A Philadelphia court has awarded more than $4.5 million to a mesothelioma plaintiff and his wife of 57 years. Few mesothelioma plaintiffs live long enough to hear a final verdict in their cases, making the outcome of this reverse bifurcated trial especially significant.

Waters & Kraus, LLP, and the Shein Law Center, LTD, served as plaintiff’s counsel for former U.S. Navy engineman John Koeberle. The plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in April 2009. Under the reverse bifurcated system, Phase I requires a jury to first determine whether the plaintiff’s illness was caused by asbestos exposure. Neither the names of the manufacturers nor a suggested dollar amount for damages may be mentioned to the jury during this phase. According to Waters & Kraus attorney Demetrios Zacharopoulos, the team’s first order of business was to support the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Typically, the diagnosis is based on hard tissue samples, but Mr. Koeberle’s doctors advised that the physical risks associated with obtaining tissue samples from his lung were not in the plaintiff’s best interest. As a result, the diagnosis was made based on cytological examinations of fluids taken from Mr. Koeberle’s chest cavity — a diagnosis which was made by Mr. Koeberle’s treating physician and confirmed by Plaintiff’s medical expert Gordon Yu, M.D.

According to Mr. Koeberle’s testimony, his Naval duties from 1948 to 1957 included maintenance work on diesel engines, valves, and pumps requiring the replacement of asbestos-containing gasket and packing materials. Frequently, the removal of these materials involved scraping and wire-brushing, which generated conditions he described as “very dusty.” In addition, the process of inserting new gaskets and packing often involved cutting sheet material to fabricate a custom fit.

After a nine-day trial, the jury concluded that Mr. Koeberle’s exposure to asbestos was indeed a contributing cause of his mesothelioma. Mr. Koeberle was awarded $3 million under the Survival Act, and Mrs. Koeberle was awarded $1.5 million for loss of consortium, or deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to illness or injury.

The Phase II liability proceeding was a bench trial in which the court found John Crane Inc., the lone remaining defendant of seven original manufacturers in the case, liable for Mr. Koeberle’s illness under Section 402A’s strict liability rule. The plaintiff recalled seeing the name of the defendant and manufacturer, John Crane Inc., on the boxes he used while maintaining and repairing equipment for the Navy.

The judge ruled that Mr. Koeberle’s exposure to John Crane asbestos-containing gaskets and packing was a factual cause in the development of Mr. Koeberle’s mesothelioma. As a result, John Crane is liable for one-seventh of the amount of damages rendered by the Jury in Phase I.

Although Mr. Koeberle was too ill to be in the courtroom when the final decision was announced on June 3, WK attorney Demetrios Zacharopoulos said the plaintiff and his family are both pleased and relieved.

“These cases are never easy,” explained Mr. Zacharopoulos. “As with all of our cases, we pushed to expedite proceedings — and in this instance, Mr. Koeberle and his family were able to witness justice being rendered and having John Crane held accountable for its actions. They’re very pleased with the result, and they’re relieved that they can now move on and experience some closure.”

About Waters & Kraus, LLP
Waters & Kraus, LLP, is a plaintiffs’ firm concentrating on complex product liability and personal injury/wrongful death cases. The firm’s diverse practice includes toxic tort (asbestos and mesothelioma) litigation, pharmaceutical product liability, negligence, and consumer product liability, as well as qui tam (whistle-blower), and commercial litigation. With offices in Maryland, Texas, California, and Waters & Kraus has litigated cases in jurisdictions across the United States on behalf of individuals from all 50 states, as well as foreign governments.

Emma Mejias died a horrible and painful death, on her very first Christmas Eve in 2004, at the hands of 25 doctors and nurses, another victim of medical malpractice. All 25 of them systematically and willfully ordered and administered the wrong drugs for her life-threatening condition called SLOS (Smith Lemli Opitz Syndrome). SLOS is a congenital abnormality, which requires treatment strategies on supplying supplemental cholesterol.

