Blog

To aspiring lawyers waiting tables

January 12, 2017 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

From my sophomore year of high school through my first year of law school, I bussed tables, served entrees and endured the occasional disgruntled customer who liked to take a week’s-worth of frustration out on poor, unassuming servers.

Like the legal world, working at a restaurant is sometimes surreal. The days and nights are long, the people are anxious and the operation never stops. A recent encounter with a young law student, who happens to be waiting tables to pay for school, reminded me of those early days. There were many nights, he said, when he’d come home tired, irritated and temped to quit, suggesting that it was not helping him get where he wanted to go with respect to the law.

But there are benefits of enduring late night harangues and doing the so-called grunt work that you won’t learn anywhere else. I’m convinced that the principles of the restaurant world have made me a better, more humble lawyer. The lessons that I learned while working at a restaurant have been equally if not more valuable to the approach I take with regard to my practice.

For any discouraged law students or pre-law students working the late shift at the local diner, steakhouse or fast-food joint, I share with you the practical and translatable lessons of the serving experience that can help you achieve your goals as a future attorney.

Be patient and stay organized

I didn’t start off as a waiter. I was a small gear in a big machine. I was cleaning dishes well before I was given an opportunity to join the wait staff. Even then, I had to suppress my urge to leap frog the system, and it came in the form of a not-so-subtle jab at my work ethic by a bartender who decided to call me out for my over anxiousness and lack of organization.

After that, I remember spending many nights and weekends as a young law clerk training myself to sweat the small stuff. Many times, I volunteered to do tasks typically assigned to interns, which would only help when it came time for case prep. I often wonder if I hadn’t received such a stern wake-up call from my bartending friend, it would have caught up with me at the firm. And that would have been disastrous.

Prioritize, prioritize, prioritize

There are lots of competing interests in a kitchen, much like at a law firm. A chef wants customers to receive their food on a hot plate; a server needs timely clearing and bussing to keep traffic flowing at a steady pace; the bartender needs a fully stocked shelf to keep customers entertained while they’re waiting for their tables. Everyone’s got their priorities. You learn quickly that some are more important than others.

When you’re in the process of overseeing a case, you’ll find that the interests of counsel, co-counsel, opposing counsel, clients, judges and even juries are all different and demanding. Keeping pace is an art that you can and should use to your advantage. It’s a big part of what separates a bad attorney from a great one. In a process with so many variables, it’s impossible to give everything equal attention. Defining what can and can’t happen on a daily, or even hourly basis will help steady the balance of your workflow and show your colleagues that your ready for the Big League.

Be judicious and pick your battles

Remember the disgruntled customer I was talking about? He wasn’t my first and he wasn’t my last. The old adage rings true: the customer is always right. I’ve withstood my share of emotional beatings as a waiter, always with a smile. Some complaints are legitimate others are downright silly. Sometimes you have to stand up for yourself and other times it’s best to keep your feelings to yourself. I’m certainly not saying you need to get pushed around, just that there’s a time and a place for everything.

As part of your legal career, a judge will rule against you. You may be disappointed. You may even put up a fight, knowing the result isn’t going to swing in your favor. The key is sensing when to put down the sword. Odds are you’ll see the same judge more than once in your career. That’s not to say we won’t argue. In fact, that’s what attorneys are paid to do. But knowing how to pick your battles will keep your reputation in good order when it comes time for round two.

Speaking of reputation, focus on that and not the rewards

Temptation is a fact of life. A customer asks for your opinion when they’re deciding between two entrees. One is more expensive than the other, but less tasty. The second dish is cheaper and better quality. The expensive plate is guaranteed to get you a better tip. What do you do? Well, if you value repeat customers, giving them the cheaper option is likely going to benefit you in the long-run and earn you merit points with your customers.

Staying true to what you believe, as cliché as it sounds, is one of the most important tools in your arsenal as an attorney. Clients depend on your feedback, and the foundation for that feedback is a sense of trust. It’s possible you’ll find yourself in a position that allows you to take advantage of consultation fees, or maybe you risk losing a client if you don’t tell them what they want to hear. Venturing down a path in which the rewards may be significant but the path is unclear is a recipe for disaster. Taking stock of your ethical standards will preserve your integrity, and ultimately, the reputation of your practice.

Picking up the slack

You’ll likely never find a job in which you won’t ever need help. Same goes for your colleagues. This is an essential reality of the teamwork necessary to keep a good business functioning at a high level. Sometimes a busser needs help clearing tables, or a chef needs a hand with the dishes. It may not be your job, but picking up the slack pays off. I was given many opportunities to make extra cash on the weekends, thanks to a tip from a fellow server, whose shift I covered while he dealt with a family issue. By the same logic, you never know when going the extra mile will inspire other lawyers to generously refer cases to your door.

