For example, LegalMatch’s article on Fayetteville, North Carolina appears to have generated the most interest so far in 2009.

Also extremely popular are articles about lawyers in Bell County, Texas, and Broward County, Florida.

As past blog posts have mentioned, many areas of law that prospective clients are interested in (wrongful termination, bankruptcy, etc.) might be indicative of the current state of the economy, so it is also possible that the geographic regions are also a reflection on the economy.

Common wisdom is that small towns and rural areas have been hardest-hit by the current recession. While a person is not likely to be able to litigate themselves out of poverty, sometimes, when someone has lost their job, or is facing foreclosure on their home, another party has acted wrongfully, and they are entitled to redress.

Another reason why smaller markets in general (not particularly in the South) are a rich source of pageviews might be the fact that there are simply fewer lawyers in those areas than in big cities. For example, if you do an internet search for “New York Lawyers” or “San Francisco Lawyers,” you’re going to get a huge number of results, simply because there are a huge number of lawyers in those cities.

On the other hand, in a small town, with the legal market dominated by small firms and solo practitioners, doing a search for lawyers in those areas tends to bring up a LegalMatch article.

This is good for both lawyers and prospective clients in those areas – prospective clients, when they do a search for lawyers in a small town, rather than finding hundreds of websites for firms that may or may not be taking new cases, they come across the LegalMatch page for that town, where they know that there will be lawyers who have affirmatively indicated that they are taking new cases.

Most Popular City and County Pages on LegalMatch is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Well, the family of the deceased wife looking to win a Nintendo Wii for her kids sued.  Now after two years of litigation, the jury has finally reached a verdict in favor of the aggrieved family and levied a damage award of $16.6 million to be paid by the radio station.

In case you guys have forgotten about this one (and I don’t blame you as I can barely remember whether or not I brushed my teeth this morning) the woman’s name was Jennifer Lea Strange.  She was a 28-year-old mother of three children who entered into a radio contests in California to win the then very elusive Nintendo Wii (which, by the way, is no longer quite as elusive and cheaper to boot).  The contest required contestants to drink large amounts of water and then hold in their urine.  The contestant who could drink the most water while resisting the urge to use the bathroom the longest would win the coveted video game system.  Strange won the contest, but ultimately and unfortunately lost her life in the strange (no pun intended) process.

Now some of you may be wondering why in the hell would anyone subject themselves to this kind of suffer for what is essentially an electronic toy.  Well, regardless of whether or not you have children, I think everyone (except probably my parents) can all understand the very pressing need to get a person we love that “perfect gift.”

More importantly, however, Strange’s case serves as a reminder to corporations, businesses, and people in general everywhere of why you should think twice before committing poorly thought out acts that can lead to serious harm or death.  And that should you decide to go forward with said poorly thought out act, if you’re a radio station have enough sense to stop and heed the deluge of warnings from your listeners.

The sad truth is LegalMatch receives many wrongful death cases every year, cases that could have been easily prevented but for the negligent actions of another party.  Wrongful death cases are not just incredibly costly from an economic standpoint (i.e. lawyers fees and the potential for incredibly large jury awards for compensatory, punitive, and emotional distress damages), but from a purely human perspective, cases of negligence resulting in serious injury or wrongful death means that a person has suffered deeply and permanently.  And that the harm is not only limited to the immediately damaged party, but also that party’s family.  The toll is emotional, physical, and financial.

So what’s the lesson here?  It’s the same one that my dad has been telling me since I was born: Don’t be stupid.

Negligent Radio Station + Nintendo Wii + Water Intoxication = $16.6m Jury Award is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

You remember email, right?  That thing you’ve been using as your main source of written communication since the last decade?  The major form of correspondence that has surpassed old-fashioned snail mail and which is relied upon by everyone from business titans to celebrities, the president, and your aging grandmother (who floods your inbox with those funny grammatically incorrect cat pictures)?  Yeah, that email – it’s no longer protected against searches from the police.

“No, that can’t be right!  Right?  Email?  They are no different than letters you received in the mail; how can they not be afforded the same protection?” Well, apparently if you think like that you’ve been preempted by a federal judge, my friend.

Specifically, this ruling comes down from and Oregon Federal Judge Michael Mosman (I almost typed Michael Madsen; if he gave the ruling I might’ve been less outraged).  Judge Mosman argues that unlike regular snail mail which is handled by postal employees, e-mail should not be afforded the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment because when an email is sent, it goes through various Internet service providers.  By traveling through these different providers, each email leaves a digital image of itself with each ISP.  And apparently this fact is enough to distinguish email from regular land mail because by leaving a digital copy of itself, emails are in essence open to the ISP to read and monitor and therefore people who send emails cannot expect to have the same level of privacy as when one sends a regular piece of mail through the post office.  Judge Mosman’s full opinion can be read here (please note that the link is to a PDF).