Emma was given the Wrong Drug, Questran, not once, but 92 times – yes, 92 times in one month. All of the doctors and nurses knew better. They were trained to know better. They were some of the world’s leading authorities at the LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans. And her doctors had the unmitigated gall to blame Emma’s death on the new resident doctors, rather than take responsibility themselves. Emma remained hospitalized at various hospitals from the date she was born to the day she died, because of the outrageous medical malpractice perpetrated on her by 25 so-called health care professionals, none of whom cared enough to give her the potentially life-saving medical treatment she desperately needed. She suffered enormous physical pain and suffering prior to her death. Today, for the very first time ever on TV, The Insider Exclusive will visit with both Jason and Adrienne Mejais and their lawyer John Hammons, Partner at Nelson & Hammons, who for 30 years has been standing up for people like Emma, a little innocent baby, who never had the chance to stand up for herself.

John Hammons is one of Louisiana’s leading medical malpractice and nursing home negligence lawyers, and is often called upon by individuals as well as by other lawyers to assist them in the most difficult of cases. He has served on the Governor’s Commission on Medical Malpractice, which provided him with significant insight in this area of developing law. John was also among the first lawyers in Louisiana emphasizing the handling of medical malpractice cases three decades ago. He has been at the forefront of precedent-setting cases, and is often invited to speak before legal and medical groups. John holds an undergraduate degree from Northeast Louisiana University and a law degree from Louisiana State University.

Nelson & Hammons has championed the rights of victims of medical malpractice since 1980, having successfully represented hundreds of such patients or their families. With its office in Shreveport, Nelson & Hammons remains committed to quality medical care for its clients and their families as well as obtaining just compensation for those patients who have been seriously injured as a result of substandard medical care. With two attorneys specializing in the handling of medical malpractice, nursing home negligence and related matters, Nelson & Hammons is uniquely positioned to effectively and thoroughly investigate and prosecute such cases.

You can contact John Hammons at 318-227-2401, or www.nelsonhammonslaw.com

Every lawyer in America admires Gerry Spence’s courtroom victories, and many of them come to Thunderhead Ranch in Wyoming to learn his strategies. The evolution of this legal legend can be traced to Gerry’s courtroom victories and his best-selling books. He has more multi-million dollar verdicts without an intervening loss than any other lawyer in the United States. Gerry HAS NEVER lost a criminal case in the more than 50 years he has practiced law. And he has not lost a jury trial since 1969. In this interview, Gerry shares a lifetime of experience teaching you how to win in any arena – the courtroom, the boardroom, the sales call, the salary review, the town council meeting – every venue where a case is to be made against adversaries who oppose the justice you seek. He shows both lawyers and laypersons how to win cases as he goes step by step through the elements of a trial – from jury selection, to the opening statement, the presentation of witnesses, their cross-examinations, and finally to the closing argument itself. These 9 Winning Steps include:

1.What Is The Power to Win?
2.The Winning Strategies
3.Discovering the Story
4.Discovering the Story through Psychodrama
5.Voir Dire
6.The Opening Statement
7.Telling the Story through Witnesses
8.Exposing the Hidden Truth
9.Closing the Deal

Gerry Spence has tried and won many nationally known cases, including the Karen Silkwood case (a movie was made of the case with Meryl Streep and Cher), the defense of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, the defense of Imelda Marcos, the case against “Penthouse Magazine” for Miss Wyoming and the murder defenses of Ed Cantrell and Sandy Jones. In 2008 in a politically charged case brought by the Justice Department in Michigan against attorney Geoffrey Fieger, Gerry won complete acquittals for his client on a ten-count indictment alleging federal campaign contribution violations, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Gerry also represented Brandon Mayfield, a modest Oregon attorney, against the United States in which Spence was instrumental in obtaining a federal court to hold the Patriot Act unconstitutional. He has tried numerous other important criminal and civil trials. He has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. He has not lost a civil case since 1969. He has had more multi-million dollar verdicts without an intervening loss than any lawyer in America.

Gerry is the founder of the nationally acclaimed Trial Lawyers College, which established a revolutionary method for training lawyers for the people. He believes that what he has learned in a career should be shared with those who will continue to strive for justice on behalf of ordinary citizens. There he and his pro bono staff teach not only trial lawyers for the people but conduct a forum to help lawyers defeat the death penalty. He is the founder of Lawyers and Advocates for Wyoming, a not for profit public interest law firm which champions cases affecting public interest for clients who have nowhere else to have their voices heard.

