Why Hire a Insurance Lawyer Dallas with a similar background to yourself: Asian, Chinese, Philippine, Vietnamese, El Salvador, Guatemalan, Canadian, German, Latino, Mexican, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Cuban, Korean, Indian, Hispanic, American, Foreign, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Orthodox, Mormon, or Buddhist?
If you do you will need a lawyer. The trouble is there are several thousand Attorneys out there just on the internet and the choice in finding a Insurance Lawyer Dallas appropriate for your case becomes more difficult. When you are trying to find a representative there are a few guidelines you will want to follow. Below you will find out how to choose the appropriate lawyer for your needs.
When trying to find a lawyer you first must understand the case you have. Some cases are very easy to determine, for instance those who have been in an accident often have personal injury needs. Those with problems at a hospital with a medical condition will have a malpractice suit and on and on. Once you have determined the type of representative you need, finding a lawyer becomes a little easier.
You may have a general practice representative or someone you have dealt with in Insurance Lawyer Dallas law. Most of us know someone who has had a attorney in the past. In this case you can ask the person for a referral. If you have a business lawyer you can ask them to recommend someone in the field of expertise you need. They will often have at least one name for you and a few to keep away from. Those who have worked with lawyers such as family or friends will also be able to give recommendations. They may say you don’t want this person or that their associate can help you. In either case you are better off to ask for a referral in finding a lawyer rather than other options.
The key to finding a representative that will help you out is knowing as much about them professionally as possible. You want to understand how many years they have practiced and what their specialty really is. Other wise you may find someone who is more out for the gain they will get rather than the gain you will get. When you deal with finding a lawyer, ask them their policies. Kind of interview them during the course of the conversation as well. Some will not charge unless the case is won, while others will charge a small fee during the entire process. It will depend on the case and of course your representative.
Child Custody - Who Should Have Custody of Your Kids?
70/30 physical custody schedule is a schedule often chosen by parents or the court. With a 70/30 schedule, your child will spend 70% of their time with one parent and 30% of their time with another. This schedule allows for your child to spend the majority of time with one parent but still be a significant part of the other parents life.
Below are two existing time schedules for you to consider if 70/30 custody works best for your situation:
Every Third Week
This schedule works by having your child live for two weeks at one parents home and then one week at the second parents home. A great benefit of this schedule is your child still spends time living with each parent for longer time periods.
This schedule can be harder because only one parent has the weekends. Sometime the parent who has the child during the week, often feels like they do all the hard work while the other parent gets to play. However, this schedule is great if it works for all parties involved especially if one parent works on the weekends or travels frequently.
The 70/30 physical custody schedule is a great option and there are other choices out there of time schedules. The important thing for you is to research all your options so you can make the best choice for your child.
Child Custody Laws for Single Parents
There is a new war brewing and its contenders are Robert Morgenthau and the NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. What is this conflict concerning? This battle is about money. The mayor is concerned about seizing control of resources because he is facing numerous budget gaps. Mr. Morgenthau's concern is that all the money other than personnel services has been spent before in the seventies.
Mr. Morgenthau vowed this will never happen again, and he is seeking additional resources of revenue and is personally involved with the budget. Mr. Morgenthau has experienced considerable success within the last thirty-four years in bringing down the rates of violent crime. He has also expanded his role in dealing with economic and white collar crime. His office alone has personally hidden away millions of dollars in undisclosed bank accounts. Mayor Bloomberg feels these millions of dollars should fall under the city's power and not the District Attorney's office.
Mr. Morgenthau states that he understands that the state deserves a share of the pot however, the city back in 1985 when he needed money to go after white collar crimes such as tax evaders, his job was scoffed and his office did not have the resources to fight those certain white collar crimes.
Who will you side with on this issue? Mayor Bloomberg who feels the money from the District Attorney's office belongs to the city of New York or the District Attorney who claims the money is needed to undertake regular and white collar crime? I do not believe we have seen the last of this battle between Mayor Bloomberg and the District Attorney Mr. Morgenthau.
Need advice: Insurance Lawyer Dallas ?
Duties of the Probate Attorney
The process for mediation will be dependent upon how mediation is triggered. Mediation can be triggered by:
a court or tribunal
an agreement to mediate.
A contract can state that when a dispute occurs to do with the contract or any matter of contractual import or bearing the parties must go to mediation. A well crafted mediation clause will provide that the parties must agree upon a mediator or in the absence of agreement the contract should provide that the matter must be referred to a nomination body to nominate a mediator.
The contact will provide that the mediator will be free to conduct the mediation as he or she sees fit, but the contract will also provide that if the mediation breaks down then the parties are at liberty to abort the mediation. Conversely the contract will provide that if resolution of the dispute through mediation is effected then the terms of settlement that underpin that accord must be in writing, must be co signed by the parties and the mediator and the accord will then be binding.
