Why we’re different: Wireless with a purpose

May 25, 2016 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

Thanks to advances in tech, small firms like ours now have the resources of big business

Let’s say you’re in a car crash. Let’s say the crash is bad. It’s the kind of crash that puts you in the emergency room. And it’s definitely not your fault. You know you have the option to take legal action, but you’ve never hired a lawyer before. The first step is choosing a firm. But at what cost?

Just because it appears cut and dry that the person who hit you is at fault doesn’t guarantee that everything will work out the way it should. Insurance companies— who select and pay for the lawyers representing the at-fault driver—come armed with two important tools: resources and money. Since the insurance companies pay the prospective settlement or award, they’ll fight as hard as possible to protect their own interests. And that’s when everything is in play—whether it’s your medical history, a newly inked divorce, even something as innocent as a social media post.

A lawsuit can get ruthless and it can last a long time. That’s when you, the victim, suddenly find yourself in a vulnerable position. Regardless of whom you choose to represent you, you’re likely looking at a slew of (potentially growing) medical bills with no guarantee of a favorable outcome. You may start to question whether legal action was the right decision in the first place, as you and your attorney begin to parcel through the financials. The goods news is that firms like ours only charge based on what we’re able to collect as part of a contingency policy. When you’re paying your medical bills, you don’t have to worry about paying us at the same time. Even then you may doubt whether a small firm can compete with big business.

Much of that doubt has been quashed in recent years. Plaintiffs now have opportunities that were once unimaginable. Part of that is because technology has leveled the playing field, giving us the ability to go toe to toe with the biggest insurance companies around. We’re able to hold people accountable and keep everything on track to maximize the outcome of your case. Here’s how we do it:

The cloud concept

You’d be surprised to learn how many law firms have yet to adapt to modern-day best practices. One of those best practices is utilizing a cloud-based storage system to keep track of records. Our associate attorney and resident tech guru, Brett Manchel, has worked over the last two years to implement a comprehensive, streamlined data system to make sure every detail of your case is accounted for. When you walk into our offices, you can expect Brett to walk you through the ins and outs of what we collect, why we collect it, and how you can obtain any necessary records moving forward.

A paper-free commitment

Even attorneys have entrepreneurial ambitions. Many have branched out to the realm of legal tech to produce some notable management systems, apps and digital services that tailor to the needs of small firms. As such, we’ve been able to identify a few choice systems that make our office as paper-free and efficient as possible. The reduction of paper equals the reduction of costs, which equals more money in your pocket when everything is said and done. Cloud-based programs also diminish marginal costs per case, which means more dollars to improve our services in the long run. Our ability to stay organized without the need for mounds of paper is not only making it easier for us to manage your case, but also keeping every shred of information easy to reference at any stage of the process.

Savants of social media

The concept of private vs. public information has changed dramatically with the advent of social media. The rules of precedent are being re-written as we speak. The definitions of what it means to be social, to share opinions, and disseminate commentary online is tricky business. Our team has taken the opportunity to look over several case histories as a means to overcome any challenges associated with your social media history, some of which could have an impact on your case.

The worldwide web

As with most things, the worldwide web has given us access to a wealth of information at the click of a button. Investigating your case, vetting expert witnesses, and digital record keeping are easier than ever. In 2014, Forbes described the business model of Big Law as “stumbling.” Clients are demanding better service at cheaper costs and this is where small firms are succeeding in ways that big law firms are not. We can’t overstate how much we’re able to cover in a short amount of time thanks to the ability to connect with our files and our clients wirelessly. When you work with us, our attorneys take advantage of dozens of digital resources that help us stay organized and moving efficiently, and securely.

If you have questions about how Levinson and Stefani can put its office to work for you, give us a call, or reach out on social media. We’re happy to give you a free consultation.

A crash, a brush with death, and the aftermath

April 25, 2016 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

Will the harrowing story of Douglas Balder bring new attention to federal laws?

A friend of mine called it the best story lead he has read all year. I could not argue with him.

“Illinois State Trooper Douglas Balder sat in his squad car, its red and blue lights strobing into the frozen night of Jan. 27, 2014. He was about to be set on fire,” wrote Michael McAuliff, senior Congressional reporter for the Huffington Post.

If you think that’s a good start you should read the rest of the article. On the one hand, Balder’s harrowing tale is a story of a miracle survival. On the other hand, it’s a blistering indictment of a Congress that has done little to keep stories like Balder’s from happening in the first place. And there are many people (including trial attorneys) who would make the argument that Congress has, in fact, been doing nothing at all.

McAuliff isn’t shy about putting it in perspective. In his piece, he uses Balder’s near-death experience—a consequence of a truck driver who fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into Balder’s cruiser, going at a speed over 60 miles per hour—to summarize the lack of attention (or sheer unwillingness) on the part of elected officials to keep people safe.

