Today the internet is vast. Seemingly, it’s larger than planet Earth itself. It has been said that between 1990 and 1996 all known knowledge doubled. This is some statement. While much of this information is surely based on such occurrences as supercomputers running pi to it’s quad-zillionth decimal, even this constitutes knowledge, though most data is of a more useful and substantial type.
With such a vast “space” in which to “travel,” the net invariably attracts not only scientists, politicians, and students, but also people of a less ethical stratum: thieves. For this reason, the numbers of internet lawyers coming out of law schools are escalating each year. Internet law has taken on a new shape all of its own, by hints taken from laws ruling such bodies as the Federal Communications Center.
One of the more common laws that internet lawyers have been trained to identify and process within the courts is theft of intellectual property. Intellectual property, in a nutshell, comes down to words. While no one owns words per se, when those words come in a specific order, such as the words of a poem or novel, then this is the property of its creator. Even greater theft occurs with the illegal copying and downloading of music and other information that is sold on tapes or CD’s. In more abrupt terms, this is known as piracy.
Obscenity is yet another problem on the net. While pornography constitutes about 16% of all data on the web, very often obscenity may be found in web sites that do not warn the reader before coming into the site. For this reason, obtaining the advice of an internet lawyer may be crucial, especially if any nudity or anything that might be deemed perverse is shown.
Another recurrent situation, possibly the biggest crime on the net, for which internet lawyers are ever vigilant is spamming. Spamming is the sending of emails that are unsolicited (and usually unwanted) to businesses and individuals that are unknown to the spammers. This is a hot topic today and a source of much revenue for internet lawyers as heavy volumes of spam not only disrupt employees during working hours, but may even crash a mail server due to an excess of this spam. The laws are very clear on the subject, as set down on paper in the CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing). Since this act became law in 2004, internet lawyers have been kept busy by interpreting this law to enforce it, or on the side of the spammers, to get by it.
The last problem is both interesting yet rampant. “Cyber-Squatting” is the purchase of the name of a well-known company or product and then either utilizing this company’s name to make money or to charge the company itself for this web address, at exorbitant prices, of course. This too is being cracked down on by internet lawyers who are eager for such cases as internet law has become more clearly defined with each passing year.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/The_Internet_Lawyer_And_Cyberspace_An_Infinite_Spider-Web.php
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Internet Lawyers Websites Made More Productive
Does your firm’s website have a form link for potential legal clients to send inquires through to your law firm? If so, you may be wasting your's, or your assistant’s, time!
I'll preface this by saying that many of the Internet legal client prospects you deal with in your career will likely be good, honest people. However, it seems the inquires generated through many legal web sites cause even the best, most honest, potential clients, to either intentionally, or unintentionally, waste your time.
As a professional in this industry, your time is the one thing you can't afford to waste. If you run out of money, you can always make more. If you run out of time, all the money in the world won't help you.
So there is a good argument to be made for the notion that time is much more valuable than money.
The impersonal nature of the Internet and ‘instant response’ culture promoted by it, can be detrimental to efficient lawyer time management.
If you have a popular legal web site, you will notice that a large percentage of the inquires requesting legal advice or opinion, can never be contacted by phone, or reply back to your emails after you have sent them their requested information.
Actually, with popular legal sites these time wasters can be a very serious problem. You’ll notice I said ‘can be’ in the preceding sentence. If you follow my suggestions below, the occurrence of this happening through your site will be drastically reduced or eliminated entirely.
Averaging over 100 unique visitors per day to my Houston legal directory http://www.houston-texas-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com alone, I know my suggestions really can benefit those of you who implement them. These are not theoretical ideas, but field tested and proven techniques.
#1. Show the current average hourly fees or case legal cost vs. settlement obtained for your clients.
This one step dramatically reduces the ’dreamer/spendthrift’ type of email. It also enhances your credibility to win major settlements.
#2. All inquiry forms on your site should be set up so that if vital information is omitted, the form will remind the visitor when they try to submit it that the fields need to filled in for the form to work.
What information you want is up to you. Many times, personally, I do not require the phone number. This is because I feel that many may fear unwanted ‘sales’ calls. Plus, after all they are contacting me via the Internet vs. my toll-free phone number!