An example of a contract induced mediation clause is below
The Parties must mediate disputes.
The parties to the contract must use the mediation procedure to resolve a dispute before commencing legal proceedings.
The mediation procedure is:
The party who wishes to resolve a dispute must give a notice of dispute to the other party, and to the selected mediator, or, if that mediator is not available, to a mediator appointed by the president of the Law Institute.
The notice of dispute must state that a dispute had arisen, and state the matters in dispute.
The parties must cooperate with the mediator in an effort to give an opinion to technical matters. Each party must pay a half share of the cost of the opinion.
If the dispute is settled, the parties must sign a copy of the terms of settlement.
If the dispute is not resolved in 14 days after the mediator had been given notice, or within any extended time that the parties agreed to in writing, the mediation must cease.
Each party must pay a half share of the costs of the mediator to the mediator.
The terms of the settlement are binding on the parties and override the terms of the contract if there is any conflict.
Either party may commence legal proceedings when mediation ceases.
The terms of settlement may be tendered in evidence in any mediation or legal proceedings.
The parties agree that written statements given to the mediator or to one another and any discussions between the parties or between the parties and the mediator during the mediation period are not admissible by the recipient in any legal proceedings.
Court or Tribunal Ordered Mediation
Most courts require litigated matters to be referred to mediation before the case goes to hearing. The courts normally have a published list of mediators that the parties can choose from and each party has to pay the costs of the mediator.
If the mediation facilitates a settlement then the matter is concluded and the legal proceedings will be aborted by consent. If the mediation is unsuccessful then the matter will in all likelihood proceed to trial.
In some jurisdictions like the VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) the parties do not have to pay for the mediator and this is a significant cost saving and benefit that flows from such benevolence.
Agreement Based Mediation
Any party to any dispute, be it civil, commercial or planning can at any time agree to mediate. All the parties need to do is to find a mediator and then in good faith attempt to settle the matter.
There still however needs to be a rigour, there is little point in settling a dispute unless the settlement is agreed in writing, is witnessed and is evidenced by an instrument that states that the parties have agreed to resolve all of their disputes and differences to do with the subject matter.
Any mediated settlement agreement has to be comprehensive, well drafted and must embrace all matters that gave rise to the dispute. Poorly drafted settlement agreements are open to challenge and are frequently challenged when one of the parties in hindsight thinks that result could have been better.
If matters can be mediated at the gestation of a dispute, a mediated outcome has considerable merit. There is little doubt that the fastest and cheapest way to resolve a dispute if negotiations breakdown is through mediation. In any partnership agreement that I have entered into with fellow practitioners or businessman I have insisted on the inclusion of a mediation clause. Resort to court, is last resort.
One of the ostensible benefits of mediation is confidentiality. If a matter is resolved by mediation the disputants can keep their issues of discontent "in house". If there is any "dirty linen" it is "washed" in-house, never in public. For people in high office this is most important, reputations particularly in this day of age where communications via the internet are immediate and widespread mean that anything odorous can be seized upon and published very quickly. Furthermore once the odium is out there it can never be archived or placed in a vault that is dedicated to the scurrilous. Information that is published on the web remains there in perpetuity for all and sundry. The need for confidential resolution of disputes is therefore greater than ever and mediation is a useful although not necessarily perfect way of achieving this.
Not everyone however is convinced that a benefit of mediation is confidentiality.
"It could be said that the reality of confidentiality in mediation is in large part reliant on the goodwill of the parties. If good will breaks down, then somewhat ironically, whether confidentiality will be upheld or not depends on relatively insecure legal protections"
(Field, Rachael and Wood, Neal (2006) "Confidentiality: An ethical dilemma for marketing mediation?" Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 17(2):pp. 79-87 at 7).
"From an ethical marketing perspective it is less than desirous to use the concept of confidentiality to promote mediation; certainly not without providing full information about the qualified nature of the concept in practice. Indeed, the accuracy and legitimacy of some of the assertions made about confidentiality in mediation can be brought into serious question"
(Field, Rachael and Wood, Neal (2006) "Confidentiality: An ethical dilemma for marketing mediation?" Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 17(2):pp. 79-87 at 16).
As one of the perceived benefits of mediation is confidentiality, yet in actual practise as the said co-authors contend this may be an assumption in some instances rather than a fact, settlement condition "belts and braces" should be brought to bear to secure confidentiality. Where settlement via mediation is engineered the settlement agreement should have a confidentiality clause, any breach of which is actionable in a court of law. If part of the consideration in the settling of a dispute is confidentially it should be expressed as such, then a breach of confidentiality is a breach of that confidentiality provision and actionable.