Here are the facts: Despite increasing crashes and fatalities over the past four years, Congress has floated the idea of lowering restrictions that would prevent drivers from driving too long, driving without the proper training, and driving without logging their records properly, all thanks to subversive lobbying in the battle for votes.

Unfortunately, the lobbyists are winning those battles.

Several proposals have been floated that would allow trucks to haul loads greater than the 80,000-pound limit; trailers could potentially increase from 28 feet per unit to 33 feet; truckers can potentially work up to 82 hours per week instead of the “already-exhausting,” as McAuliff puts it, 70 hours per week; and, perhaps at its worst, the minimum driving age for anyone operating a commercial vehicle could soon be as low as 18 years old. Companies are spreading employees too thin, drivers are working longer hours, and an industry that was left feeling the ill-effects of the Recession in 2008 is now trying to make up for lost money, crafting a system that is woefully shortsighted.

Truck-related deaths hit an all-time low in 2009, according to McAuliff. Those numbers have skyrocketed by more than 17% since the Great Recession. Yet, there doesn’t seem to be any sign of change.

McAuliff notes that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration crafted a proposal in 2012 that would have required overweight truckers to get tested for sleep apnea, only to withdraw it a week later after getting pushback from the trucking industry, all the while making plans to move forward with its own proposals, none of which have popular support among the populace.

From the article: “The Huffington Post and YouGov surveyed Americans on four of the proposals the industry has been pursuing through the backdoor: teen drivers, longer trucks, heavier trucks, and the relaxed hours-of-service rules. In every case, respondents to the survey opposed the moves — by large margins.”

Lowering the age limit to 18? 24% Approve; 65% Disapprove
Raising the weight limit to more than 90,000 pounds? 18% Approve; 57% Disapprove
Allowing tractor trailers to be up to 80ft long? 19% Approve; 62% Disapprove
Allowing truck drivers to work up to 82 hours per week? 17% Approve; 71% Disapprove

The statistics speak for themselves. If only people would care to listen.

Time to pick your judge

March 10, 2016 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

Take advantage of the CBA’s Green Guide

No matter your political affiliation, I think we can all agree that voting is important. Next week, Illinois gets its chance to impact the 2016 presidential election. Lost in the fray of these highly charged presidential campaigns are the local jobs up for grabs. With the exception of a few big-ticket names, it’s safe to assume our local judicial candidates will largely go unnoticed by comparison.

The sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has brought up big questions about when and who will be appointed. The folks in D.C. will take care of that. But unlike D.C., Illinois is in the minority of states that elects judges instead of appointing them. You’d be doing yourself and your fellow citizens a big favor by doing a little homework.

The Chicago Bar Association provides a great public service called the CBA Green Guide, compiled by a semi-autonomous committee of the CBA that conducts evaluations of candidates and sitting judges up for election in Cook County. Inside you’ll find an overview of political affiliations, legal experience, familiarity with the law, and more about the people seeking your vote. The guide even distinguishes candidates with a semi-endorsement by deeming people “Highly Qualified,” “Qualified,” and “Not Recommended,” all of it based on a screening process developed by the CBA.

It’s in your best interests to stay informed. If you plan to vote this Tuesday, take advantage of what the CBA is offering. The more we know, the better off we’ll be.

Download the Green Guide here

The ABA sends Rocket Lawyer packing for good reason

February 25, 2016 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

Not so fun while it lasted

If you’re not familiar with Rocket Lawyer, we’ll save you the suspense: Rocket Lawyer is a company backed by Google Venture Projects, which until recently, was tapping into the well of the American Bar Association. Problem is, it was also tapping into the referral networks of small practices and solo firms, putting a long-held system in jeopardy. If you’re the founder of a small firm like I am, that should worry you. And not for financial reasons.

The ABA partnered with Rocket Lawyer in October, establishing a now-defunct pilot project called ABA Law Connect, part of a system that allows small business owners an opportunity to associate with ABA lawyers by asking questions through an online-powered network. The idea: business owners pay a $4.95 service fee in order to ask a question and a follow-up question, then negotiate terms of further service. Whether that means meeting in-person, offline via text message, I’m not sure. I am sure, though, that the ABA faced a lot of criticism for Law Connect, forcing the association to reconsider. The Illinois and Pennsylvania state bar associations came out in strong opposition, calling it a “blue plate special” approach and threatening to diminish a network that many of us rely on to build relationships and establish trust with our clients.

Rocket Lawyer would have you believe that anyone opposed to ABA Law Connect is simply concerned with one thing: money. Ironically, it’s Rocket Lawyer that was primed to make a pretty penny. I recently read about the demise of the pilot program, which the ABA dutifully nixed earlier in January after the subsequent pushback. I read this quote from Rocket Lawyer founder and CEO Charley Moore: “We are disappointed that a few individuals chose protecting their lawyer referral revenue and high fees, over innovation, fair competition and the public’s need for wider access to attorney advice.”

