Recently in Insurance Fraud Category

On August 22, 2008 I finalized a judgment for $10.1 million after a 15-day jury trial for a 12 year-old boy who suffered severe personal injuries when he darted into the street and was struck by a car.  The defendant was speeding at 33 mph in a school zone, yet her carrier refused to pay its $50,000 policy to settle all claims. Jeff Rickard and I tried the case, Jason Baker and our staff providing outstanding support.

On November 14, 2007 at 4:20 pm, Rasheed Hilson left a girls' basketball game at Morrill Middle School located at Morrill and Cropley in northeast San Jose.

Outside of the gym, Rasheed Hilson briefly chatted with four friends before seeing his bus and in typical 12 year-old fashion, ran to catch it without thinking of anything else.  He ran down the school driveway directly into Cropley, without looking, into the path of a BMW.  Kim Phuoc Tran, the driver, admitted she was driving at 33 mph.

The next day Officer Jincy Pace, SJPD, a lead homicide traffic investigator, was assigned this investigation because it was anticipated that Rasheed would die.  Ms. Pace only interviewed the defendant driver who reported she was driving at 33 mph, she saw nothing, never slowed, thought a rock had shattered her windshield, continued driving to Morrill, about 130 yards away before turning and stopping.  My reconstruction showed emphatically the driver could not have avoided seeing her  BMW hit Rasheed.

Ms. Pace called the school and asked an unidentified secretary what time classes were over.  Ms. Pace was told classes ended at 2:30 pm.  Five of seven eyewitnesses, listed in the report by other officers, were 12 year-olds and as many as 30 children were reported outside the gym by one mother who came to school to pick up her daughter and saw the crash.  Ms. Pace never followed up to find out why so many children were present if school was over at 2:30 pm. 

Based on a superficial investigation, Ms. Pace decided the speed limit in effect at the time was 35 mph on the premise that the 25 mph limit only applies when children are coming and going to school and that school was over at 2:30 pm.  She blamed the 12 year-old for his injuries and exonerated the driver.

At trial the school principal Ron Fairchild testified that the school was operating and open for business until 6 pm that day.  After classes were over, a school-wide homework and study hour operated from 2:30 to 3:30 pm, and inter-school athletic events commonly ran from 3:30 to 6 pm. 

On November 14^th he was in the gym with several hundred children attending a girls' basketball game. Five of Rasheed's classmates who were eyewitnesses also reported there was a school basketball game that afternoon.

Ms. Pace never spoke to Fairchild, any of the five eyewitness children or the mother who saw 30 children present outside the school.

Ms. Pace never considered that the 25 mph speed limit is always in effect when school grounds are not separated from the road by a "fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children."

In this case, an open driveway and sidewalk from the school to the street, well identified in more than 100 photographs by the SJPD, requires a 25 mph speed limit when the grounds are used by children, even if the school is closed.  Ms. Pace ignored this mandate of the Vehicle Code.

The SJPD erroneously concluded that driving at 33 mph hour in a school zone was legal when children were present, the school was open and the school grounds were not separated from the road by a barrier. 

It is a disgrace for traffic officers not to be trained that when there is no physical barrier and direct access from a school to the street, the speed limit is 25 mph.  Officers making major decisions on traffic safety concerning children must know the law.  There is no excuse for not knowing the law and calling what SJPD did an "investigation." 

On November 18, 2007, Tran's carrier, Amica Mutual Insurance, received the police report detailing Rasheed's personal injuries according to doctors at VMC:  "Hilson current status was critical and his fait [sic] was unknown due to head trauma . . .  Head tramma [sic], a pelvic injury, facial lacerations and a bloken [sic] leg . . . bleeding in the Braind [sic] area, shaking as a result of the Trama [sic], brusing [sic] to the lungs, a pelvic fracture, a broken leg, and unknown if nerosergery [sic] would be needed to the head/brain area  . . .  Moved to the Prdiatric [sic] Intesive [sic] Care Unit where he would be stabilized  . . . Dr. Adams believes the victim should survive the incident but it unclear at this point the extent of disabilities/injuries due to the head trama [sic] sustained by the victim."

This is the quality of reporting by the SJPD in a severe personal injury case involving a child hit by a speeding driver in a school zone. What an embarrassment for a major U.S. city. Never be scared off by an adverse SJPD report.  It may be far from the truth.