A greater problem is if settlement is not effected by mediation. How confidential is information conveyed during negotiations in these circumstances? Field, Rachael and Wood have said the notion of whether information remains confidential or not may be reliant upon the good will of the parties. All well and good but of little comfort to disputants at loggerheads with one another, particularly if the mediation proves fruitless and as it can on occasion, counterproductive and a tension exacerbater.
(Michael Moffitt "Suing Mediators" Boston University Law Review, Vol. 83:147 at page 150)
The difficulty in suing mediators is probably because it is a new addition to the dispute resolution repertoire, somewhat of a dark and evolving art. As canvassed previously mediators are not supposed to make decisions and although a mediator never makes a decision, the errant mediator in making a recommendation or proffering an opinion that affects a settlement is influencing the decision to settle. If the decision is settled and compromised on the basis of a misconceived mediator`s expressed inclination, the conduct of the mediator should be actionable at law.
Yet actionable on what basis? The duty of the mediator in not codified or regulated rather it is ill-defined and speculative As some mediators are not remunerated by the parties does their duty to the party differ to circumstances where the mediator is remunerated by the parties, (presumably on a fifty- fifty basis)?
Unlike lawyers who are required to enter into cost agreements with their clients that are regulated by solicitor conduct acts, mediators do not explicitly contract with clients to dispense impartiality, ethical reverence or detachment. So in the absence of any contractual obligation for one to sue a mediator, one would have to imply certain duties, duties that are to reiterate ill-defined and opaque.
For the above reasons it is not surprising that mediators apparently have not been sued to date. Although a party in the absence of any mediator immunity would be at liberty to sue a mediator, success could prove elusive. There would have to be compelling evidence that the mediator, very forcefully recommended a course of action, based upon flawed rationale or pretext, resulting in a settlement that materially prejudiced a party`s interests.
Furthermore if the aggrieved was represented by lawyers it would be even more difficult to sue the mediator, because the question would be asked "Why did your lawyer not advise you to refuse to accede to the mediator's recommendation?"
The disquieting consideration for lawyers, is that the lawyer must be ever vigilant and bold if need be, in ensuring that a bad deal that is put to the client is described as such in no uncertain terms, least the lawyer be implicated in a questionable outcome. The last thing the lawyer would want to become is a client "safety net" for a compromised settlement in circumstances where a forceful or vociferous mediator extolled the virtues of settlement and the lawyer meekly acquiesced or endorsed in that facilitation. For to do so could mean that the lawyer would be sued for a failure to emphatically reject the mediator`s recommended course of action.
As an aside the author can attest to his disappointment with respect to some of his experiences at mediation, albeit a minority of experiences. One case concerned a multimillion dollar dispute where the author was retained by an insurance company and the author's client flew an insurance instructor from one jurisdiction to the jurisdiction where the mediation occurred. The mediator was a fairly relaxed sort of character but the amount that he charged being $6,000 per day certainly did not relax the disputants. It was observed on a number of occasions that when there were "breakout" caucuses, the mediator used his downtime to read the newspapers in the public reception area that someone very kindly left in the reception of the office.
In another matter, again an insurance dispute, one team flew from one jurisdiction to another, at great cost. The mediation was getting traction but because the mediator and some other members of one of the adversary fraternity had to attend a religious festival, the mediation was cut short. The author, a religious man himself, considered that it would have been a far better idea for the mediator to arrange a date that did not conflict with either his or one of the other party's religious commitments. Particularity when the mediator was charging in excess of $5,000 per day and the combined legal spend for the day would have been $12,000. Needless to say that the team lacking the same religious affiliation was in a word; disappointed.
One of the greatest risks with mediations is that successful mediations in the author`s experience often go well into the night. In these circumstances many mediators instead of adjourning over to the following day put pressure on the parties to expedite the "wrapping up" of a settlement. In such circumstances mistakes can be made particularly in regards to the drafting of terms of settlement. This makes one hark back to Michael Moffitt's observation that the lack of formal structuring can compromise the quality of mediation services.
Mediation is relatively cheap and in tribunals such as the VCAT and the NZ WHT it is free. Court nominated mediators however are not free and when the courts, compel the parties to mediate the parties have to engage and pay for recognized and reputable mediators. This can cost anywhere between $1,500 and $10,000 a day but is money well spent if the matter is resolved quickly by mediation.
The most cost effective deployment of a mediator is at the outset of the dispute, at a time that precedes the initiation of legal proceedings.
An actual mediation rarely takes more than a day or so. The critical thing is to ensure that the mediation occurs close to the beginning of the dispute rather than on the eve of trial.
