New jury research shows jurors often use the cognitive heuristic of “anchoring and adjusting” to assist their task. In other words, jurors look for an anchor that provides a starting point for the value they may assign to an injury, and they adjust the value from that anchor depending on the evidence. Although the value may be adjusted, the anchor strongly influences the outcome.
Who among us has not had a client who elected not to bring a lawsuit against another party for fear of never being able to collect a judgment? Perhaps worse, we are sure many of us have pursued a case for a client all the way to trial or judgment, only to have the opposing party seek bankruptcy protection at the 11th hour. Fortunately, Indiana law provides an underused opportunity to earn protection and security for your clients when faced with the uncertainty of whether a case is worth pursuing for fear little or no recovery.
Every lawyer must answer The Clash’s Mick Jones’ question, “Should I Say or Should I Go?” many times, in one context or another.
As this year’s graduates prepare to take the July bar exam, I cannot help but think back to when I was taking the bar and preparing to begin my legal career. A daunting task, certainly. But with the support of many in the Indianapolis legal community, I got through it with only a few bumps and bruises. And I learned a lot along the way. For the developing young lawyer, this article offers some practical guidance to help you continue growing professionally.
In many instances, a policy-limits demand results in a discussion between defense counsel and the policyholder about the policyholder’s desire to settle the lawsuit to avoid the risk of personal exposure and/or to avoid the emotional stress of litigation. But what if the policyholder does not want to settle the lawsuit? What if the policyholder wants her day in court? What if the policyholder is willing to risk personal exposure? What should defense counsel and the insurance company do if they believe the case should be settled?
DTCI Young Lawyers gathered for Happy Hour in the private pub room of The Tap in downtown Indianapolis on June 5. The event, hosted by Exponent, an engineering consultant firm, was a hit!
The Sedona Conference was delighted to be cited in David Beach and Ryan Cook’s timely article “DTCI: The Scope of Discovery Standard — Is It Time for an Update?” (May 29, 2019). Indeed we agree that the explosion of information and information sources and the rapid technological advancements have markedly changed the complexity of discovery.
Attorneys engaged in defending workers’ compensation claims in Indiana may occasionally encounter a situation in which a claimant chooses to maintain claims in multiple states arising out of the same incident or injury. Potential issues in practice may arise where injured workers pursue claims in multiple states, implicating res judicata and collateral estoppel concerns.
DRI will hold its annual meeting in New Orleans beginning Oct. 16. DRI has planned a week of spectacular keynote speakers, cutting-edge CLE presentations and plenty of networking events just for you.
Indiana implemented the scope of discovery standard in what is now the first paragraph of Ind. Trial Rule 26(B)(1), a standard with which we are all familiar. It has remained unchanged since, despite advances in technology have changed the landscape in which it functions.
Americans have a tendency to attribute almost any wise advice to Abraham Lincoln. While many of these attributions are questionable, one piece Lincoln actually wrote was a document titled “Notes on the Practice of Law.” The “Notes” are remarkably relevant to today’s practice.
As with any contractual agreement, the importance of shifting or transferring risk in the unfortunate event of either bodily injury or property damage loss is imperative. The importance of transferring risk in construction cases cannot be overstated since the damages are often significant and catastrophic.
Is being an attorney as exciting as it looks on TV? I’m sure as lawyers, we have all heard one version of this question or another. Usually, I say, “Nah, television makes everything seem more dramatic.” I definitely watch shows that depict lawyers with a healthy dose of eye-rolling. My 2019 practice of law, however, started off with a story fit for television.
Practitioners who regularly represent sellers in product liability cases should become thoroughly familiar with “innocent seller” or “innocent distributor” statutes and the case law surrounding them. Counsel should not assume that simply because their client is a seller, their client is protected from strict liability.
Because we are always running from obligation to obligation, you may find little time for yourself and to decompress. However, in order to be the husband, father and lawyer I want to be, I have to find time to run. And I don’t mean from obligation to obligation, but to actually run.
Wage and labor litigation is the hot new cottage industry. With a mandatory award of attorney fees and risk for substantial defense costs, lawsuits for unpaid wages arising under state and federal law should heighten employers’ review of just what goes in, and what gets taken out of, one of the most sacred covenants of employment: the paycheck.
A partner at a major Indianapolis law firm received unexpected news that forever changed her life. She discovered mindfulness practice and now helps countless attorneys realize how they can improve their own lives and practices.
While statistics have shown some progress and modest increases in the numbers of minorities and women within the legal profession as a whole, Indiana has seemed to lag behind. Accordingly, the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana has taken the initiative to help change that within this state.
As the twentieth anniversary of Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., et al. approaches, questions remain. What qualifies as meaningful notice? What are the best steps a hospital or health care entity should take to limit their liability? Will Sword apply to health care providers outside the traditional hospital setting?
It’s 2 o’clock on a random Wednesday morning, and you just woke up realizing you failed to respond to requests for admissions that were due yesterday. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: “D’Oh!” Not to fear, because Indiana Trial Rule 6(E) is your savior! Or is it?