Bit by a Dod

[BKM]

I was bit by a dog that was owned by a company and had surgery on my right hand (corporal tunnel) back in 1998. My lawyer and I settled the case for $63,000 back in 2001 witch I come to find out that the lawyer that I picked was very good friends with the guy who's dog that bit me. Do you think I got screwed by this lawyer or is $63000 sound about right for a dog bite. My meds were around $22,000.

[stan03]

Well, if it was the insurance company that paid the settlement then you probably got a fair deal. I am assuming that the liability limit on the policy was fairly high.

However, I would be suspicious if (1) the defendant paid the settlement out of his own pocket, or (2) the liability limit of the policy was low - like 100k or below. In either of these circumstances the cozy relationship between your lawyer and the defendant may have harmed you and benefitted the friend.

The settlement sounds fair because generally a personal injury settlement of 3x medical expenses is reasonable. However, if the injury caused you permanent and substantial loss of use of your hand then 63k may be low,

[BKM]

I'M sure the insurance company made the payment?

I would think the coverage was higher or at one million?

I was also told 3X meds, so I guess it was a fair deal?

They settled the claim on loss of fine motor skills. Would that still sound fair?

Thanks

[stan03]

Also, your lawyer may have violated a New Jersey Attorney ethics rule if he did not disclose to you the relationship with his friend. Look at this rule:

RPC 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client unless:


(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after a full disclosure of the circumstances and consultation with the client, except that a public entity cannot consent to any such representation.

(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:


(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after a full disclosure of the circumstances and consultation with the client, except that a public entity cannot consent to any such representation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.

[BKM]

Thanks for that info stan03, I guess it's to late to do anything about it? I was never informed by the lawyer about him being good friends with the owner of the company.

I only bring this up because just recently a friend of the guy who owns the company parted ways with him and ran into me and told me that they were friends and he should have never took the case and that it may have hurt me, I guess you just confirmed that for me?

Maybe he even did the right thing as 3x meds was told to me by two other people and now yourself. My lawyer never mentioned anything about 3x meds or any settlement.

I do remember the first time the insurance company only wanted to pay $40,000 out and he called me and told me that was a low number and he suggests that I refuse it and then the insurance company came back with the 63K witch he said was a good number.

I'M only confused at the part of the guys old friend that told me this, was he telling me this because he knew something was set up to benefit the owner of the company or he just knew the law and he shouldn't have taken the case?

Thanks again