Sound mental?  Yeah, well it should.  Judge Mosman seems to hang his ruling on the notion that because emails aren’t sealed in envelopes like a written letters, people should expect it to be read.  Now to be fair, police would still need a warrant to search through your email.  However, they’ll just need to submit the warrant to an ISP that has your emails to get access to them, thereby completely bypassing you and giving you no notice before invading your private emails.

Now on one hand, Judge Mosman’s argument makes some sense.  Junk mail in the form of post cards and brochures are almost never sealed and the courts have generally viewed these as forms of advertisement and therefore not protected under the Fourth Amendment since it’s argued that junk mail is meant to be seen by as many people as possible.  However, this is also where Judge Mosman’s argument breaks down because private emails aren’t advertisements, but are actual private communications between parties.

“But Andrew, what about the whole issue of emails leaving digital copies of themselves on ISPs and not being sealed like normal letters?”  Well let me answer that question, too, and thank you for asking so kindly.  Though emails are not physical sealed, they are often digitally encrypted to prevent prying eyes from seeing its contents.  Therefore, an analogy can be drawn between sealing and encryption since they both show the sender’s intent to keep their communication private.  Furthermore, like postal workers who we trust not to open our mail, similarly we trust our ISPs not to read our emails.

Anyway, all my ranting is meaningless until someone challenges Judge Mosman’s ruling or the legislature passes a law that gives emails the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures that physical mail enjoys.

So get started people, write your senators and congressmen, just don’t email them – for now.

Email – It’s Fast, Easy, And Now Unprotected From Unlawful Searches is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

According to our case data, the most common responses prospective clients gave when asked about the identity of their attacker was “someone I know” or “a family member”.

This runs contrary to the image that many members of the public have with respect to violent crime; a crazed stranger jumps out of the bushes, assaults their victim, and runs off. While random acts of violence certainly occur, they are comparatively rare, and it seems that many people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about them, given how unlikely they are to occur to a given person.

This is not to say that people shouldn’t take common-sense precautions to reduce the risk of violent crime committed by strangers. These include minimizing time spent alone, outside, at night. Other measures, such as traveling in groups, and sticking to well-lit areas, are also advisable. It might also be helpful, if you are comfortable doing so, to carry some kind of non-lethal defensive weapon, such as pepper spray (but be sure to check your local laws on this).

However, what might be overlooked are conditions that could lead to the more likely scenario: violent crime committed by acquaintances or family members of the victim. The ways to minimize these risks are not nearly as simple as the ones discussed above.

There aren’t many clear-cut ways to avoid violent crime by acquaintances, unless you want to become a hermit. Since that isn’t an option for most people, the situation is complicated.

Not being in a position to give relationship advice, this should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that things such as relationship counseling and getting out of abusive relationships (easier said than done) would be helpful in reducing such incidents. Eliminating violent crime altogether is not possible, but any reduction is a good thing.

Data Proves Victims of Assault Likely to Know Their Attacker is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

I suppose it’s true for every field of study or vocation.  Doctors probably have their cousins asking them to look at moles and pus-filled gashes.  Astrology professors probably have their aunts pestering them to find Orion’s Belt.  Taxi drivers probably can’t get their siblings to stop using them as a substitute for Google Maps.  The list goes on and on.  And the best part about all of this is that all the people who ask you these questions don’t care whether their question is within your field of specialty.  Resulting in situations like this:

“Hey Phil, what street do I take to get to the Eifel Tower?”

“I don’t know, my taxi only operates in New York.”

Okay, so maybe it’s not as drastic as that, but you get my point.

Anyway, regardless of the absurdity or irrelevance of the question, you always end up answering it to the best of your ability because, hey, what can you do?  They’re your friends and family and you like them (for the most part), which brings me to the point of today’s post.

I was talking to a friend the other day.  Let’s call him Norman because I don’t him to get pissed off at me using his suffering for my work.  Norman is a really nice honest guy.  He’s the type of person to go through his whole life never trying to cause a scene, which is good in some ways, but bad in a lot of others because maintaining that kind of lifestyle often leads to his inability to defend himself.

Anyway, about a couple years ago Norman opened up a small convenience store.  His store was located within a mini-mall in his hometown.  It was a good fit for him because on top of being really nice, Norman is also really laid back and doesn’t like doing strenuous and stressful work.  Before renting out his location, Norman was able to secure the right to be the only purveyor and seller of food in the mini-mall.  The agreement was promised in Norman’s contract with the mini-malls owner.

But last month, Norman neighbor, a Laundromat, put out a soda vending machine in front of his store.  Norman saw this as a violation of the non-compete clause he had in his contract, but when he went to the mini-mall’s owner to tell his neighbor to take the soda machine down, the owner refused.  He claimed that soda is a drink and therefore didn’t count as a type of food so it was perfectly in line with Norman’s contract.  Norman then came to me to see what his chances were to get the soda machine put away.

