Blog 5

            In this blog, I combined Spring Break and Week 5. Two of the days were the most intriguing so far during my internship: the accident scene investigation and the settlement negotiations.

Tuesday

            Today, the tables were turned; this time, we were representing the plaintiff when being deposed, rather than our usual position as a defense attorney asking the questions to the plaintiff. I attended the deposition of the female plaintiff, who we had previously interviewed in preparation of her deposition regarding her car accident. In my eyes, the plaintiff made a good witness, meaning that she persuasively presented her position in a credible manner.

            Discussions centered on damages: her injuries resulting from the accident. Before the accident, the plaintiff had some problems with her neck and hand, but she had fully recovered by the time of the accident. After the accident, the plaintiff developed problems with her shoulder, arm, and tingling in her thumb; her entire right arm hurt, preventing her from sleeping since she habitually slept on her right side. Being bounced from doctor to doctor and receiving a number of conflicting diagnoses, the plaintiff ultimately had carpel tunnel surgery on her right wrist. After that surgery, she lost her pain--an admission which elicited a laugh from the defense attorney and the court report when my father said, "That is a breath of fresh air" in this business, since plaintiffs rarely admit to full recovery.

            After the deposition, we began settlement negotiations and requested that the defense attorney contact my father to discuss the case before he prepared his report to the insurance company. Then, we met with the client to discuss the value of her claim and to agree upon strategy to attempt to resolve the case.

Thursday

            To prepare for our accident scene inspection, my father and I reviewed the plaintiff's notice of claim against our client, defendant Mesa Public Schools. The plaintiff, a ten-year-old student, alleged a serious fracture injury to his right lower leg. We reviewed medical records, bills, photos, and x-rays to prepare for the meeting with the client at the accident scene.

            At the elementary school, we met with the principal and two playground aides, and inspected the accident scene, the recess field where the student broke his leg while playing Capture the Flag. Mesa Public Schools' 3rd party administrator joined us, and we discussed developing a plan for further handling of the case for a meeting with the plaintiff's attorney. Surprisingly, my father and the administrator were unfamiliar with the rules of the game; I gave a quick rundown and the principal elaborated. The plaintiff had been in pursuit of another student carrying the flag; he alleged that he hit the fence and twisted his foot in a hole under the fence. However, the plaintiff's allegations would mean the plaintiff was chasing the boy past the halfway point, which is contrary to the traditional rules. Later, I researched the rules of Capture the Flag to confirm the general accepted practices of the game.

            During our inspection, school was in session; watching the little kids running around at recess reminded me of days long ago.

Wednesday

            I thoroughly enjoyed attending the today's events; I was fascinated by each party's posturing without being untruthful, but simultaneously not showing all their cards.

            Today started with preparing for the deposition of a plaintiff in a personal injury case involving two defendants, with my father representing one co-defendant. Both liability and damages were disputed. Adding more complexity, the plaintiff was the wife of a co-defendant, and obviously favorable to the co-defendant. Likewise, the co-defendant was favorable to the plaintiff on damages. Consequently, it was two against one on liability, two against one on damages; a real David and Goliath predicament, with my father as David.

            To compound the problem, my father's client failed to appear for his deposition--an unfavorable development. The client's absence essentially transformed the situation into two against zero. David lost his sling, but he still had his stone.

            My father did the best he could on cross-examination of the plaintiff and the co-defendant on liability and damages, but without his own client, his position seemed weak. My father and I consulted on how to deal with the situation, and he suggested an informal settlement conference. This is when things grew more interesting.

            We met with the co-defendant's attorney and the plaintiff's attorney to suggest the best plan for further handling, and it was agreed that every attorney would agree to recommend to their clients on what was a reasonable settlement of the case. Ultimately, they reached an agreement that everyone would agree on a recommended settlement on a dollar amount, with the two defendants sharing equally--50/50--on the settlement. Things then became more difficult.

            The plaintiff's attorney obtained authority for the agreed-upon the recommended dollar amount of settlement, and the co-defendant's attorney had authority to contribute matching money with my father's client. Unfortunately, my father was not able to obtain authority for matching money; his client's insurance adjuster only authorized a lesser amount. From that point, negotiations back and forth over what the plaintiff would accept and what the co-defendant would offer in non-matching funds resulted in an agreement in which the co-defendant agreed to pay 60 percent and my father's client agreed to pay 40 percent of the settlement.

            At the end of the day, I thought that the settlement negotiation tactics and strategies employed by all sides were some of the most appealing aspects of being a lawyer.