On December 6, 2007 a policy limits demand was sent to Amica with a 30-day deadline, reporting Rasheed's loss of consciousness, multiple fractures and lifetime personal injuries from which this child "will never fully recover."  The demand specifically noted that numerous children were present when Rasheed left a school basketball game that afternoon and that the speed limit was 25 mph in a school zone.  That turned out to be the evidence at trial.

On December 12, 2007 Amica's claims department acknowledged receipt of the demand and requested a release for medical records, which was provided immediately. 

At that time, Amica knew that its primary obligation was to protect its insured under her $50,000 policy, a child had been struck in a school zone by a car traveling at close to 35 mph, there were massive personal injuries and VMC pediatric ICU charges and surgeries were expected to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Before the 30-day deadline lapsed, Amica made no substantive response to the demand.  It did not offer the $50,000 policy, did not offer the policy conditioned on a medical examination or a written report confirming the injuries and never asked for an extension.

By January 8, 2008 when Rasheed Hilson was discharged from VMC to Subacute Saratoga Hospital it was known he had suffered multiple severe personal injuries: a partial excision of the right frontal lobe, fractures of the mandible, humerus, pelvis, head of the femur, tibia and fibula and would be permanently bedridden.  His medical bills at VMC totaled $788,000.

January 28, 2008 the lawsuit was filed and at the earliest moment an order shortening time brought an early hearing at which  my motion for a priority trial date was granted.

Before the lawsuit was filed I wrote the defendant and urged her to obtain Cumis counsel.  Nothing happened.  I never have seen personal injuries of this magnitude without the insured having Cumis counsel and in May I wrote the Insurance Commissioner advising of the failure of Amica to appoint Cumis counsel for the defendant.

Trial started on June 23^rd before Judge Leslie Nichols.  Steve Werth and Ray Coates of Low, Ball & Lynch defended Tran.  After trial started, the defendant hired Dave Henningsen of Robinson & Wood as Cumis counsel.

It was no surprise that Judge Nichols instructed the jury that the speed limit was 25 mph and that Rasheed was obligated to yield the right of way to Ms. Tran's BMW. 

Because Rasheed's conduct had to be compared to that of 12 year-olds, I presented state-of-the-art testimony by two nationally-recognized scientists who specialize in child brain development and pedestrian safety awareness in 12 year-olds.  Everything you have always known about the impulsivity of 12 year-olds has been confirmed scientifically by functional MRIs and dense array EEGs. 

Our video reconstruction showed the violence  of an impact at 33 mph that threw Rasheed over the BMW and how no collision would have occurred if the driver had obeyed the 25 mph speed law when children are present in a school zone. 

The jury of five Caucasians, five Asians, and two Latinos deliberated for two days and on July 18 found $9 million in economic damages, with 65% comparative fault on Rasheed. After adjusting for Medi-Cal charges, a judgment for $3,058,570 was entered that day.

We had expected a 50/50 finding on liability based on our four focus groups, so 65% comparative fault was in the ballpark, but what was shocking was the finding that Rasheed was awarded nothing for pain and suffering, having suffered severe personal injuries and permanent brain damage.

After the reading of the verdict, I could have asked for the jury to deliberate further, but decided to have the verdict entered and then make a motion for a new trial on damages.

The jury's decision was against the law and violated commitments made in voir dire.  The CACI instruction in a case of liability mandates that compensation for pain  "must" be provided.  Case law provides that damages for pain cannot be zero and a jury cannot eliminate pain from wounds.  Query: would this result have occurred if the plaintiff was white?  That troubles me.  If this case is any guide, Mr. Obama will not do as well in Santa Clara County as some hope.

On an order shortening time, I moved for a new trial on the issue of damages only.  The defendant argued that she wanted a new trial on all issues, but she had not made a motion for new trial and allowed the jurisdictional period to lapse. 

Judge Nichols ordered a new trial on the issue of pain and suffering only, which kept intact the underlying $3 million judgment, providing the defendant did not accept an additur of $7 million [35% of $20 million: a county record].

Judge Nichol's touched our hearts with his 13-page decision summarizing the evidence of Rasheed's family, injuries and suffering.  My motion and his order never mentioned that Rasheed is black.  Judge Nichols in his decision attached photos of Rasheed and his family that were in evidence and a copy of a body-size medical poster in color that detailed Rasheed's injuries.