I do require the following basic information:
A. Full name
B. Address
C. Email address
D. Nature of case
Depending on the form, other information will be required. Keep in mind, these people know about you and are requesting your time. If they will NOT provide you their basic personal information, how serious can they really be?
Perhaps key to saving your valuable time, is my last suggestion: Immediately upon receipt of an inquiry from your site, you or your assistant should reply with a request for some small bit of additional information. If you do not receive a timely reply to your inquiry, why invest any more time on this inquiry?
What should you ask for depends on the type of inquire. I ask for such information as:
When the situation occurred, full extent of damages/injury, and/or have they consulted any other lawyers?
Proper time management is crucial to any successful business. Management of your Internet inquires will increase your productivity!
Until you value yourself, you won't value your time. Until you value your time, you will not do anything with It. -M Scott Peck
Copyright 2005 Promotions Unlimited - All rights reserved
Bob Schwartz is owner of websitetrafficbuilders.com, an Internet search engine optimization firm specializing in domain name registration & Internet domain website hosting. Bob received his BBA majoring in computer programming. Bob is an expert witness for major San Diego law firms, and directs a multi-state high traffic network of 15 legal directory sites.
A few of Bob's top legal directory sites are: Houston lawyers, Dallas lawyers, Los Angeles lawyers
Bob has two free link exchange programs. One is for legal related sites and the other is for real estate sites. You can also apply for very cool, and free, website awards that add credibility to your site. Email Bob if you are interested in any of these programs.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Internet_Lawyers_Websites_Made_More_Productive.php
I'll preface this by saying that many of the Internet legal client prospects you deal with in your career will likely be good, honest people. However, it seems the inquires generated through many legal web sites cause even the best, most honest, potential clients, to either intentionally, or unintentionally, waste your time.
As a professional in this industry, your time is the one thing you can't afford to waste. If you run out of money, you can always make more. If you run out of time, all the money in the world won't help you.
So there is a good argument to be made for the notion that time is much more valuable than money.
The impersonal nature of the Internet and ‘instant response’ culture promoted by it, can be detrimental to efficient lawyer time management.
If you have a popular legal web site, you will notice that a large percentage of the inquires requesting legal advice or opinion, can never be contacted by phone, or reply back to your emails after you have sent them their requested information.
Actually, with popular legal sites these time wasters can be a very serious problem. You’ll notice I said ‘can be’ in the preceding sentence. If you follow my suggestions below, the occurrence of this happening through your site will be drastically reduced or eliminated entirely.
Averaging over 100 unique visitors per day to my Houston legal directory http://www.houston-texas-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com alone, I know my suggestions really can benefit those of you who implement them. These are not theoretical ideas, but field tested and proven techniques.
#1. Show the current average hourly fees or case legal cost vs. settlement obtained for your clients.
This one step dramatically reduces the ’dreamer/spendthrift’ type of email. It also enhances your credibility to win major settlements.
#2. All inquiry forms on your site should be set up so that if vital information is omitted, the form will remind the visitor when they try to submit it that the fields need to filled in for the form to work.
What information you want is up to you. Many times, personally, I do not require the phone number. This is because I feel that many may fear unwanted ‘sales’ calls. Plus, after all they are contacting me via the Internet vs. my toll-free phone number!
I do require the following basic information:
A. Full name
B. Address
C. Email address
D. Nature of case
Depending on the form, other information will be required. Keep in mind, these people know about you and are requesting your time. If they will NOT provide you their basic personal information, how serious can they really be?
Perhaps key to saving your valuable time, is my last suggestion: Immediately upon receipt of an inquiry from your site, you or your assistant should reply with a request for some small bit of additional information. If you do not receive a timely reply to your inquiry, why invest any more time on this inquiry?
What should you ask for depends on the type of inquire. I ask for such information as:
When the situation occurred, full extent of damages/injury, and/or have they consulted any other lawyers?
Proper time management is crucial to any successful business. Management of your Internet inquires will increase your productivity!
Until you value yourself, you won't value your time. Until you value your time, you will not do anything with It. -M Scott Peck
Copyright 2005 Promotions Unlimited - All rights reserved
Bob Schwartz is owner of websitetrafficbuilders.com, an Internet search engine optimization firm specializing in domain name registration & Internet domain website hosting. Bob received his BBA majoring in computer programming. Bob is an expert witness for major San Diego law firms, and directs a multi-state high traffic network of 15 legal directory sites.