Gerry is the author of sixteen nationally published books, including the massive best-seller, How to Argue and Win Every Time; From Freedom to Slavery; O.J: the Last Word; The Making of a Country Lawyer; Murder and Madness; A Boy's Summer; With Justice for None; Give Me Liberty!; Gunning for Justice; Trial by Fire, Win Your Case; Bloodthirsty Bitches, and the Pious Pimps of Power; Gerry Spence's Wyoming; Smoking Gun and his widely acclaimed novel, Half-Moon and Empty Stars.

The Spence Law Firm is made up of eight partners with combined legal experience of over 200 years, dedicated to the fight for the rights of the injured. Each partner has developed extensive knowledge and expertise in one or more of the practice areas and specialties of the firm. The firm represents people who have suffered injuries at the workplace, during recreational activities, or in automobile, trucking, railroad or aviation accidents. The Spence Law Firm takes legal action based on products liability for injury or loss caused by defective products - equipment, toys, medical prostheses, pharmaceuticals, household products, etc. The firm represents people who are the victims of toxic exposures (poisoning of the air, water, soil, workplace, etc.), employment discrimination, and bad faith execution of contracts by insurance companies, business entities, and service providers.

http://www.insiderexclusive.com/show-titles/19-gerry-spences-winning-courtroom-strategies-.html

Nearly a year after an Australian law firm went public, many in the legal profession are still tittering over whether any American players would follow suit.

By necessity, law firms are fairly tight-lipped about much of the work they do. That would have to change if any were to become a publicly traded company, what with the disclosure requirements and the probing questions of shareholders.

In the midst of earnings season, Above the Law’s David Lat pens a mostly tongue-in-cheek piece for The New York Observer speculating on what a quarterly earnings report by an American firm would look like. (A hint: It wouldn’t say much.)

Mr. Lat, a former corporate lawyer himself, gently jabs the pampered-partners culture of Big Law, which may take a hit as corporate profits slide. Niceties like $160,000 starting salaries for first-year associates, 18 weeks of paid parental leave and Friday Swedish massages, he imagines, would go out the window.

And how would the firm describe secrecy-shrouded practices like mergers and acquisitions work or criminal defense? Perhaps thusly:

The M&A department spent a significant amount of time on several potential transactions for a client in the energy sector that were never consummated. Unfortunately, the firm was unable to bill for most of this time …

The firm cannot provide additional details about this representation, due to client confidentiality rules.

As a point of comparison, consider the semiannual disclosures of Slater & Gordon, the personal injuries firm that now resides on the Australian stock exchange. Its recent annual report (PDF) resembles virtually any other public firm’s, with general income statements and descriptions of its business.

Which is not to say that public law firms would ever fully open their kimonos, much as representatives of another industry tend to play their cards close to the vest. Alternative asset managers — including private equity firm Blackstone Group, buyout- and hedge-fund manager Fortress Investment Group and hedge fund Och-Ziff Capital Management — have been criticized by some analysts and investors as presenting opaque looks into their businesses.

As gay-rights groups call for marital equality and opponents warn of a public backlash, societal decay and religious conflict, the California Supreme Court is prepared for an epic three-hour hearing Tuesday on the constitutionality of the state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It shapes up as the most momentous case the court has heard in decades - comparable to the 1981 ruling that guaranteed Medi-Cal abortions for poor women, the 1972 ruling that briefly overturned the state's death penalty law, and the 1948 decision, cited repeatedly in the voluminous filings before the court, that struck down California's ban on interracial marriage. The arguments on both sides are weighty.

Supporters of same-sex marriage invoke the state's commitment to equality regardless of gender or sexual orientation, the needs of the children of gay and lesbian couples, the persistence of societal discrimination, and legal rights such as freedom of expression, association and privacy.

In defense of its law, the state cites a cultural tradition far older than statehood, the will of the people as expressed in a 2000 initiative, the steps California has already taken toward equal rights for gays and lesbians, and the power of lawmakers and voters to determine state policy.

Beyond those arguments, groups opposing same-sex marriage want the court to justify the state law on moral or scientific grounds, as an affirmation that limiting matrimony to a man and a woman is best for children and society.

A ruling is due within 90 days. The case combines four lawsuits - three by nearly two dozen couples who want to marry and the fourth by the city of San Francisco, which entered the dispute after the court overturned Mayor Gavin Newsom's order that cleared the way for nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings in February and March 2004.