On August 21^st, the defendant accepted the additur and an amended judgment was entered on August 22nd nunc pro tunc effective July 18, 2008 for $10,102,292.67. 

The bad faith action is next. Unlike nationally known carriers who have paid millions in extra-contractual dollars to our clients before verdict, Amica Mutual Insurance has now exposed itself to punitive damages for not protecting its insured by paying policy limits of $50,000 in a case of severe personal injuries - $10 million worth.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

There is no reason not to have a highly skilled and experience lawyer at the very earliest moment when a catastrophe strikes.   Insurance companies have had their teams of lawyers writing contracts and advising claims personnel for years.  It is a hopeless mismatch when a victim decides to deal with a carrier.

The following is a true story.  The victim's name has been changed at her request to protect her privacy.  

When 70-year old Connie Jones left her home in Mountain View, California on May 3, 2002, she had no idea that her generous nature would bring her a devastating injury and a lesson in bad faith insurance practices.

Mrs.  Jones was walking toward the neightborhood elementary school where she had been volunteering for almost 15 years. She was carrying food that she had prepared and was expecting to enjoy another pleasant day at school. But, because of the unbelievable misconduct of a motorist, she never reached the school that morning. Instead, she suffered a life-altering injury and woke up in a hospital with no memory of what had happened.

Mrs.  Jones had crossed three of the street's four lanes when driver John Zhou, who had an unobstructed view for a quarter of a mile before the crash, hit her at a speed of 35 MPH or more. His attention was on a cell phone or a child in the back seat, but it definitely wasn't on the road in front of him, and drove through Mrs.  Jones without even hitting his  brakes.

The resulting injuries were horrific. 

Mrs.  Jones suffered a below-knee amputation of the right leg and other fractures. She spent more than 3 months in the hospital and at other rehabilitation facilities.

Then, she and her husband found themselves tormented by an insurance company that had refused to pay a valid claim.

In Mrs.  Jones' case, there was no question of who was wrong. 

The driver admitted that he wasn't paying attention, and the insurance company had no reason for not paying its policy limit of $100,000 immediately.

But three months after the accident, Farmers Insurance, which badfaithinsurance.org has rated the sixth worst insurance company for its payment of claims, still hadn't honored its obligation to Mr. and Mrs.  Jones.

It could have been much worse if Mr. and Mrs.  Jones had not hired me. Fortunately they did and ultimately received a full value recovery of $2.65 million instead of the policy limit of $100,000 that Farmers could have paid if it had acted in good faith.

Mrs.  Jones' experience has clear messages for everyone who suffers a serious personal injury. 

Everyone in this situation should call an experienced personal injury lawyer immediately. Don't talk to anyone, not even your own insurance company's adjuster, until you find out what you don't know, which is a lot. 

In many cases, just like this one, it is possible to recovery "full value" even when that is many times the policy limit.

This amputation will affect Mrs. Jones every moment for the rest of her life, but after the crash it's insurance companies know try to take advantage of victims' to make force a settlement that will save the company money.

Everyone I have spoken with after a major loss believes they know all there is know, even though they have no claims experience and have never fought it out with a carrier.

My job is to provide full protection over the long-term and to minimize the financial disaster that always accompanies a catastrophic injury and sometimes help bring about a happy ending.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

There is no doubt the "good hands" people have been using them to pick Californian pockets.

Allstate Insurance Company was ordered to reduce their homeowner's rates by $255 million statewide by the California Department of Insurance.  Now the question remains whether it will issue the refunds owed their customers.

More than 850,000 customers will see their insurance rates reduced by about $250 as a result of the order.  The order represents a 28.5% reduction in the cost of homeowner's insurance premiums.  Incredulously, Allstate initially sought a 9.3% increase in premiums.

This is the second time in less than a year that Allstate was found to be overcharging its customers.  In March, the Department of Insurance ordered the company to reduce its auto rates by 15.9%, saving Allstate auto customers $124 per car.

The real story is that Allstate has taken its sweet time in reducing these excessive rates.   Allstate initially sued the Department of Insurance for reducing their rates, but later dropped its appeal.

The acrimony between Allstate and the California Department of Insurance has been going on for three years.  Lt. Governor, and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, rightfully called for the company to issue refunds to consumers for the last three years.  That's how long Allstate has been overcharging customers while it fought the Department.