A few of Bob's top legal directory sites are: Houston lawyers, Dallas lawyers, Los Angeles lawyers
Bob has two free link exchange programs. One is for legal related sites and the other is for real estate sites. You can also apply for very cool, and free, website awards that add credibility to your site. Email Bob if you are interested in any of these programs.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Internet_Lawyers_Websites_Made_More_Productive.php
Internet Marketing For Lawyers - Advice That Counts
Lawyers face the same challenges any business does. In order to get new business they must market their services, i.e., advertise. And lawyers deal with the same marketing and advertising challenge every business does – how to beat the competition. Plus lawyers have to assume that any Internet or non-Internet marketing or advertising they do may well produce little or no results for the amount of time and money they spend -- regardless of what an outside marketing or advertising advisor may say to the contrary.
Prior to the Internet the main non-Internet marketing option or advertising choice for any lawyer was to advertise in the yellow pages. To this day the print yellow pages contain plenty of colorful, one page display ads that feature lawyers offering their services, and lawyers pay a lot for these ads. How effective these ads are is anyone’s guess -- it’s hard for your colored, one page display ad to stand out when you have 20 other lawyers doing the exact same thing! The yellow pages companies, however, continue to promote their marketing and advertising philosophy that “bigger is always better” and “everything we sell is an opportunity,” so they often present a lawyer with a non-Internet marketing and advertising solution that costs plenty but often produces little.
This line of thinking, along with the use of print yellow pages in general, has gone the way of the dinosaur at a very accelerated pace. The yellow pages in print form had their heyday for many decades, but the population now goes to the Internet for the information they seek, so most print directories are collecting dust. A lawyer who advertises in the print yellow pages may well get calls, but they’ll most likely be from vendors using the yellow pages as a cheap source of leads.
The major paid search providers (pay per click search engines) tend to offer lawyers Internet marketing and advertising solutions in a manner similar to the way the yellow pages do with their print directories. “Bigger is always better,” so rather than realistically discuss with a lawyer a pay per click Internet marketing and advertising campaign that makes financial sense and produces a decent ROI, the pay per click providers will tell the lawyer to go for as many top listing keywords (the most expensive) as their budget will permit and bid as high as they can. The lawyer may go broke in the process, but at least they’ll get exposure! Many lawyers get into pay per click as a quick way to get leads but quickly exit a month later after spending lots of money for Internet marketing and advertising results that produce nothing but expense.
While pay per click Internet marketing and advertising is the running favorite of Internet marketing advertisers worldwide, pay per click advertising for a lawyer is usually an extremely expensive proposition for what they get. How much a lawyer is willing to “pay for a lead” takes on a whole new meaning with pay per click. The cost per click for many lawyer related keywords, e.g., “personal injury lawyer,” “criminal defense lawyer,” can range from $5.00 to $70.00 per click depending on the market, and when the typical lawyer’s conversion rate (the number of clicks it takes to generate a lead) of one to two percent is factored in, the lawyer can find themselves paying upwards of $500.00 to $7,000.00 per lead, and a lead is not a client.
Part of the problem lawyers face when they work with pay per click (and this translates directly into poor conversion rates) is that (1) they spend little time creating their pay per click ads and (2) the ads direct traffic to the lawyer’s website. Any Internet marketing professional who knows something about pay per click knows you never send pay per click traffic to a website. Instead you create special pages, i.e., “landing pages” for pay per click traffic to be directed to. The landing pages perform the job of convincing traffic to do what the lawyer requires, which is normally to contact the lawyer via e-mail or by phone.
Legal Internet directories and portals offer the lawyer a potential Internet marketing and advertising option because of their popularity and enhanced Internet visibility. How effective a listing in a legal Internet directory or portal can be for a lawyer in terms of marketing, advertising and Internet exposure will depend upon the particular attributes of the legal Internet directory or portal in question. All things being equal, legal Internet directories or portals that charge a fee to be listed in them make more sense as an Internet marketing and advertising choice than similar sites that offer listings for free. The lawyer has to be particularly careful, however, when they consider advertising in legal Internet directories and portals that “look” like they offer a lot -- and a price to go with it -- but for whatever reasons simply do not produce enough leads for the amount of Internet marketing and advertising money the lawyer must spend.
