper lawyer to another in 2010 in what the firm is now calling “unfortunate banter” between associates about work for a client. But , according to  an article by Steven J. Harper of the New York Times,  "what is truly unfortunate is the underlying billable-hour regime and the law-firm culture it has spawned."
 
In a typical large firm, associates earn far less than revenues generated. A client gets an invoice totaling the number of hours each lawyer spends on the client’s matters, multiplied by the lawyer’s hourly rate, perhaps $400 for a junior associate. Most big firms require associates to bill at least 1,900 hours a year, according to a survey last year by NALP, the Association for Legal Career Professionals. You can do the math about how much the associate generates in revenue; however, I KNOW that that there are NO associates billing $400 in North Louisiana unless it's a very unusual SEC-complex dispute.
 
The average hourly rate for SENIOR trial attorneys defending personal injury claims is not even one third of the hourly rate charged by an associate in New York, Houston, or New Orleans. Yet, because of the greed of a few, we ALL suffer from the bad reputation. Yet, Mr. Harper continues:
" A 2011 survey by ALM Legal Intelligence, an online data service, found that alternative fee arrangements accounted for only 16 percent of revenues at the nation’s largest law firms in 2010. Despite outcries for reform, the billable hour remains entrenched and the barriers to change are formidable."
 
" While at a big firm, Webster Hubbell, a former Arkansas Supreme Court justice and associate attorney general for President Bill Clinton, was caught billing clients for time that he never worked. He went to prison. A partner in a prominent Chicago law firm got into trouble when someone wondered how he could bill almost 6,000 hours annually over four consecutive years. He couldn’t."
 
"There’s a way out of the mess. But it requires clients to press harder for alternative fee arrangements, courts to back away from policies that embed the billable hour, law firm leaders to stop rewarding excessive associate hours and senior partners to consider the deleterious consequences of their myopic focus on short-term profit-maximizing behavior."
 
I agree with these points, but what IS the alternative billing arrangement? I can see that in SOME standard auto insurance cases, that there are routine tasks that can be billed at standard project rate, but many of the cases I handle are catastrophic and require much more work. Even the ones that are not, may require extensive work because of the potential risk of substantially high-dollar claims.
 
I can imagine that IF certain tasks were not done, and the value of the case exceeded expectations, then the client would be arguing that the lawyer SHOULD have done more. No matter if the client didn't want to PAY for the additional efforts! 
 
No matter what is done, there are those who will be greedy and find ways to gouge the system. It then causes the attorney who is truly trying to do the right thing to be "caught in the net" and suffer the consequences.  Economic freedom without a moral code will always produce greed. There must be a "heart change" to prevent greed.


The problem with completely doing away with the billable hour is that it could also cause lawyers to cut corners rather than fully defending the client. For example, if an attorney was only getting paid a set fee, would he do all he should to find underlying issues? Would there be an aggressive search of past medical information, surveillance, interviews, motions for summary judgment and other battles over legal issues?
 
Agreed, the attorney SHOULD get permission before doing more than is allowed under the billing guidelines. However, the client should also allow for necessary work to ensure an adequate defense. Don't require the attorney to call and get approval for every minor exception or objection. It is inefficient. Don't work with the BIG FIRMS only. Smaller firms, like us, often can do more with less.
 

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Will Trucking Defense Attorneys Make Any Money in 2013?

Trucking 2013 forecast: not great but not gloomy
ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello calls the pressure on fleets
to replace aging equipment “The New Diesel Fuel.”
 (The Trucker: LYNDON FINNEY)

According to Lyndon Finney of   "The Trucker", American Trucking Association'sChief Economist Bob Costello issued his forecast for trucking 2013. It isn’t rosy, but neither is it gloomy. “Unfortunately for the next few months freight volumes are going to go sideways,” Costello told delegates to the ATA Management Conference and Exhibition in October 2012.
 
So now that  we are almost out of the first quarter of 2013, how are things going for the trucking industry and for those of us who defend it? I don't know about my fellow attorneys, but I definitely see the industry and insurance carriers tightening the belt. Frankly, I am doing the same.
 
From time to time, there is a move to consolidate into fewer firms; however, I wonder how that is a benefit when law firms may have to travel 5-6 hours for hearings or investigations? Wouldn't it be in the company's best interest to hire a  more regional firm experienced in trucking matters, but also familiar with the culture of the locality?
 
Obviously, there is also the concern about billing and whether the attorney is doing too much or not enough. An experienced trial lawyer knows what is important and what is not, so trust in the experience of the attorney. Additionally, some matters take time to ferret out the details that will assist in the success of a particular. It doesn't take much financial investment to lose a case.

 
James Cerone in the "Journal of Insurance Operations" reported that nationwide, insurance defense attorneys charge about $130 per hour, with higher hourly rates often found in big cities (or in niche litigation). Actually, insurance defense rates are not high, compared with the hourly rates of most other legal practice areas such as work relating to the Securities and Exchange Commission, mergers and acquisitions,  labor law, corporate litigation, real estate and domestic litigation. Quite often, the hourly rates attorneys charge insurance companies for defense work are upwards of 40% lower than what they charge insurers for corporate work.
 