"The company has pocketed far more of the policyholders' money than was warranted," Garmendi said. "But, frankly, they must in my view provide a rebate for the three years in which they charged an illegal amount."

Now it will be up to a Republican, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, to see those past illicit gains are not kept by the rogue company and that refunds are issued in a timely manner to the victims of Allstates' excesses.

But the real heroes of this story are the folks at Consumer Watchdog, a group led by Harvey Rosenfield, Doug Heller, Jamie Court and Pam Pressley.    Rosenfield, especially, deserves credit for crafting Proposition 103.

Proposition 103 provided for an elected Insurance Commissioner in the State of California.  More importantly, it gave the Commissioner the power to lower rates when they were excessive.

So far, Proposition 103 has saved California Consumers over $62 Billion.  In addition, Consumer Watchdog and their folks will take the lead in holding the current Commissioner accountable for making sure that Allstate refunds its illegal overcharges.

This should not be difficult.  The current Republican Commissioner has been outspoken in his desire to seek refunds from the company and he has seen, first hand, the arrogance and intransigence Allstate has demonstrated since he took office.

Further, Consumer Watchdog is already leading the charge to get these refunds for victims of Allstate.  Initially, the group had put the issue of refunds on hold until the California Department of Insurance determined the excessive rate issue.   Now they are free to pursue claims against the company because of the provisions of Proposition 103.

Allstate is sure to fight back.  They take a no-hold barred approach to their fight.  Earlier this year Allstate made good on its pledge to pull out of the property insurance business in California altogether.  A move that was designed to scare Californians into meeting Allstate's demand for excessive rates.

But the numbers don't lie.  In 2006 Allstate took in over $5 billion.  The total shareholder return from 1994-2006 was a whopping 590%.   It is noteworthy that Allstate can give-up the California market and still make billions of dollars.

"Allstate boasted of record profits to Wall Street, then came to California claiming it's not making enough money in order to charge its policyholders higher premiums. Proposition 103's prohibition on excessive rates protected California consumers with home and auto insurance policies from Allstate's price gouging and saved them over half a billion dollars this year," said Pamela Pressley, litigation director at Consumer Watchdog.

But Allstate, incredulously,  still claims increases are necessary.   And there are troubling signs at the Department of Insurance that the current Commissioner is tacking right in an effort to please his Republican breathren in order to position himself for Governor. 

Poizner, who came to the office as a moderate and promised to run the department in a nonpartisan manner, recently has looked increasingly like the old Republican model --  including taking a position as Co-chair of the John McCain Campaign Committee and putting part of  his vast personal fortune into rightwing Republican registration efforts.

But the most disturbing signs of trouble come in the recent reorganization of his executive staff, as two major consumer advocates have left the department.   Moreover, there are troubling signs that he has left the day to day operations in the hands of a longtime Republican idealogue, Jim Richardson, who is the former chief of staff to archconservative and former Republican minority leader Jim Brulte, while Poizner campaigns for Governor.

But one can only assess a politician's record by results and, so far, Poizner's actions in recovering excessive claims from thieves like Allstate have been good, but it is not over by a longshot.

So we need to be vigilant in helping Consumer Watchdog in its quest to get the current Commissioner to fulfill the promises of his campaign.  If he does so, he just might become Governor.

In the meantime, next time you see the your friends with the "good hands"--keep yours in your pocket, lest they pick them clean again.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

Losing your house in a fire is devastating, but having your Insurance Company renege on their promise to cover your loss is beyond the pale.   But that is exactly what is happening all over California as increasing firestorms destroy happy lives.

From Lake Tahoe to San Diego, from Santa Cruz to Malibu the insurance industry is ducking and weaving in an attempt to deny homeowners the full replacement value of their home.

It is these Insurers who set the replacement value of your home in the first place. 

The scam starts by insurance companies offering low premiums to homeowners as a marketing tool to get their business.  To do so, the agents and/or companies undervalue the cost of the dwelling.  Then, when the catastrophe hits, the company refuses to pay the full replacement value of the home, much to the surprise of the victimized homeowner.

A recent survey by United Policyholders found that 75% of homes were undervalued by an average of $240,000 in the recent fires in San Diego and San Bernardino Counties.  And only 46% of the victims had received offers eight months after the fire.