The suits rely on the California Constitution, which state courts have long interpreted as more protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs invoke a passage in the 1948 ruling on interracial marriage - the first of its kind by any state's high court - in which the justices recognized a "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco Superior Court echoed that language in March 2005, when he ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violated "the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." He also said the marriage law constitutes sex discrimination - prohibited by another groundbreaking California Supreme Court ruling in 1971 - because it is based on the gender of one's partner.

But a state appeals court upheld the law in October 2006. In a 2-1 decision, the court rejected Kramer's findings of discrimination and said California was entitled to preserve the historic definition of marriage while taking steps to protect the rights of same-sex couples who register as domestic partners.

Advocates crowd in

As the case reached the state's high court, the participants and the arguments multiplied. Conservative religious organizations, including sponsors of the 2000 ballot measure that reinforced the opposite-sex-only marriage law, accused the state of making a half-hearted defense of its law and sought to justify it as a pro-family measure. Marriage is for procreation, and children fare best with married fathers and mothers, they argued. They also said the definition of marriage is so deeply engrained in the law that judges have no power to change it.

The coalition of conservative religious groups warned that a ruling against the state law would "fracture the centuries-old consensus about the meaning of marriage."

An opposing assortment of liberal denominations counseled the court against a state endorsement of "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

The court also heard from hundreds of organizations representing psychologists, anthropologists and other professions, city and county governments, law professors, businesses, civil rights advocates and social institutions.

Judges and limits

Underlying all the arguments is a debate about the proper role of courts in a democracy, particularly on contentious social and political issues. It's the same question - how far, and how fast, judges should move to correct injustices they perceive in the actions of elected officials - that has confronted jurists pondering such issues as segregation, school prayer and abortion.

The subject was raised with unusual frankness in written arguments by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, which is leading the defense of the marriage law that Brown signed as governor in 1977.

"One unintended and unfortunate consequence of too radical a change is the possibility of backlash," said Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger. Same-sex marriage may someday be legalized in California, he said, "but such a change should appropriately come from the people rather than the judiciary as long as constitutional rights are protected."

Brown said last week he wasn't asking the court to sacrifice principles to politics, only observing that rulings that "ride roughshod over the deeply held judgments of society" can have unintended consequences.

He noted that the court majority swung from liberal to conservative after three of his appointees, including Chief Justice Rose Bird, were unseated in a 1986 election that centered on their votes to overturn death sentences.

Q: I am looking for a lawyer and would like some tips on how to find a good one. Do all Illinois lawyers receive the same training?

A: In order to be licensed to practice law in Illinois, a lawyer must receive a law degree from an accredited law school and pass the state bar exam and an ethics exam. Law school is typically a three-year program after undergraduate school.

Once a lawyer passes the bar and is licensed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the lawyer can practice all types of law - from real estate to estates to divorce to contracts to civil and criminal litigation in the courtroom. There really is no limitation as to the areas of practice except patent law.

As a practical matter, in my experience most lawyers fresh out of law school know little about the practical aspects of practicing law and usually learn how to practice law on the job, often working at a law firm with experienced lawyers or reading how-to books in the law library.

If you have a matter that involves significant dollars or important legal issues, the first question you should determine is the attorney's experience in the applicable area of the law. That is not to say that an inexperienced lawyer will not do a good or adequate job, but it is common sense that, as in most occupations, experience matters.

It is also important to find a lawyer you trust because you will want the lawyer to give you objective and unbiased advice. Practicing law is a business as well as a craft, and some lawyers are more interested in your money than your case.

A good way to start a search for a qualified lawyer is to ask a relative, friend, business associate or someone you trust for a recommendation based on their personal experience. Also, if you have a lawyer whom you trust who does not practice in the area in which you need legal representation, ask the lawyer for a recommendation on a lawyer who is familiar with that area of practice.

When you decide to retain a lawyer, make sure that she carries malpractice insurance. Illinois lawyers are not required to carry malpractice insurance, but they are required to report whether they have such coverage.

You can find out whether a lawyer has malpractice insurance at www.iardc.org - the Web site of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, an agency of the state Supreme Court that keeps records for lawyers in Illinois and handles complaints of professional misconduct.

This Web site also can tell you if the lawyer has been disciplined or whether there are any disciplinary actions pending against him. It is a good resource for the public and should be utilized in the process of hiring a lawyer.