WHY IS SALTZ MONGELUZZI ADVERTISING? The changing face of Personal Injury Lead Generation

NeuwirthLawCase Matters, For Lawyers, Law Practice Management

I was watching Monday Night Football and Bob Mongeluzzi’s ad shows up on TV. Bob is a legend in our business and likely one of the most successful personal injury lawyers in the City of Philadelphia if not the world. However, this is the first time I have ever seen them advertise on TV. Why now? Well, I think that things have changed post-covid and with the maturation of internet ads, internet lead generation, and new players coming into the area.

First, Morgan and Morgan has made a huge ad push into Philadelphia. Often, they suffer from the same troubles as the Cheesecake Factory does or Wal-Mart. If you want to be treated like a number and don’t know where else to go, you will likely end up with Morgan and Morgan. Their size matters campaign is picking off a certain number of potential clients and this must be affecting Mongeluzzi.

I recently received a case from a disgruntled Morgan and Morgan client. It was an amusing failure to properly understand the case. The police report got the responsible or negligent party wrong and Morgan rejected the case. The lawyer rejecting it had minimal experience and was listed as a pre-trial specialist. To me, that is a lawyer who is just cutting their teeth and not really trusted to do much but reject or accept cases. I am not complaining.

However, my business is a highly competitive one and more cases coming in means you will eventually get a few good ones despite your staff’s intake errors. Plus, if you get enough cases, nobody will notice if you screwed up and missed a $25,000 legal fee. As a result of your crappy intake, nobody will notice that there is a problem with the intake, nobody will properly train the new lawyers assigned to intake, and the rot will continue throughout the firm as the new lawyers are brought through the ranks.

This must really annoy Bob Mongeluzzi. He has the chops and experience and feels like he should be getting the volume that Morgan must be seeing. It appears that now he is turning his marketing budget to address Morgan and Morgan’s ad push.  We shall see how that plays out.

Nobody likes to be a number. Nobody likes to only talk to a paralegal. I try to avoid that dynamic as much as possible. If you want to talk to me, you get me. End of story.

But, over the past five years, the lead generation business has changed dramatically. Google has entered the fray and crowded out smaller companies that were sending lawyers leads. In my business, you can pay for leads to be sent to you just like any other business. For example, if you are a roofer and want to get leads, google or facebook etc. will send you leads on prospective business clients. In personal injury, the business has morphed from using runners, who were illegally chasing ambulances to lead generation. Now, if some is searching for a personal injury lawyer, they may find me or any of my competitors.

There is still a need for a referral base of quality former clients and lawyers who know that you do good work and keep clients happy. But, there is also now a business of generating leads that is reliable and quantifiable. I expect AI will or is contributing to a growth in that business and that it will grow and change.

Want to be scared? If someone is within 30 yards of a hospital emergency room in Allentown and searches personal injury lawyer, I have a guy who will scoop up that lead and send it to my inbox. I have to pay for that lead, but still it’s pretty amazing that the internet can connect customer and professional with neither knowing each other before that moment.

 

The Trump Show: A Separate Reality

NeuwirthLawCourts, For Lawyers, In the News

I have spent my professional life in and around courtrooms.

The Court system has a simple, clear, and traditional way to deal with litigants who reject its authority, reject the good faith of its prosecutors, and reject the fairness of its judges or elected officials. So, how does the system respond? With predictable results. The system’s only response to an out-of-control litigant is to exercise its levers of power or control. That Trump cannot or will not see this is comical since he was in the seat of power once. I expect that Trump’s business will be dealt a death blow. That is the only way the judicial system can respond to this nonsense.

It is difficult to convey how outside the mainstream Trump and his lawyers’ presentation of their case has been to non-lawyers or non-litigators. Obviously, what he is doing is not normal behavior. A person involved in a lawsuit, a party, calling the process, the prosecutor, and the judge a fraud or worse is simply outrageous. Amusingly, his lawyers seem to be doing little to prevent his antics. I have to assume that they know that there is little they can do to control Trump and he is going to do what he wants to do regardless of their advice. They are getting paid and whether they are good or bad lawyers does not seem to matter very much in this case. I have two quick pieces of analysis that have not been broached on the endless shows focused on Trump’s civil case.

First, I cringe when I see Attorney Habba outside of court criticizing the judge and the process. Whether she is experienced in litigation or not, criticizing the court and the process is a rapid way to the disciplinary board and suspension of your law license. I would guess that her client requires her to go outside and bash the judge to the press to please her client. But, it is a quick way to have your license suspended. Since she is a New York barred attorney, getting your license suspended in New York is probably not too wise. Amusingly, this ain’t the TV show Suits.

