Blog

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.

What happens when federal regulators give commercial drivers the benefit of the doubt?

April 14, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Allowing drivers to self-report their own medical history is a flawed concept and part of a broken system

CBS News has completed an investigation into self-reporting loopholes that are allowing drivers with medical conditions to circumvent systems designed to keep them off congested highways. The question CBS is seemingly posing: Is the system working in the best interests of safety?

The news network tracked the story of Ruthie Allen, a passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling on the Ohio interstate. The bus veered off the highway, rolled and crashed. Allen sustained a gruesome leg injury. After the crash, police discovered that the driver had been told by a medical examiner to get a sleep apnea exam. He failed to do so. He also failed to disclose the information on federal documents that helped him land the job. Sleep apnea is one of the many conditions that would have disqualified him from operating the bus.

Now in the aftermath, Allen is left with a chronic injury and a long road to recovery.

A commercial driver’s eligibility is determined by filling out a questionnaire, which is the basis for a physical performed by a Department of Transportation-certified medical professional. The examiner can range from a chiropractor to an entomologist to a sleep apnea specialist. As of now, the questionnaire relies on drivers to disclose a comprehensive account of their medical history.

But it’s what many specialists aren’t finding that led CBS to do some digging. The network ultimately uncovered that many drivers fail to disclose dangerous medical conditions that would, according to federal guidelines, prevent them from operating a commercial vehicle. Should it come as a surprise that drivers are unwilling to share details that would end up costing them a job?

Self-reporting – or failing to self-report – is a problem that regulators have continuously struggled to overcome. But it’s only getting harder as employers look to fill jobs and fill them quickly, a fact that some believe is influencing both the industry and federal oversight committees to look the other way. According to CBS, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration granted 2,390 medical exemptions in 2013-2014 for things like diabetes, seizures, and vision and hearing loss—all of which would normally prevent drivers from operating a large vehicle.

Our friend and attorney, Steve Gursten of Michigan Auto Law, was featured as part of the CBS investigation and had this to say:

“For the trucking companies, they want to look the other way, even when they know a lot of these truckers really should not be behind the wheel because they’re too dangerous for everybody else on the road. But they need to put drivers behind the wheel so they can get paid.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which maintains that it continues to overhaul a broken system to combat systemic shortcomings, bears some responsibility for the problem, too, and for people like Allen who suffer the consequences. At a time when the industry faces a record shortage of drivers, horror stories like Allen’s is giving the public renewed reason to question whether the industry is doing all it can to make safety a priority,

“You’re allowing this person, who could possibly kill people, drive a weapon on the highway,” Allen told CBS. “And it’s just not right.”

Here’s the latest list of new cars to avoid in 2016

March 25, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

It’s that time of year again

Thirteen is this year’s magic number. These are the makes and models, as gathered annually by Forbes contributor Jim Gorzelany with the help of consumer product experts, to determine the worst of the worst. This isn’t an attempt to decry the technological advances and style evolution that has reinvented the auto industry, according to Gorzelany.

“And yet the proverbial cream still rises to the top,” he says. “Some models lead while other lag with regard to their designs, measurable performance attributes, and the degree to which their buyers are ultimately satisfied.”

Gorzelany consulted with analysts from JD Power, ALG and Consumer Reports for a comprehensive overview of the woeful clunkers on the market today. Some of the things that were considered when coming up with the list: Quality and long-term reliability, performance and design, and resale value depreciation.

Safety is sometimes part of the equation, as some models carry questionable design elements that a reasonable person could see as detrimental to the overall protection of its passengers. The Dodge Journey, for example, is criticized for “poor handling, unresponsive transmission, fuel economy, rear visibility, tiny third-row seat, and its poor small-overlap frontal crash test rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),” while the Jeep Patriot had no “pros” but several “cons,” including “engine noise, acceleration, driving position, seat comfort, a too-complicated optional radio, and a poor small-overlap frontal crash test score.” These details should be cause for concern if you’re in the market looking to buy something.

Below is the complete list of cars to avoid in 2016. You can read more details about how and why each car earned such poor marks over at Forbes.

Acura RLX
Cadillac ATS
Chrysler 200
Chevrolet Suburban
Dodge Journey
Ford Fiesta
Ford Focus
Dodge Dart
Infiniti Q50
Jeep Cherokee
Jeep Compass
Jeep Patriot
Nissan Pathfinder

The prospects of illegal driving in a driverless world

March 24, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

How long before we lose the privilege of driving altogether?

Last week, Mark Goldfeder, a senior lecturer at Emory Law School, speculated that our grandchildren will conceivably live in a world where driving is not only obsolete but also illegal. We’re talking about humans, that is. If you’re a robot, then by all means have at it. After all, robots are smarter than people, right?

Goldfeder’s article for CNN.com, which has since made it to the top of my “Interesting Ideas” list, revolves around a piece of news coming out of California: a minor accident involving one of Google’s self-driving cars. The Google car, attempting to avoid sand bags in the middle of its lane, veered left and bonked into the side of a bus. It’s not the first time a Google car has been involved in an accident, but it is the first time Google’s top brass was willing to accept that the Google car should bare a sliver of responsibility for the mishap. The company’s PR team released a statement saying as much. For the naysayers, this was the perfect chance to say boo. And most of them did, even if the crash was relatively minor.