Many legal Internet directories and portals exist that have a very strong Internet presence, and they are excellent resource centers for lawyers, but this does not automatically make them good places to advertise. With Internet legal portals especially it’s not how many lawyers the portal attracts but how many people the Internet legal portal attracts who are searching for legal services. People have paid thousands of dollars for advertising in Internet legal portals that have produced nothing in the way of Internet marketing and advertising results. A very wise idea for any lawyer who considers advertising in an Internet legal portal is to get some very accurate user demographics on what kind of specific traffic the Internet legal portal is actually attracting.
What is a lawyer supposed to do? Everywhere the lawyer looks, whether the marketing and advertising media is Internet or non-Internet, considerable financial risk is involved, and a guarantee that the lawyer will get good, solid results for the amount of money they spend is often hard to achieve.
Ultimately the best way for a lawyer to go with Internet marketing and advertising – the way that will ultimately get them the best long term results for the money they spend -- is to focus on getting their website to rank high in organic search results. When all things are considered, people on the Internet who search for goods and services mainly search for websites to find their answers. They may look to legal Internet directories and portals, and if they don’t find what they want they may turn to pay per click listings as a last resort (only about 30% to 40% of users bother with pay per click) but ultimately people who search the Internet are looking for websites that provide them with the answers they seek.
If a lawyer is looking for an Internet marketing and advertising solution that doesn’t require being part of the pay per click crowd, the lawyer may want to look into pay per phone call programs. Pay per phone call is like pay per click, but the lawyer does not pay for a call unless they receive one. And the costs for pay per phone call are normally substantially less that what the lawyer will pay for a click in many cases. A smart lawyer may even want to consider getting involved with several pay per phone call providers with the idea that between the providers the lawyer will receive enough leads in the aggregate to make involvement with these programs worth it.
Many of the Internet marketing and advertising solutions that a lawyer chooses to look into must be tried on a case by case basis. Absolutely nothing can be assumed. A pay per click advertising campaign that works extremely well for the lawyer with one search provider might fail miserably with another.
One last thing that a lawyer should be aware of when it comes to the Internet and a website presence is that appearances really do count. Many people have been on the Internet for 10 years and have correspondingly seen websites of all types and styles. People are used to seeing professionally designed websites. The lawyer’s website should be too.
Michael Merten is an Internet marketing professional who consults with lawyers and legal finance companies. He specializes in getting legal websites to appear in first page search results on major search engines in record time. Mr. Merten can be reached at Minnesota Internet Marketing.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Internet_Marketing_For_Lawyers_-_Advice_That_Counts.php
Prior to the Internet the main non-Internet marketing option or advertising choice for any lawyer was to advertise in the yellow pages. To this day the print yellow pages contain plenty of colorful, one page display ads that feature lawyers offering their services, and lawyers pay a lot for these ads. How effective these ads are is anyone’s guess -- it’s hard for your colored, one page display ad to stand out when you have 20 other lawyers doing the exact same thing! The yellow pages companies, however, continue to promote their marketing and advertising philosophy that “bigger is always better” and “everything we sell is an opportunity,” so they often present a lawyer with a non-Internet marketing and advertising solution that costs plenty but often produces little.
This line of thinking, along with the use of print yellow pages in general, has gone the way of the dinosaur at a very accelerated pace. The yellow pages in print form had their heyday for many decades, but the population now goes to the Internet for the information they seek, so most print directories are collecting dust. A lawyer who advertises in the print yellow pages may well get calls, but they’ll most likely be from vendors using the yellow pages as a cheap source of leads.
The major paid search providers (pay per click search engines) tend to offer lawyers Internet marketing and advertising solutions in a manner similar to the way the yellow pages do with their print directories. “Bigger is always better,” so rather than realistically discuss with a lawyer a pay per click Internet marketing and advertising campaign that makes financial sense and produces a decent ROI, the pay per click providers will tell the lawyer to go for as many top listing keywords (the most expensive) as their budget will permit and bid as high as they can. The lawyer may go broke in the process, but at least they’ll get exposure! Many lawyers get into pay per click as a quick way to get leads but quickly exit a month later after spending lots of money for Internet marketing and advertising results that produce nothing but expense.