Second, every time I see this sort of behavior, it does not end well for the offending party. Trump is going to get his ass handed to him by this Judge. He will get a huge fine, will have his New York business gutted or sold off and there will be very little appellate grounds to stop this sort of thing. In my world, whether you say it’s a death of 1000 cuts or giving the defendant all the rope he needs to hang himself, the outcome is the same.

One situation comes to mind that is not similar but is instructive. There is a grass roots movement of clowns who claim to be sovereign citizens and not obligated to follow the laws of the US Government or the states. When stopped by police they invoke this nonsense and are rightfully prosecuted or punished. Another similar group in New York and potentially elsewhere is the Moors. They are a grass roots group that rejects the authority of the courts over them. The Moors were an amusing nuisance in New York’s criminal courts. They would periodically get picked up for minor offenses, would spout their nonsense about rejecting the authority of the Court and promptly find themselves handcuffed and in prison for far longer than had they said they were sorry. Trump’s hubris makes this same outcome very likely. Why would a judge give him a break? It is time for the system to take back its respectability with its verdict. Politics will view the decision based on your political view, but Trump’s business is toast. To think otherwise is fantasyland thinking.

A courtroom sketch of Donald Trump on the witness stand on Monday © Elizabeth Williams/AP

NOTHING BOTHERS ME MORE THAN PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES WHO FAIL UNDER PRESSURE

NeuwirthLawBest of, In the News

Reggie Jackson at bat

No one does grace under pressure like the one and only Mr. October, Reggie Jackson.

The figure skater who falls during their routine at the Olympics or the quarterback who throws an interception or the tennis player who double faults. Why? While there is tremendous pressure on these athletes, many of us manage to perform our jobs at a high level for decades without failing under pressure. So, the pro tennis player who cannot serve under pressure is a whole lot different than me double faulting in my weekly tennis match. This is their job. They are paid crazy amounts of money to perform under pressure and to see failure there is just pathetic to me.
I would guess that the only real difference between professional lawyers, doctors, engineers, and these athletes is age and experience and the fact that 50,000 people are not watching. The number of people watching does not impress me. This is their job. They have developed into pros in that setting. However, age and years of experience may be factors that the athletes simply cannot attain. Djokovic, Federer, Serena all made a splash early, but their grinding persistent success in destroying opponents made them legends.
Many of us have immense pressure to perform on a weekly if not monthly basis. Our success in our professional lives often depends on that performance. I just finished a trial. I may win or lose but I am certainly not going to forget to prepare or quail under pressure when giving an opening statement. Pressure is a privilege said Billy Jean King. Pressure is also something to be managed and prepared for.
There are athletes who rise to the pressure and perform on the big stage. I grew up as a New York Yankee fan and the owner, George Steinbrenner, called outfielder Dave Winfield “Mr. May”, which was trolling in the worst way. This contrasted with Reggie Jackson, whose nickname was Mr. October. You want players who perform in the playoffs in October, hence Mr. May was a way of saying Winfield was one who would fail under pressure.
In the words of one Bill Belichick, head coach of the New England Patriots, Do Your Job!

THE WORST ADVICE EVER GIVEN TO A PERSONAL INJURY CLIENT

NeuwirthLawCase Matters, For Lawyers, Law Practice Management, Uncategorized

Bad advice leads to bad outcomes.

A potential client recently contacted me 22 months after an out of state car accident. The case sounded fairly easy and something I would have been interested in 22 months ago. However, when queried as to why it took 22 months to contact a lawyer, the client reported that a lawyer told them to wait until the statute of limitations was almost up before contacting a lawyer.
Now, I don’t know if this is the worst legal advice ever given to a client. But, in personal injury practice, it may qualify as such. This advice prevented the client from turning an okay or decent case into a good one and, frankly, prevented the client from having a case at all. The only “lawyer” I can think of that would provide such advice is State Farm in house counsel or some similar pathetic excuse for a practitioner. There, I said it.
There are other legendary bad pieces of legal advice, but I have not spent too much time collecting them. How about selling the fake electors scheme to trump? That may go down as a doozy. Not only did you likely get the leader of the free world convicted, but you also lost your law license and that of a bunch of other lawyers. Excellent work.

TRIAL REPORT: FEDERAL COURT BENCH TRIAL

NeuwirthLawCase Matters, Courts, Slip and Fall, Sue The City

I just finished a three-day bench trial in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA). The facts of the case in brief were that a 68-year-old woman went through a TSA checkpoint at Philadelphia International Airport, removed her shoes, and slipped and fell on the terrazzo marble-type flooring after she was cleared to pick up her belongings. The fall was captured on video. The client plainly steps off a rubber mat and her sock covered foot just slips out from under her. She breaks her knee and has surgery and lifelong pain and suffering. The defendants were the City of Philadelphia, which owns the airport, and your friends at TSA, represented by the U.S. Attorney’s office and/or the Department of Justice.