Trucking defense attorneys are in this for the long haul (pun intended). We respect the industry and we want to see it grow and prosper. Few of us are so short-sighted that our goal is gouge the client. Personally, I have only had one trucking client "go another direction"  over the cost of litigation; however, in my defense, two of the last cases I handled were very odd.
 
One involved a serious rear-end collision by a drunken salesman driving a company car on a Saturday night. In Louisiana, one of the few means to obtain punitive damages is in drunk-driving case.  Although we argued the driver was not in the course & scope of his employment, he was still arguably covered by the company's self-insurance.  After intense battles over discovery, focus groups and preparation for the trial, we were able to settle the case before the trial for the same amount we offered at mediation. A win.
 
The other case involved the delivery of chemicals to a chemical plant in which one of the employees allegedly developed a respiratory disease. Several defendants were named: the chemical company, the manufacturer of the chemicals, the employer, and two trucking companies. I tried early on to get my client, an LTL trucking company, dismissed but when the plaintiff's attorney spoke to "an expert," Lew Grill, he thought he might have a case. More on Lew Grill another time, but suffice to say, he did not have a good case against us nor the other trucking company.
 
We were able to settle the case for about 4% of the total settlement value. That seemed like a very successful outcome, but unfortunately there was a lot of discovery, depositions, travel time  and document battles. Additionally, my client had to re-create a lot of documentation in response to discovery so I think, all in all, the cost of defense was way out of whack with the ultimate result. Especially, when this client compared the costs of litigation in these two cases with the cost of litigation in wrongful death claim being handled by another attorney (someone I had actually referred them in order to prevent unnecessary costs of travel). I think the fact that the two cases, I had were so odd, that a comparison was a bit unfair. No matter, it is what it is.
 
What did I learn from those cases in properly defending a client without breaking the bank?
 
1. Don't travel out of town for  a deposition if you can take it by phone. Even though the client approved the travel, sometimes it's not necessary.
 
2. Give the client credits on the bill if more time was taken than you believe a task should have taken (which I did). Some people argue that a bill should never be discounted because it shows you are not watching the time contemporaneously. When you review the bill as a whole, you can see where some things may have taken longer than expected. Do the right thing and discount the bill.
 
3. Discuss with client in advance if they want you to travel (which I did), as well as other strategies such as hiring experts, focus groups, discovery challenges, surveillance. I am not aware of any attorney who would not do this, but I could be wrong.
 
4. Remember that it may not be the claims department calling the shots ultimately; it may be the "bean-counter" who questions why a defense should cost so much. Your contact may like you and want you on cases, but it's out of their hands. Take your lumps and move on. Always keep a good working relationship with former clients.
 
5. Try to negotiate dismissal or  settlement several times during the duration of litigation (not just at mediation). Look for legitimate reasons for a summary judgment motion and even if not successful, it may help you glean out issues for trial. Don't file exceptions and motions for no good reason. I didn't, but it's a good rule to remember.





6. Take a stand! Don't pay costs of defense for cases that SHOULD be fought. Even though the battle in these two particular cases may have cost more than any of us intended, you can be certain that the plaintiff's attorney will tell others that this attorney and that particular client are NOT push-overs.
 
7. It's not your  money so if the insured client is willing to limit the cost of defense by settling the case, that's perfectly acceptable. I Consider paying as the cost of defense only if it's in the best interest of the INSURED. Otherwise, it would be wrong for  the insurer to do this because it violates the insuring agreement to pay (only) those sums for which the policyholder is legally liable. It also fosters the notion that the insurer is an easy or liberal payer of claims; a perception that will bring demands to pay something for anything. The appeal of this approach should disappear with the presence and use of staff counsel.
 
8. Draft a budget and litigation strategy early in the case, but BE  FLEXIBLE. As stated by Cerone, "The use of guidelines is sound. It was the replacement of assignment letters and the often eventual removal of the role of the claim person that was bad."
 
Ethically, our primary duty is to the policyholder. Yet sometimes, with little or no direction from the claims person, we must determine  what is was necessary and in the best interest of the defendant policyholder. Sometimes this includes  performing non-lawyer work including in gathering documents such as medical records; determining the need for and arranging for medical examinations; providing periodic status reports to the claim department; initiating the valuation of claims including recommendations for the amounts of case reserves; effectively deciding whether and when to try a case to verdict or to settle; conducting negotiations; and, essentially handling all aspects of the claim.
 
This may cause a greater number of billed defense hours and higher defense charges per case. Thus the use of general guidelines as a post billing hammer to adjust downward the number of hours charged. For example, if a billed item was not specifically included in the attorney’s responsibility as set forth in the guidelines, the billing charges were deducted and not paid.
 
9. Team work. It may be an overused phrase, but we need to work together. Discuss the strategy, even argue about what needs to be done, but do so professionally and with the goal of what is in the best interest of the insured client.
 
10. Don't paper the file with reports to "CYA." Look, I know that in this day in age, there will always be someone who want to pass the blame on to the attorney, but we have to take the high road. Shoulder the responsibility (and blame), while always sharing the success with others.