On point, the author was engaged by the Law Reform Commission and the Law Institute of Victoria in the early 90's to co-author a plain English building contract with Jude Wallace (Jude worked with the Victorian Law Reform Commission). We decided to make mediation the first "port of call" in the dispute resolution process whereby it was a term of contract that no party could issue proceedings in any jurisdiction unless they had at first instance attended mediation. The contract also provided that the parties remunerated the mediator on a 50/50 basis, regardless of outcome.
It is critical, for fear of labouring the point that mediation occurs at the outset. Ideally, a mediator should be engaged before a matter goes to court, arbitration or a tribunal but this requires a contractual condition that binds the parties to this course of action.
A mediated outcome at the earliest possible time can indeed arrest the deterioration of a commercial relationship. Mediated outcomes can also be positive, they can turn the tide from discord to accord and where this occurs the relationship can be strengthened.
Adversaries can also learn more about one another, a constructive mediation can enable both parties to better understand the other party's point of view. As Sir Laurence Street, the prominent Australian mediator and a past NSW Supreme Court Chief Justice likes to say. "If you look at a coin, the coin has a head and a tail. In any given dispute one party sees the tail, the other can only see the head, yet they are both looking at the same coin".
Information on Finding a Divorce Lawyer in Dallas, Texas
Usually, will disputes happen when one of the beneficiaries has a conflict about how the property is going to be distributed. Normally, one of the beneficiaries brings up the dispute. However, a third party may also file the dispute and their name may not be mentioned in the will. If you want to know more about this subject, you may want to read through this article. This article gives some examples of will disputes and the best ways to handle them.
Most of such disputes are filed after the death of the person. The reason is that most people have no idea about the contents of the will, and they come to know about it after the death of the property owner. Therefore, most of will disputes involve the estate administrator.
Examples of Will Disputes
Common solutions for the disputes involve monetary awards as compensation to the relevant parties. As an alternative, the judge may choose to order a new way of distributing the property.
Do You Need a Will Dispute Lawyer?
To cut a long story short, wills are complicated documents. Generally, most people don't understand the legal matters involving wills. Therefore, if you are in trouble, you may want to hire the services of a will dispute lawyer. The lawyer will help you in drafting, editing or reviewing the will document. Aside from this, they will also help you with the will dispute. They can also help you in filing a case. So, hiring a lawyer will be a good idea.
Patent - How To Get OneIn order to prove a case in negligence, a party must be able to prove both legal and factual causation. In other words, the party must not only be able to prove that the actions of a party proved something but that the actions were also a legally sufficient cause to hold someone liable and find negligence. Factual and legal causation are said to be distinguished from each other in an effort to avert the danger of a defendant being exposed to "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class," according to Justice Cardozo.Once a party has factually proven that the actions of the other party have caused his or her injuries, the question becomes one of legal causation. One of the key factors influencing legal causation is the remoteness of the person's harm from the negligence of the other. A person's negligence is too remote or not a "proximate cause" of another's injury or damages if a reasonable person would never reasonably foresee it happening. The idea of legal causation is to prevent negligence damages being awarded in events where no one could foresee something bad happening and so take the necessary steps to avoid it. In cases involving medical malpractice, proximate cause is something easier to prove, particularly in surgical errors. In failure to diagnose or missed diagnosis cases, the issue of proximate cause is not nearly as easy to prove since it's not as easy to tell what the actual damages are. Surgical errors are much easier, unless an individual has undergone a lot of surgeries with a number of different doctors in a very limited period of time. In medical malpractice cases, it is usually harder to prove that there was a breach than that the doctor who committed an error was negligent in terms of legal and factual cause. Determining the breach is more difficult since the error that was committed was not necessarily a monumental error or even identifiable as an error at the time it was committed. Causation is much easier to prove since there are typically very few surgeons capable of making an error on a person at one time. Damages are also usually somewhat simple to prove for the same reason. Depending on the case, particularly in surgery, it is simple to say "I have no feet because the doctor amputated the wrong one." The damages in the case are clear. The difficult part, for the jury, is awarding monetary damages.
A Contract Dispute Concerning an Oral Contract
Such sprains, usually result from poor proprioception (the ability to sense where the joints are), muscle weakness, ligament laxity (some ligaments don't provide sufficient support) and inadequate rehabilitation from an old injury...
Ankle stiffness usually sets in after such an injury. So it's better to do exercises that test your range of motion before launching into these exercises.
One foot balance
How to do it:
Stand on the injured foot and hold your balance for two to five minutes or as long as possible. Once that becomes easy, try it while standing on an unstable surface like a pillow.Do this three to five times a week.
Also, do no harm:
o Heat- do not apply heat to an acute injury. This will worsen the swelling.
o Alcohol- avoid it. It also worsens swelling.
o Running- vigorous exercise after an injury will aggravate the problem.
o Massage- deep massage can also aggravate an injury, particularly if there is a bruise.