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial, so this was tried to a judge. We call these bench trials. This was my first bench trial and while it took about half the time a jury trial would have, we still got through a lot of testimony in a short period. The preparation is the same. Amusingly, the time spent on trial was very compressed because it was a bench trial. If this trial had been to a jury, it would have taken a week and a half. We worked through four defense witnesses, two plaintiff’s witnesses, two orthopedic surgeons, and two flooring experts.

A few impressions on this case. First, it is and was a strong case in a lot of respects. A fall on video in a commercial establishment is hard to rebut or dispute. There are always issues with any case that goes to trial.  Here, there were disputes between the defendants over who was responsible for the flooring and allegations that there was no notice of the slipperiness of the flooring. I don’t or didn’t care about who was the owner or possessor of the flooring, as it was not my issue.  I had an opinion on it, but it really did not change the obligation of the defendants towards my client. The notice issues were more interesting. The floor did not comply with any building codes because socks on marble is not an expected, intended, or acceptable use. Further, commercial landlords have a duty to inspect for dangers and plainly TSA did not do so. But, to sue the City requires notice and the City always argues notice. I believe that there was plenty of notice here, but it is an issue in the case. The City plainly knew that TSA was requiring people to walk in socks on terrazzo. The City’s expert and the City’s custodian both acknowledged that that was an unsafe situation that they would be concerned about. To me, the failure to investigate from there is negligence.

Amusingly, the video provided to us by TSA happened to show other younger people slipping and almost falling in their socks at the checkpoint. The younger people were able to catch themselves and my client was not because she was older. Personal injury law says you are not permitted to blame the injured person for their pre-existing conditions like age, brittle bones, etc. If you were not negligent, it would be safe for all travelers, which is the TSA mission.

Second, there were offers to settle the case which were rejected as inadequate in my opinion and were rejected with the client’s approval. So, we are rolling the dice a little here.  Educated risk taking is part of my job.

The case was also interesting because the federal government was unable to find an expert to say that the flooring was safe. The City hired an expert to say that the floor was safe for people with shoes, but that it was not safe for a person in socks. So, you have two experts saying the floor is unsafe for people in socks and no defense expert saying it is safe. Weird, right? The case should normally settle, but as I said in my opening and closing arguments, we are not dealing with normal defendants.

The FTCA says to treat TSA as any private landlord or property owner would be treated. So, no special favors or considerations because they are the feds. So, a slip and fall on video where the Ritz Carlton hotel made people enter the hotel in socks and people were slipping and falling on video is not a defensible case and would result in a large verdict. But, here, the feds have the benefit of no jury and a bunch of unusual immunities that the Ritz would not have. In reality, the Ritz would have been begging to settle the case and it would never go to trial. Here? We shall see. We must wait at least 60 days to hear from the Court on their verdict. It’s a long time to wait, but the hard work is done.

Finally, there is always the reminder to me and future clients of the cost of trial. I try about two cases a year, year in year out. Trial expenses, if you win, take a big bite out of a client’s ultimate payout. Here, I think I have spent about $15,000 or more just in experts, tech support, transcripts etc. If we lose, I eat the costs and the client gets nothing. If we win, the client pays those costs. So, in considering settlement amounts, I always explain to clients that we don’t quibble about gaps between the parties of $25,000 or less because the trial will eat that up in the blink of an eye. Nevertheless, it’s always a good reminder for me.

So, I am tired, and my office is a mess and I broke my printer and burned through a lot of paper and toner. I will let you know how things turn out.

Big Case This Week…

NeuwirthLawUncategorized

Big week here at Neuwirth Law– here’s the case we’re working on:

 

 

Judge denies summary judgment to U.S. government, in case of woman injured at TSA checkpoint

PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has denied the U.S. government’s motion for summary judgment, in response to a Delaware woman’s negligence lawsuit which contended she was injured when going through a Transportation Security Administration checkpoint at Philadelphia International Airport more than two years ago.

Mink on the Loose in Pennsylvania: Nuisance

NeuwirthLawCase Matters

Minks are a nuisance? Hold my beer…

I love a good mink story. According to the New York Post, some animal activist released 6,000 mink from a mink farm in PA. I know next to nothing about mink or minks. What I do know is that mink farming forms the basis for one of the pivotal cases in nuisance law.

I always have a few nuisance cases in my case load because they are largely indefensible and fun to work on. I currently have cases in litigation against UGI, a big gas transporter and Energy Transfer or Sunoco’s successor for being a nuisance to the community. The UGI case alleges that it operates a compressor plant that runs 24/7 compressing natural gas in northern PA and destroyed my client’s family hunting grounds as bucolic places of refuge. Bucolic is a good word. In any event, the compressor plant is not moving and nor is my client.