Beware of Uber’s new Terms of Service agreement

January 10, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

There’s a good chance you overlooked the fine print. Just before Thanksgiving, Uber, the mega-popular ride-sharing company, was in the process of changing its Terms of Service agreement to include a mandatory arbitration clause, which is now making it much tougher for riders to sue the company in the event of a crash. Now we’re well into January and it’s likely you’ve accepted those terms. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t know what those terms mean.

From Associate Attorney Brett Manchel:

Can you tell us about Uber’s new Terms of Service and Mandatory Arbitration?

One of the more common elements of a Terms of Service agreement is an arbitration clause, which allows big companies to protect themselves by requiring both parties to work towards a settlement as opposed to going through the motions of a lawsuit. Lawsuits and the costs associated with them can reach upwards of millions of dollars under certain circumstances, so it’s not surprising that a company like Uber would want to take the arbitration route. Many big companies do. But ultimately what they’re doing is depriving people of a fair hearing in front of a jury. That’s inherently unfair to someone who might have been paralyzed as a result of a crash, for example, and who might never have a normal life again. Instead, companies like Uber should do more to prioritize good driving practices instead of passing the buck, so to speak.

So what does Uber’s new Terms of Service agreement mean for riders?

Uber has essentially rolled out an update to its Terms of Service, which includes the mandatory arbitration clause I was just talking about. That puts riders in a serious predicament because they’re effectively giving up their right to sue in court and to bring their case in front of a jury. Basically, Uber is saying if you don’t agree to give up your right to sue us in court, we don’t want you to use our service.

Can they enforce that?

In reality, they’d have a very difficult time. The question we’re getting now is, “What happens if I opt out of mandatory arbitration?” Well, first off, it means you’re most likely protecting your right to sue in court, which is a good thing. At the same time, you’re also taking a stance against a company and its interests. What happens then is anyone’s guess; will Uber lower your rider rating? Will they blacklist you? Will your wait time for a car increase? But the risk that a big company takes action against an individual as some form of retaliation is highly unlikely. It’s not a practical way for people or businesses to go about their time, unless extraordinary circumstances demand it.

Can I opt out?

Riders were given the opportunity to opt out of the new Terms of Service agreement at the end of December. You’ve likely accepted those terms unwittingly since then. If you want to give it a try, you can email optout@uber.com with your name and the Terms of Service you want to opt out of. Or you can send a letter to a registered agent with the same details. What that means is that you’re subject to the old Terms of Service, which does not have an effective mandatory arbitration clause. Instinctively, consumers should always err on the side of opting out of new Terms of Service agreements if they include a mandatory arbitration clause. You never want to give up your right to bring a claim against an entity. Arbitration might be faster, cheaper, but it negates your ability to get a fair hearing if that’s the route you want to take. The bottom line, whether it’s Uber or anyone else, is that you should always be aware of new Terms of Service agreements, as they could end up costing you some of your rights as a consumer.

Brett Manchel is an Associate Attorney at Levinson and Stefani.

Partial Cause v. Sole Cause: Why your insurance company can’t shift the burden to you

January 9, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Imagine going out to play a game of basketball with your crew. In the heat of the game you tear your Achilles tendon. You’re in pain, but you can rest knowing that your insurance will cover the surgery.

Six days later you have a routine and “uneventful” surgery to repair the tendon and you’re discharged on the same day. However, a couple of weeks later, and after a follow-up with your doctor, you collapse at work, go into cardiopulmonary arrest, and die.

The representative, and beneficiary, of your estate files a claim with your insurance company that purports to provide accidental death and dismemberment coverage for the company’s employees, in the amount of $92,000. However, they deny the claim because your late spouse’s coverage is limited to “bodily injuries. . . that result directly from an accident and independently of all other causes.” The insurance company argues that the basketball player’s death was not the exclusive result of the accident, but additional complications at surgery caused the death. Your representative sues the insurance company on a causation theory—but if not for the Achilles tendon accident, that required surgery, your spouse would not have died.

In a recent case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with this exact scenario. The lower court ruled in favor of the insurance company, but the 7th Circuit panel was not convinced that that was the right outcome. Judge Posner, writing for the court, explained that the evidence suggesting that the basketball player’s death was caused by a blood clot was inconclusive—it did not show that the blood clot was an independent cause, but merely a partial cause of the ball players death. The court focused on the chain of events that led to the ball player’s death. It concluded that the blood clot was “partial because the accident had to have played a role; no accident, no surgery or immobilization, hence no deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (blood clot).”

The court struck down the insurer’s arguments that the beneficiary had to prove that no other events played a role, and that the company had the “discretion to decide what evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a disability.” The court wrote that such burden of proof and discretion is illusory because it would give the insurance company unchecked carte blanche to decide whether to honor its contract.

Because the insurance company failed to make any plausible showing that the surgery, rather than the accident that necessitated the surgery, caused the basketball players death, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the judgment should have been in favor of the plaintiff beneficiary.