This is not a new problem.  Insurance companies have been trying to get away with this fraud for years.  

When Katrina hit New Orleans most, if not all, of the victims found they were underinsured.  Moreover, the insurance companies began to utilize the small print in their adhesive contracts to avoid paying claims.

An "adhesive" contract is one in which the terms are dictated by one side and are not the subject of mutual negotiation.  In other words, the companies "stick" you with their terms.

Fortunately the law is on the side of the victims. 

Gigantic State Farm was held liable for $2.5 million for its bad faith in handling the losses of its insured.  State Farm claimed that its contract provided protection against wind, but not water and it did not have to pay the homeowners claim.

A federal judge ruled that State Farm was liable for the damages and a jury awarded punitive damages to the victims for the bad faith actions of State Farm.

But was this insurance company contrite?  Did it do the right thing for other victims?

No.  Here is State Farm's response:

Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute in New York, said before the jury announced its decision that a punitive damage award would be "distressing" for insurers. "It adds even more cost and more uncertainty to the other problems that already exist in the Mississippi homeowners insurance market," he said.

Note to Mr. Hartwig:  There is no uncertainty if you pay the rightful claims owed to people who acted in good faith.  Nonetheless State Farm continues to argue that the result of this case will make it harder for them to "settle" future claims.

State Farm customers should not be settling for anything less than what they are rightfully owed.

The actions of the Insurance Industry have been so heinous that it forced one former U.S. Senator to see the light.  Trent Lott a one-time political beneficiary of these companies lost his own house and vowed to fight the Industry to his dying day.  It is unfortunate that it took a personal calamity to change the Senator's views, but he joins the thousands of victims who must continue to fight their insurance company, even as much of their life remains in ruins.

There are several ways to get help.  The California Department of Insurance will help investigate disputes with the companies.    http://www.insurance.ca.gov/

Consumer Advocates such as United Policyholders http://unitedpolicyholders.org will advocate for consumers and have a wealth of information regarding how to deal with your insurance company. 

In addition, all consumers should research how different companies handle these catastrophes before buying insurance.  There are actually some companies who pay their claims in a timely manner.  You should probably avoid the mass advertisers who claim to be a "good neighbor" or will put you in "good hands."   

But the best way to fight these corporations is to have a strong advocate, your own personal lawyer to deal with these companies for you.   Victims should not have to fight for their own money.  The insurance industry is in a position of power and many victims walk away with less than their due, simply because the process seems hard.  And given the complete destruction of their lives many victims are often not mentally or physically able to take on their insurance company.

So, if you are ever the victim of a fire, fight back.  Don't get burned after the fire.  Hire qualified legal counsel and insure your rights are protected. 

As we know well, your insurance company is only a "good neighbor" if you never make a claim.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

Recently, you probably have received emails from a former Nigerian Counsel offering to split $100 million with you, if only you provided him with all of your personal information and kept the communication confidential.  An obvious scam.

A much more effective and more lucrative scam is to have a licensed Insurance Agent sell a real Insurance Annuity Contract to a person of advanced age, robbing them of their life savings--while the agent pockets a hefty commission and the insurance company reaps the financial huge benefits by never having to pay-off.

These contracts are designed to prey on vulnerable seniors who believe their Insurance Company would do them no harm.  The scam simply robs seniors and their heirs of their life savings.

Recently, you may have missed the $10 million Allianz Insurance Company was forced to pay in fines to the California Department of Insurance for bilking seniors.  An investigation by the Department of Insurance found that the Company had routinely sold annuity policies to seniors 85 years and older, effectively bilking them of their life savings.  

Allianz has been forced to pay fines in other states as well.  But the victims of this crime rarely report it and rarely recover their own losses.  Embarrassed they did not understand the terms of the contract after being pressured into signing it, many victims never come forward.

Allianz is not the only company doing this, just the most visible to date.  The problem is so prevalent the legislature set up a special fund for District Attorney's to use to prosecute these crimes.   The Life and Annuity Consumer Protection fund was created to incentivize District Attorneys to investigate and prosecute this "nonviolent" crime.  The program is paid for by tacking on an extra dollar to every annuity contract sold in the state, which then goes to a special fund.