This situation happens a lot.  Just taking a look at the number of unfair competition cases LegalMatch gets every year is good evidence of the popularity of these types of disputes.  My advice to Norman was the same that anyone knowledgeable in the law would give: it depends.

Basically in most jurisdictions, for non compete clauses to be invalid they have to be overly broad as to be considered unreasonable.  In Norman’s situation, it would seem like his non-compete clause was pretty clear since it outlined a specific limitation that could be reasonably followed (that he’d be the only food store).  And that in my opinion I’d think that he’d have a fairly easy time convincing a judge that drinks can be considered food because it’s something that’s consumed.

But like everything in the law, nothing can be certain.  Because even when all the cards seemed stacked in one direction, a good lawyer can easily make them fall in the other.

Competing With Non-Compete Clauses is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

A 2008 study found that 58% of Americans do not have a will.  I find this number to be shocking.  I know that death and dying is an unwelcome topic, however dying without a will is a really bad idea.  This holds true whether you are worth millions or a lot less.  Wills, trusts, and other estate planning tools give you the power to decide how to distribute your estate.

When an individual dies without a will (or when they have an incomplete will), their estate goes through intestacy, which basically means the state decides how your estate will be distributed.  This is especially risky if you have step or adopted children as some state’s do not allow an adopted or stepchild to inherit in intestacy, or those non-biological children inherit less.

A recent article I read outlines the top 9 excuses for people gave for not making any type of estate plan:

(1)I don’t see a need for an estate plan

(2)I don’t plan on dying

(3)I don’t plan on dying – at least not soon

(4)I don’t want to pay for it

(5)I don’t want to spend the time

(6)I don’t want to talk about my family

(7)I don’t want to talk about my money

(8)I don’t want to ruin my kids

(9)I don’t trust my kids

As you can see, some of these excuses are just avoiding the inevitable.  One of the beauties of estate planning is that you have the ability to change the majority of your plan as situations change.  Without an estate plan, you are putting your finances and property at the mercy of a judge who has no idea what you and your family are like.

A recent LegalMatch study found that the majority of people interested in preparing for their future were more interested in overall estate planning than drafting a single will or trust.  These findings make sense in that those individuals that are thinking about wills and estate planning are really trying to maximize the benefits and thus are creating more complicated schemes than just a will or trust; and those individuals who are not are in the majority and doing nothing to plan.   In addition to the ability to specifically provide for your family and loved ones, there are tremendous tax benefits to creating a will and/or trust.

It is not necessarily that I think everyone needs to embrace their own death.  Rather, I am advocating for embracing the lives you will leave on your death.  Estate planning is such a powerful tool and for all the time that people spend worrying about money and their families in their lives they should take a little time and worry about them after they die too.

Estate Planning Procrastination Rampant is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Does this mean that your employer is going around firing employees left and right, just for fun? Probably not…unless you work for this guy.

More likely, the current state of the economy (in case you haven’t heard, it’s not doing too hot right now) has led to many people losing their jobs, with no sign that the bloodletting of employment is going to abate anytime soon. When someone loses their job, especially if it’s for economic, and not performance-related reasons, they are understandably upset.

However, the vast majority of terminations are perfectly lawful. In virtually every state in the U.S., employment is “at-will,” meaning that the relationship is completely voluntary, and dependent on the mutual consent of both parties. This means that employees can quit their jobs at any time, and that employers can fire them at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

There are exceptions, however. For example, under federal law, and the laws of almost every state, it is unlawful to fire or refuse to hire a person because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability (if it can be reasonably accommodated). Also, if the employee is working under an employment contract, they can only be terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Whether your termination is ultimately found to be lawful or not, it is not a bad idea to speak with an attorney if you suspect that improper motives colored your employer’s decision. It’s better to talk with an attorney for a few minutes and have them tell you that you don’t have a case, then to sit on your rights, and let a valid claim for wrongful termination slip through your fingers.

Many people seem to recognize this, and are using LegalMatch to help.

LegalMatch Site Data Shows High Interest in Wrongful Terminations is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Specifically, that someone was CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who claimed on air that Limbaugh said:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Ouch.  Harsh words, whether Limbaugh said it or not.  Check out the video here (the bogus Limbaugh quote comes up about 1 minute and 14 seconds in).

Limbaugh was understandably steamed at the fraudulent attribution.  No one wants to be called a racist, unless of course they actually are one, then they’re probably okay with it.

So now the inevitable question being asked by political pundits around the country, “Will Rush Limbaugh sue for slander?”

The answer (in my opinion anyway): probably not.  Rush will probably just want some sort of apology from Sanchez and CNN, which he already received via Twitter, though he’d probably would want more of a formal one.  If anything, he’ll just use it to further push his far-right republican conservative agenda.  “More evidence of liberal bias, using me as a target to demonize…blah blah,” is probably how it will go down.