The incident is an irritating setback for Google, which, despite its goal of ridding the world of crashes, still has work to do. But for the autonomous car movement, the incident is somewhat of a milestone. You see, in order for cars to be safer than people, they have to think differently. The advantage of the robot is that it can think and analyze in a fraction of a second, and it too can learn from past experience based on algorithms as opposed to emotion or intuition. When a person is driving and reasonably expects to be involved in an imminent crash, the person has limited options: crash; avoid the crash; or choose a calculated path that’s less injurious than the initial crash threat. What do we tell our robots to do? What is reasonable?

Goldfeder addresses the “reasonable driver” standard prevalent in tort law: “Simply put, if a driver can show he took as much care as a ‘reasonable driver’ should have taken, he is generally not held liable in case of an accident.

“Until now, that just meant comparison to a reasonable person. But if a ‘driver’ can now be defined both as a ‘reasonable person’ and as a computer — one that can react on the roadway 10 times faster than the average human being — then what does it mean to say ‘reasonable driver’ anymore?”

In essence, Goldfeder argues that the future of “reasonable” driving is far more sophisticated than what we’re currently working with. Machines are smarter, faster and, based on the early statistics, much less prone to error than humans. So if a machine is effectively 10 times the safer driver, where does that leave officials who are tasked with defining what the term “reasonable” means in the future?

Goldfeder cites several numbers that prove, up to this point, that humans are responsible for thousands of preventable crashes every day. Judging by the many miles traveled by Google’s cars over the past few years, a single crash is way better than the norm (though there has been at least one time when the Google car was ticketed for driving to slow).

We’ve come to a point where it’s no longer far-fetched to consider the day when federal regulators deem human-based driving illegal altogether. Because humans, in comparison, are unsafe. Goldfeder isn’t suggesting that competent drivers are inherently dangerous, but he is suggesting that even the safest drivers are less safe than autonomous vehicles. Think of it this way: if a drunk driver is 100 times more likely to be involved in a crash than a sober driver, who’s to say the same logic shouldn’t apply to a car that can, theoretically, operate 100 times safer than a man or woman?

I’ve followed the development of driverless cars to make a few educated observations, and one of them is that “smart cars” are becoming more sophisticated, and they’re poised to assume a large role in the future of transportation. Did you hear about Dominos’ autonomous pizza delivery vehicle? Even Amazon’s rumored shipping drone could transform into an AV plan. The bigger question for us living and breathing folks isn’t if our driving skills will become obsolete, but how long before we’re ready to hand over the keys.

Non-Profit Spotlight: The Pillars of Freedom Foundation

March 18, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Rockin’ out for the Veterans on April 16

Ray Reusch hasn’t had much downtime lately. The President of The Pillars of Freedom Foundation, a private organization supporting United States veterans and First Responders, has been churning through his Rolodex to enlist donors as part of a $300,000 fundraising campaign, which would commission an 18 foot bronze statue in the Northwest suburbs. The statue, depicting the famous photo of New York City firefighters hoisting the American flag over the tattered remains of the World Trade Center, has been in the works for nearly a year. It’s easily the biggest financial endeavor of this fledgling group’s brief history.

“It’s been a rewarding experience,” says Reusch. “You really learn that there are good people out there, generous people. They know how important it is to recognize veterans and their contributions. Our goal is simply to keep building awareness, no matter how big or how small. It’s all part of the process.”

Before the statue, the foundation was probably best known for putting together modest tributes on a shoestring budget. Each Veteran’s Day, members of the organization set up flag memorials in and around the Chicago suburbs, including in front of Spring Hill Mall’s Home Depot, along Route 31 and in front of the local Denny’s. The events have steadily gained steam among followers and vets in the area (Pillars recently organized a baby shower for vets and their moms at Piece A Cake Bakery). The next event should be even better.

The foundation will host a benefit/fundraiser on April 16 at the Penny Road Pub in Barrington, IL supporting veteran awareness and recognition. Rockin’ out for the Veterans welcomes local cover band Pirate Radio and special guest/veteran Amerlia Pressely for a night that Pillar’s hopes will bring more awareness to their cause.

This registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization continues to build from the ground up, planning even more annual events in and around the Chicago area. One of the things that makes The Pillars of Freedom unique is its steady base of volunteers, who continue to help carry out tasks such as setting up flags, preparing flags, overseeing fundraising, and more.

“We may be small but we’re never short on good times,” says Reusch. “Our hope is to continue to build our base so we can provide more funding to help our armed service personnel and first responders, who, surprisingly, still don’t have the kind of support system they deserve. I think a lot of people take them for granted. It only seems right that we should show our gratitude.”

Levinson and Stefani is proud to support The Pillars of Freedom Foundation and its volunteers. Consider making a donation to support its next event, Rockin’ out for the Veterans. The bands will be performing between 6pm and midnight. Tickets can be purchased at the door or from members that are selling them for $10. Vets get in free. You can also make a donation anytime at www.pillarsoffreedomfoundation.com.