In addition to the fines, Allianz as part of a settlement, must conduct a review of all those who were 65 years and older when they bought their contract.  Allianz must contact all those who are 76 years and older to make sure they understand their contract.  Allianz must amend their contract to make them more understandable.  Allianz must clearly point out the terms of bonuses being offered to their sale force and when they are paid.  Allianz must allow seniors impacted by their fraudulent techniques to request cancellation of their contracts.

These are not options, but mandates that Allianz must fulfill as a result of their conduct.

Allianz got off easy.  

Their profits more than compensate for their outrageous, deceptive and corrupt behavior. Companies like this should not be fined, but shut down.  Confiscate their book of business and distribute it to honest carriers.

Seniors and their families need to be the first line of defense.  The best way to protect consumers is through education and following some simple rules when buying an annuity contract.

Annuity contracts are never simple.  They are challenging documents that must be read and understood.   Seniors should never tie up money that they may need.  Food, housing, medicines should never be sacrificed for a promise to pay tomorrow.

Here is some important advice.

First, never sign anything you don't understand.  

Second, insist that a trusted friend or family member be with you during any presentation or signing. 

Third, never sign anything in front of an agent, make them leave the documents with you and allow yourself time to read and think about the product.  If it is a good deal today, it will be a good deal tomorrow. 

Obtain full disclosures of all surrender penalties and make sure everything is done in writing.

Finally, and most importantly, never believe that an Insurance Agent or Company is on your side.  They are paid for selling products.  If there is no sale, there is no commission.

For the most part, annuity contracts are bad deals for those of advanced age.  The numbers simply don't work out, and too often the victim and their heirs pay a hefty price.

If you find yourself a victim of this practice, report it immediately.  See an attorney, who is paid to fight for you and doesn't get paid unless you collect.

In the final analysis, it is your money.  Insurance companies doing what Allianz has done are one step removed from the ex-Nigerian Counsel who has been sending you email. 

Onward,

 "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'' That was written by William Shakespeare, and put into the mouth of the character Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II.

Waltzing into the killing fields of lawyers is an enticing idea to many, but besides the fact that some bad attorneys are predatory, who else will stand up for your rights?

Corporations have the power. And they have their own fleet of lawyers, who are paid out of deep pockets. Who stands up for the rest of us?

Personal injury attorneys:  If you get screwed, they'll stand up for you.

Bad medicine, infected food, what else? Who will protect us? Attorneys, who have been victims of a smear campaign by the corporations and government.

Corporate interests have access to lawmakers because they pay hard cash - campaign money, lavish junkets -- it goes on and on.

But the public has been led, by the media, to believe that personal injury attorneys are somehow to blame.  For what? For protecting the small guy? Instead of telling those tales of victory, the media prefer a diet of stories talking about not-guilty verdicts and appellate reversals.

What they rarely report is that prisons are overcrowded, that Sheriff's deputies are seeking reductions in sentences to clear jail jam.  The departments can't even fill their slots. Look at the billboards seeking recruits.  They're all over.

In any case, when only the exceptional ruling receives coverage, the public can reasonably assume, over time, that the exception is the rule.

It's not.

Nobody is speaking out on behalf of our profession. Not to get preachy, but we are a crucial part of our republic, which was founded on law.

So let's do something. When it comes to dealing with the media, bar leaders and lawyers have done nothing because they assume the issue is too large to address.

Again, it's not.

Take responsibility for speaking out. On the Internet. In letters to the editor. In opinion articles.
 
We are problem solvers. We take adverse interests and come to a reasonable solution.

Our citizens need to know, understand and appreciate their rights. Otherwise, they will end up giving them away. The media need to take note. If ever there was an institution that benefited from lawyers, it's the media. Check out New York Times v. Sullivan, which is taught to every journalism student in the United States.

Lawyers are an engine for our economy. We advise businesses and labor on how to untangle laws and regulations so that commerce and trade can flourish. Working behind the scenes, we have made this country the great financial and industrial success that it is today.

The most important cases are those of the unpopular. That's why lawyers are so vital. What's the point in defending cases that everyone agrees with? How is that protecting our constitutional rights?
 
Again, it's not.
 
Lawyers have a special ability for analysis, an honest regard for facts, and an open-mindedness to examine a problem from all sides.
 
The media need to get it. Stop just reporting on when things fail.  Start reporting on when they work.

Onward.

Richard Alexander