While pay per click Internet marketing and advertising is the running favorite of Internet marketing advertisers worldwide, pay per click advertising for a lawyer is usually an extremely expensive proposition for what they get. How much a lawyer is willing to “pay for a lead” takes on a whole new meaning with pay per click. The cost per click for many lawyer related keywords, e.g., “personal injury lawyer,” “criminal defense lawyer,” can range from $5.00 to $70.00 per click depending on the market, and when the typical lawyer’s conversion rate (the number of clicks it takes to generate a lead) of one to two percent is factored in, the lawyer can find themselves paying upwards of $500.00 to $7,000.00 per lead, and a lead is not a client.
Part of the problem lawyers face when they work with pay per click (and this translates directly into poor conversion rates) is that (1) they spend little time creating their pay per click ads and (2) the ads direct traffic to the lawyer’s website. Any Internet marketing professional who knows something about pay per click knows you never send pay per click traffic to a website. Instead you create special pages, i.e., “landing pages” for pay per click traffic to be directed to. The landing pages perform the job of convincing traffic to do what the lawyer requires, which is normally to contact the lawyer via e-mail or by phone.
Legal Internet directories and portals offer the lawyer a potential Internet marketing and advertising option because of their popularity and enhanced Internet visibility. How effective a listing in a legal Internet directory or portal can be for a lawyer in terms of marketing, advertising and Internet exposure will depend upon the particular attributes of the legal Internet directory or portal in question. All things being equal, legal Internet directories or portals that charge a fee to be listed in them make more sense as an Internet marketing and advertising choice than similar sites that offer listings for free. The lawyer has to be particularly careful, however, when they consider advertising in legal Internet directories and portals that “look” like they offer a lot -- and a price to go with it -- but for whatever reasons simply do not produce enough leads for the amount of Internet marketing and advertising money the lawyer must spend.
Many legal Internet directories and portals exist that have a very strong Internet presence, and they are excellent resource centers for lawyers, but this does not automatically make them good places to advertise. With Internet legal portals especially it’s not how many lawyers the portal attracts but how many people the Internet legal portal attracts who are searching for legal services. People have paid thousands of dollars for advertising in Internet legal portals that have produced nothing in the way of Internet marketing and advertising results. A very wise idea for any lawyer who considers advertising in an Internet legal portal is to get some very accurate user demographics on what kind of specific traffic the Internet legal portal is actually attracting.
What is a lawyer supposed to do? Everywhere the lawyer looks, whether the marketing and advertising media is Internet or non-Internet, considerable financial risk is involved, and a guarantee that the lawyer will get good, solid results for the amount of money they spend is often hard to achieve.
Ultimately the best way for a lawyer to go with Internet marketing and advertising – the way that will ultimately get them the best long term results for the money they spend -- is to focus on getting their website to rank high in organic search results. When all things are considered, people on the Internet who search for goods and services mainly search for websites to find their answers. They may look to legal Internet directories and portals, and if they don’t find what they want they may turn to pay per click listings as a last resort (only about 30% to 40% of users bother with pay per click) but ultimately people who search the Internet are looking for websites that provide them with the answers they seek.
If a lawyer is looking for an Internet marketing and advertising solution that doesn’t require being part of the pay per click crowd, the lawyer may want to look into pay per phone call programs. Pay per phone call is like pay per click, but the lawyer does not pay for a call unless they receive one. And the costs for pay per phone call are normally substantially less that what the lawyer will pay for a click in many cases. A smart lawyer may even want to consider getting involved with several pay per phone call providers with the idea that between the providers the lawyer will receive enough leads in the aggregate to make involvement with these programs worth it.
Many of the Internet marketing and advertising solutions that a lawyer chooses to look into must be tried on a case by case basis. Absolutely nothing can be assumed. A pay per click advertising campaign that works extremely well for the lawyer with one search provider might fail miserably with another.
One last thing that a lawyer should be aware of when it comes to the Internet and a website presence is that appearances really do count. Many people have been on the Internet for 10 years and have correspondingly seen websites of all types and styles. People are used to seeing professionally designed websites. The lawyer’s website should be too.
Michael Merten is an Internet marketing professional who consults with lawyers and legal finance companies. He specializes in getting legal websites to appear in first page search results on major search engines in record time. Mr. Merten can be reached at Minnesota Internet Marketing.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Internet_Marketing_For_Lawyers_-_Advice_That_Counts.php
Legal Age 101: When Is It Going To Be Legal?