All things considered, it seems like a rather shallow comment. The business of referrals, at least in our case, has never been about the fees. If it were, I’d have run my firm into the ground by now. Practices like ours don’t charge for consultation, and like most firms, our fees are contingent on the recovery. Referrals are just minor pieces of a much bigger puzzle.

Moore mentions “fair competition.” But is his model fair? Rocket Lawyer promotes ABA Law Connect as a tool for “easy access,” though I would argue that two questions could hardly be considered accessible. One of the benefits of meeting an attorney face-to-face is having a chance to ask questions and build a foundation. Consider all the legal complexities of any given case; asking two questions is almost as good as saying Hello and Goodbye. Most people would have better luck picking up the phone, dialing an attorney and scheduling a meeting to get the full scope of their situation.

The failure of ABA Law Connect isn’t about an aversion to innovation, it’s about a product that was flawed from the start. Worse, Rocket Lawyer has decided to blame attorneys for its shortcomings. Maybe it’s time Rocket Lawyer looked into a mirror.

Traffic deaths rise in the U.S.

February 9, 2016 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

The number of traffic deaths in the U.S. jumped by 9.3% during the first nine months of 2015, a surprising rise after years of steady decline, according to recent numbers collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Motor vehicle fatalities rose to an estimated 26,000, up from 23,796 the previous year and equaling a fatality rate of 1.1 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. That’s the highest rate since 2012; between 2000-2014, traffic deaths declined by 22%.

The NHTSA announced yesterday that the first nine months of last year was one of the deadliest in recent memory, prompting the U.S. Transportation Department to look at new ways to prevent traffic-related crashes—94% of which are due to human factors.

NHTSA President Mark Rosekind, who took over the federal division in 2014, has made it a priority during his tenure to reduce the number of the traffic-related crashes nationwide., going as far as to say that crashes have the potential to be eliminated altogether with the advent of self-driving cars.

One theory as to why the numbers have risen so dramatically over the last year is the impact of an improving economy and low gas prices. Given the alarming number in 2015, the NHTSA plans to organize safety summits in the coming months. Ride-sharing businesses like Uber and Lyft have also stepped up their efforts to improve road safety as more people decide to get behind the wheel. (Both companies have encountered safety issues in recent months and we’ll be tracking and analyzing their progress.)

Among the talking points at these summits, Rosekind has said, is discussing and analyzing ways to improve behavioral traits in drivers and addressing all-too common issues like drunk driving and those who refrain from wearing seat belts. The NHTSA kicked off a summit recently in Sacramento, California and plans to host additional summits around the country, including Washington, D.C.

Why Helen Mirren’s Budweiser PSA wasn’t really a PSA

February 8, 2016 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

Call it a noble, but failed attempt at respectability

I’m not talking about the Carolina Panthers’ utter futility during Super Bowl 50. I’m talking about Dame Helen Mirren’s Budweiser commercial, which doubled as a tongue-in-cheek Public Service Announcement.

You know the one I’m talking about. Dame Mirren, in her polite tone, insults those who choose to drink and drive, calling them “shortsighted, utterly useless, oxygen-wasting human form of pollution.”

For the record, we agree. Ms. Mirren is talking serious business. It is, of course, utterly stupid, dangerous and reckless to put other drivers at risk because of poor decision-making. That’s why the Bud commercial felt so out of place. You won’t find me knocking anything that advocates for safe driving very often. Still, this commercial had a few things that smelled more like clever advertising than public service.

My thinking has less to do with the actual messaging than how the message was delivered. At issue here is whether Budweiser’s ostensible PSA was, in fact, an unmitigated form of guidance as opposed to a crafty couture of subliminal messaging. This is after all a commercial that frames Helen Mirren (an Academy Award-winning actress) as a sophisticated drinker; she can have a Bud and criticize those who aren’t as sophisticated enough to know the difference. And she can do it while holding a beer in her hand.

In other words, Bud is a beer that doesn’t inspire hasty decision-making. Therefore, it’s the King of Beers and the one you should purchase the next time you’re at a bar. Leave it to a courtly British personality to drive the point home. If Bud wants to hand down life lessons to millions of people, it may be worth doing things a little differently next time, a PSA in which:

Beer is off the table

There she is. Sitting there. Alone. Scolding. With a beer in full view. Contradictory, wouldn’t it seem? Maybe the next PSA about responsible drinking shouldn’t include careful product placement at all. That goes for all beer companies.

Comedy is not King

Sure, it’s a serious subject. Then maybe it shouldn’t feel like a joke. A commercial that starts off relatively strong turns into a tongue-in-cheek number with little poignancy. In fact, I would argue that all it’s doing is prodding you to grab another beer. If you happened to be driving on Super Bowl Sunday, the message was less than super.

Bud bolds the fine print

You’ll notice that at the end of the commercial Budweiser says it will spend $1 on safe ride programs every time someone uses the hashtag #GiveADamn (it took a second viewing on my laptop to find it). Needless to say, the text was also less than super, though it’s worth noting that the effort is a noble one.