Articles Tagged with lawyers

Published on:

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matt Arnold answers the question: “Are the laws or rules applying to a wrongful death claim different from a personal injury not involving death?”

A recent case decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was watched by many in anticipation of a ruling. The Court’s ruling could impact universities all around the country. A wrongful death suit against a university and some of its staff would determine the liability a university faces in the event of suicide by one of their students.

Published on:

Charlotte Injury Lawyer Matt Arnold answers the question: “When does the insurance company have to pay for my medical treatment?”

Lawyers have been anxiously watching and waiting for a verdict in the first GM ignition switch case. The wait is over, with the jury announcing its verdict late last week. Though the jury appeared to side with GM, its decision gave plaintiffs reason to be optimistic for the future.

Published on:

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I trust the insurance adjuster?”

Legislation culled from so-called “bill-mill” American Legislative Exchange Council’s library of plaintiff-unfriendly proposals has become the law of the land in the State of Arizona, and personal injury attorneys are crying foul. They say the bill Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law last Thursday will prevent victims of asbestos exposure from recovering the damages they are owed.

Published on:

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What exactly is a wrongful death claim?”

 

Woman causes husband’s death, sues herself for negligence, wins, then pays herself the money. If one believes the headline, it is true. A closer look reveals the headline is only partially true.

Overturned Car Accident Charlotte Injury Law firm North Carolina negligence LawyerOn December 27, 2011, Barbara Bagley lost control of the vehicle she was driving in a Nevada desert and struck a sagebrush, causing her car to flip over. Her husband, who was a passenger in the vehicle, passed away nearly two weeks later as a result of injuries sustained in the crash.

Bagley became the personal representative of her late husband’s estate, meaning she is the person empowered by law to collect her late husband’s assets, pay claims of his creditors, and distribute proceeds of the estate to heirs.

Part of the assets of an estate—depending on the state in which one resides—are proceeds from claims that were filed or may have been filed before or after a person’s death.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I trust the insurance adjuster?”

 

The American Bar Association—prodded by American businesses like Legal Zoom, Inc.—is studying the issue of non-lawyer ownership of law firms.

medivac Charlotte Injury Law Firm North Carolina car accident lawyerIn the United States, lawyers are generally prohibited from “creating, owning or managing law firms” with non lawyers. Multidisciplinary practices—or those practices that combine the provision of legal services with non-legal services—are greatly restricted.

This is not the case in the United Kingdom, the fount from which the United States’ Common-Law legal tradition sprang. In the United Kingdom, restrictions of non-lawyer ownership interests in law firms have largely been eliminated, leading to the development of so-called “alternative business structures.”

The United Kingdom lifted its restrictions on alternative business structures in 2007. Since then, by most accounts, it has encouraged the establishment of alternative business structures for largely the same reason that they are prohibited in the United States: for the benefit of clients.

The 2007 Legal Services Act—which lifted the prohibition against alternative business structures—was passed after a study of the legal industry in the United Kingdom revealed a glut of unmet but nonetheless needed legal services.  The new Act focused on the functions of advocates as opposed to the identity of law-firm owners, restricting the performance of certain activities to authorized lawyers. Those activities include the right to appear as an advocate in court, to certify documents and transactions, to probate estates, administer oaths, cause the consummation of a transfer of real property and to conduct litigation.

Continue reading →