‘Scott’s Law’ gets an upgrade in 2017

January 3, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Most Illinois lawmakers know the story of Lt. Scott Gillen, a member of the Chicago Fire Department, who was struck and killed by a drunk driver in 2000 while assisting at a crash site on the Dan Ryan Expressway.

Gillen’s death brought renewed attention to the dangers associated with high-speed traffic conditions and the personnel who work in those conditions. Now in 2017, Scott’s Law is getting an update. It’s incumbent upon Illinois drivers to know exactly what that means.

What is Scott’s Law?

Surprisingly, few people are aware that Scott’s Law is a legal mandate requiring all Illinois drivers to, among other things, change lanes when approaching police or other emergency vehicles on the interstate. More commonly referred to as the “Move Over” law, Scott’s Law comes with strict penalties. Violations can result in stiff fines upwards of $10,000, drivers license suspension, or jail time in extreme cases. The principle is simple: When you see emergency lights, slow down and move over.

Here’s the exact language from the Illinois State Police

Scott’s Law Chapter 625 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 5/11-907(c), mandates that upon approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle, when the authorized emergency vehicle is giving a signal by displaying alternately flashing red and blue lights or amber or yellow warning lights, a person who drives an approaching vehicle:

proceed with due caution, yield the right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that of the authorized emergency vehicle, if possible with due regard to safety and traffic conditions, if on a highway having at least 4 lanes with not less than 2 lanes proceeding in the same direction as the approach vehicle.
proceed with due caution, reduce the speed of the vehicle, maintain a safe speed for road conditions, if changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.

What’s changing?

It’s simple really. As of January 1, 2017, Scott’s Law now applies to all vehicles that display flashing emergency lights, including commercial trucks and cars; the law is no longer limited to emergency response vehicles — i.e. police cruisers, ambulances, and fire trucks. If it hasn’t resonated already: slow down, change lanes, and always proceed with caution, no matter the circumstances.

A new report puts the spotlight on older teen driving behavior

October 18, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Drivers ages 18 to 20 are 1.6 times more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash than their 15 to 17-year-old counterparts, according to new statistics published by the Governor’s Highway Safety Association. The study comes in the midst of Teen Driver Safety Week, a national awareness campaign that promotes safe driving among teenage drivers.

The study from the GHSA, titled Mission Not Accomplished: Teen Safe Driving, the Next Chapter, points to teen-involved crash deaths that spiked by 10 percent in 2015, prompting the association to call on State Highway Safety Offices to monitor the patterns of teen-driving crashes more closely, especially among older teens.

The numbers for this year’s analysis, covering a decade-long range between 2005-2014, is primarily culled from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a process that records all vehicle crashes that occur in the U.S. that result in a fatality.

Among the recommendations to curb teen driving-related fatalities, as provided by the study’s authors, is a more focused approach to the Graduated Drivers Licensing (GDL) program, a three-stage process that has been noted for its ability to reduce teen crash risk by as much as 30 percent.

The GDL program is currently employed by all 50 states, but teens age out of GDL requirements once they turn 18. One in 3 teens are not licensed by then, meaning they are eligible to receive a license without going through the requisite training of those who wish to obtain one before then.

“Policy makers need to understand that reaching age 18 doesn’t necessarily equate to mental maturity — which is critical for safe driving,” said Pam Fischer, a transportation safety expert and one of the authors of the new study, in a statement.

The GHSA is hoping to expand GDL requirements to include all drivers ages 21 and under, and includes 11 policies and best practices for all states to implement. Suggestions included opportunities to provide more training for older teen drivers, high visibility enforcement, continued parental involvement, and safe driving programs at colleges.

It’s Teen Driver Safety Week

October 17, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Your kids are getting older and that means more freedom. There’s one perk that figures to be a prominent point of contention: driving.

Parents, here’s your opportunity to ease the anxiety. Through Saturday, educators are taking part in National Teen Driver Safety Week, an advocacy campaign designed to raise awareness among teen drivers about operating vehicles responsibly. The annual program began back in 2007 after a series of crashes in Pennsylvania prompted aggressive action by Congress to curb future accidents.

Since then, advocacy programs have taken a long-term approach to tackling poor habits by encouraging community-based support systems rather than using scared-straight tactics to prevent would-be drivers from making bad decisions. For years, conventional wisdom held that showing kids pictures and videos of mangled cars was a good way to prevent that.

Not so much. Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for 15–19 year olds in the U.S. There were 2,679 passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014 alone, and an estimated 123,000 teens were injured because of things like texting while driving, which accounts for thousands of preventable traffic-related fatalities each year.

Teen Driver Safety Week continues to receive a swell of support from influential figures, including endorsements from celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Jesse McCartney. Federal and local groups have also been eager to trot out new approaches to driver education by giving parents and teens alike an opportunity to ask questions or voice concerns from within a safe space.

Driver safety should be an ongoing conversation, but at the very least, you’ve got a full week when everyone is on the same page. Take advantage while you can.