So, back to the minks. In this law school case, a mink farmer sued a neighboring manufacturing plant for injury to his business. Apparently, mink are anxious creatures as you or I would be if we were prey or had a future as a coat. When exposed to loud noises, the mink refuse to mate and become useless to the farmer. The case went forward and the manufacturer could not just move their plant and the minks were not changing their behavior. This is a classic case that has to go to a jury. No settlement will really be possible. The mink owner won and the manufacturer appealed, but the mink owner ultimately prevailed. Presumably, the mink owner took the verdict money and moved elsewhere, but essentially, the manufacturer’s nuisance or noise had forced the mink farmer to move.  Classic nuisance.

The interesting thing about nuisance cases is that the noisy neighbor is not going to be enough to interest a lawyer in taking your case because there is simply not enough damage to make money for the client and the lawyer. In general, if the lawyer makes money but the client does not, the client will not be happy. I have a general rule that in settlements, I will not take more as a fee than the client gets in their pocket. I don’t know if this is routine or not, but there are situations where there is a large health care lien that has to be repaid or a large litigation expense that throws the settlement out of whack. Having a happy client is an important part of running a referral-based business. In every situation where I cut my fee, the client always thanks me and appreciates it.

Influencers Gone Crazy / How it Affects the Law of Evidence:

NeuwirthLawCase Matters, Courts, For Lawyers, Product Liability

It is getting harder and harder to trust anything online these days. Be careful what you read or consume is just no longer possible. To be fooled is easy for all of us. If you are somewhat attuned to the social media world, like I am at 55 years old, it is easy to miss fakes, deepfakes, photoshops etc.  I recently saw a guy with a side hustle renting out a gulfstream jet that was under repair for influencers to use as a set showing them in their private jet on the way to fakeland. It was worth a chuckle and smh. Don’t know that abbreviation (shaking my head a/k/a people are crazy)? Suffice it to say that we will all be deceived in the future. The sheer amount of fakery out there affects perceptions of all things internet.

In Court, how a judge perceives the internet and its reliability will matter in a lot of cases.  I recently finished up a products liability case where consumer complaints about a product were a major point in my case. I was trying to establish that prior complaints meant that the company was on notice of the dangers of the product and that similar incidents had occurred.  The complaints were made online through a store’s website and responded to by the manufacturer. Many complaints were noted to be by “verified purchaser”. To me, these were admissible for a variety of reasons. To the defense, they were merely out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  That is classic hearsay and not permissible in evidence because you cannot drag the internet commenter into court to cross-examine them.  But, the law moves slowly and painfully slowly at times.   Should internet comments and reviews be admissible?  It certainly seems like they should in my case, but reliability is the lynchpin or gravamen or touchstone of evidence and admissibility.  There are ways around the rule against hearsay, but pithy internet commenter posts are amusing and often distill the problem with the product to its very essence.

Cloudy with a chance of a lawsuit?

NeuwirthLawSuing Big Box Stores

If you don’t know the children’s book Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and the movie, the townspeople never had to shop because their meals would fall from the sky fully prepared. Later on, climate change makes things dangerous. For me, the notion of things unexpectedly falling from the sky is instructive.  For no apparent reason, I have been on the receiving end of a series of claims against Home Depot and Lowe’s and other big box type stores.  The typical case goes as follows: A person goes to Lowe’s and is picking something off of a shelf at head level or higher.  There are no ladders around and customers are not permitted to be on ladders anyway.  So, the customer pulls a 2×4 or something large off the overhead shelf and Bam! something other than the 2×4 falls on them from above.  I have had two or three of these calls in the past six months and I am just one of many personal injury lawyers so it is safe to assume that this is a persistent problem. I used to have one a year, but that looks to have quadrupled by my count.

Is this a case? Of course, it is. You are there as a customer or a business invitee as we lawyers call you. The law says Home Depot has a legal responsibility to investigate and determine if there are dangers in their store. If they fail to detect the danger, they are liable to you. Further, if they created the danger, they are liable.

So, what’s the big deal? Well, often people have minimal injuries, but I was recently consulted by a client who was hit on collarbone by a falling “safety bar” as the big box store calls it. When you are injured by something called a safety bar, you can be pretty sure that that case is going to be settled or your lawyer will have a field day at a deposition. Why? Well, first, things are not supposed to fall out of the sky and hit you. Second, safety things are not supposed to hurt people. Overall, the big box retailer loses. The only question is when and for how much.

As a result of these indefensible situations, most big box retailers have pre-suit mediation programs that settle these cases. As with most clear liability cases, the injuries are what drive the value of the case. More injuries, more dollars for the client. Easy to understand. Basically, it’s a pretty safe bet for me to take clear liability cases and make sure to have real definable injuries. Real injuries are things like a broken this or nerve injury detectable on Emg etc.

Originally Published Sept 13, 2023