Though if he did sue, he probably wouldn’t have too tough of a time convincing a jury to award him money.  Since he’s (arguably) a celebrity, he’d be considered a public figure and would have to satisfy the higher actual malice standard set out in The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in order to prevail on a defamation lawsuit against CNN and Sanchez.  Basically he’d have to prove that the CNN and/or Sanchez knowingly or recklessly made false defamatory statements about him.  And in light of the fact that the CNN Twitter post admitted to this, it would at least appear that Rush has a good case.  Though CNN could probably throw up some defense by publicly admitting and correcting their mistake, in my opinion it looks like Limbaugh would have a strong case.

Celebrities have it tougher when it comes to proving libel and defamation – it’s one of the few times where all us little people have an edge.  All we have to do, essentially, is prove the false statement damaged our reputation.  Though it may seem like defamation wouldn’t be a huge problem for non-public figures, LegalMatch does receive its fair share of defamation lawsuits.  So don’t be afraid to press your rights.  Unless you’re Rush Limbaugh, in which case you should probably reevaluate your life and try to figure out why people would so naturally believe you’d make such an outlandish racist statement.

CNN Falsely Attributes Racist Quote to Rush Limbaugh is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

They make a variety of factual and legal arguments to support their conspiracy theories. The most common “factual” (a term I use loosely) argument they make is that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, as is widely accepted. Instead, they claim, he was born in a foreign country (usually Kenya). Of course, they ignore that a Certification of Live Birth has been released, and confirmed to be accurate by the relevant officials in Hawaii.

Others concede that he was born in Hawaii, and rely on dubious legal arguments to support their claims. Some claim (usually without citing any supporting authority) that, in order to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, both parents must also be citizens of the United States. To be fair, the Supreme Court has never firmly ruled on what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the Constitution. So, the birthers have simply settled on their own definition, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions.

To support this point, they often rely on the writings of a Swiss political philosopher named Emerich de Vattel, author of the 1758 book “The Law of Nations.” This tome was apparently quite influential in the early development of international law, and it advocates the idea that, for a person to be a “true” citizen of a nation, both of his or her parents must also be citizens. There’s just one problem: no evidence suggests that this work particularly influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution when they were drafting that document. Even if it did, a Swiss book on political philosophy is not binding legal precedent in the United States.

None of this has stopped a dentist/lawyer named Orly Taitz from filing a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

The result? The case was dismissed almost immediately. However, Ms. Taitz continued to file motions, and, after repeated warnings from the judge, was slapped with a $20,000 fine for misconduct, noting that she made no coherent legal arguments, and that her briefs and motions read more like political manifestos than court documents.

It should be noted that one of the best things about this country is the fact that you can say almost anything about anyone, especially elected officials, with relatively few legal ramifications. However, that does not mean that you are guaranteed a platform to air your views, or that you get to use the courts to air whatever crazy idea happens to pop into your head. If that were the case, I’d be in court right now, arguing the merits of hamburger earmuffs.

In the end, we should all remember that the courts are a place to settle genuine legal disputes, and the non-issue of Mr. Obama’s citizenship is not one of them. Ms. Taitz has every right to express her political views in any number of ways. She could buy space on a billboard, she could run spots on the radio, or she could simply make like this guy.

Frivolous Lawsuits Are a Bad Idea: Birther Edition is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Medical malpractice and tort reform are one such aspect of the debate where you see the convergence of medical and legal issues searching for a solution.  To put it simply, medical malpractice has to do with professional negligence on the part of the care provider that results in some type of harm to the patient.  Because of these potential for errors, medical practitioners carry malpractice insurance to help offset the costs of a potential problem.

Doctors argue that frivolous lawsuits and high jury verdicts have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance to such levels that some doctors refuse to practice the more litigation-ridden areas of their profession or have resorted to conducting costly unnecessary test and procedures to further shield themselves from lawsuits.  While it is true that some attorneys have made millions on medical malpractice suits, many lawsuits bring with them legitimate claims that should continue to have a voice in the American legal justice system.

LegalMatch provides attorneys for both sides of a medical malpractice claim.  The most common situations in which this is found are:

• When there has been a failure to perform surgery
• Delay in treatment
• Failure to properly explain medical procedure or potential side affects
• Prescription errors
• Failure to properly diagnose a medical condition
• Improper treatment

No matter what side of the debate you are on, there are solutions.  As a NY Times article put it, “the goal is not to reduce malpractice lawsuits, it is to reduce malpractice.”  But that is the difficulty: to develop a system that allows providers, doctors, and patients to maintain a trust in the health care system while keeping costs down.  Now we just need to do it.

Medical Malpractice, Health Care, and YOU! is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog