Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter II

            As expected, last week’s “Silly Blog” evoked both praise and criticism for the reporting of the statistics in the above publication.  This offspring of my old legal acquaintance, Louis Laska, lists cases resolved in the personal injury field in Tennessee Circuit Courts from 2005-2017.  It is no certifier of whether the results are indicative of the true strengths and weaknesses of any particular case.  It does not include any factual figures about the adequacy of any settlements which is the area wherein I have ruffled the feathers of certain lawyers claiming to specialize in personal injury cases.  It also does not deal with the issue of deceptive and/or misleading dissemination of information to the group most entitled to the truth—the injured victims or their deceased relatives.

            However, if you can accept the statistics as being correct as reported by the “Circuit Court Clerk’s” as I do, it is one indicator that may address the accuracy and truthfulness in the field of lawyer advertising.

            The crux of my position is that as long as the courts allow lawyer advertising, although much of it is deceptive and misleading, I will hold my nose and tolerate it, although I disapprove of the unintended expansion of what “was to be limited to name changes, uncontested divorces, uncontested adoptions and simple bankruptcies” in the 1978 decision by the United States Supreme Court.

            If you agree with what I have been saying in these articles please pass them onto your client bases, friends and acquaintances. 

            You may be taking a positive step in elevating the poor image of the trial lawyers in our society.  I promise I won’t try to steal any of your cases and will give you and your firm proper credit.

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!