Legal age is an age at which a person becomes entitled under the law to engage in a particular activity or becomes responsible for a particular act.
Those acts and activities include getting married, getting a license, voting and basically anything that will make you accountable for your actions. Government sets a legal minimum age for all these.
So before you head out to town for the supposedly biggest party of the season (which will probably include one or all of the following events: bringing your folks' car and getting drunk like crazy and ending up in Vegas with some random person you're about to marry) check out the legal ages for all your needs so you don't end up in juvenile court or jail for that matter.
Here's a list of the most fundamental legal ages.
Legal Age of Candidacy
It is the legal minimum age at which a person can legally qualify to hold certain elected government offices. In many cases, it also determines the age at which a person may be granted ballot access for an election.
Legal Age of Cconsent
According to the law, when a person reaches the age of consent, persons are bound by their words and acts. There are different ages at which one acquires legal capacity to consent to marriage, to choose a guardian, to conclude a contract, and the like.
For marriage, the age may be higher for males than for females if the jurisdiction does not guarantee equal rights to men and women. Age of consent also means the age below which consent of the female to sexual intercourse is not a defense to a charge of rape.
Under common law this age was 10; state statutes in the United States generally set it between 13 and 18. Basically, legal age of consent is when you become solely responsible for your own actions. It's about taking accountability.
Legal Age of Majority
In law, the age of majority is the age at which one acquires the full legal rights of an adult. This commonly includes things such as the right to vote and the ability to make contracts.
Legal Drinking Age
Many nations have a legal drinking age, or the minimum age one must be to drink alcohol. In most countries this is 16 or 18; in the US it is 21. Some countries distinguish between drinks with fairly low alcohol-content (such as beer and wine) and stronger spirit-based drinks.
Legal Marriageable Age
It is the age wherein an individual may decide on his or her own to marry or not. It's different for most countries and the youngest so far is 16 with parental consent.
Legal Minimum Driving Age
Minimum driving age refers to the legal age after which a person can obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle. The minimum driving age varies between jurisdictions but is generally between the ages of 14 and 18.
Legal Voting Age
The voting age is the minimum legal age at which a person may vote in a governmental election. That means carrying out the right to suffrage.
Legal ages were put into law for a reason. Age comes with education and experience and who would want a reckless, drunk 13-year-old driving down our streets, right?
James Monahan is the owner and Senior Editor of TopLegalSites.com and writes expert articles about law.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Legal_Age_101_When_Is_It_Going_To_Be_Legal.php
Those acts and activities include getting married, getting a license, voting and basically anything that will make you accountable for your actions. Government sets a legal minimum age for all these.
So before you head out to town for the supposedly biggest party of the season (which will probably include one or all of the following events: bringing your folks' car and getting drunk like crazy and ending up in Vegas with some random person you're about to marry) check out the legal ages for all your needs so you don't end up in juvenile court or jail for that matter.
Here's a list of the most fundamental legal ages.
Legal Age of Candidacy
It is the legal minimum age at which a person can legally qualify to hold certain elected government offices. In many cases, it also determines the age at which a person may be granted ballot access for an election.
Legal Age of Cconsent
According to the law, when a person reaches the age of consent, persons are bound by their words and acts. There are different ages at which one acquires legal capacity to consent to marriage, to choose a guardian, to conclude a contract, and the like.
For marriage, the age may be higher for males than for females if the jurisdiction does not guarantee equal rights to men and women. Age of consent also means the age below which consent of the female to sexual intercourse is not a defense to a charge of rape.
Under common law this age was 10; state statutes in the United States generally set it between 13 and 18. Basically, legal age of consent is when you become solely responsible for your own actions. It's about taking accountability.
Legal Age of Majority
In law, the age of majority is the age at which one acquires the full legal rights of an adult. This commonly includes things such as the right to vote and the ability to make contracts.
Legal Drinking Age
Many nations have a legal drinking age, or the minimum age one must be to drink alcohol. In most countries this is 16 or 18; in the US it is 21. Some countries distinguish between drinks with fairly low alcohol-content (such as beer and wine) and stronger spirit-based drinks.
Legal Marriageable Age
It is the age wherein an individual may decide on his or her own to marry or not. It's different for most countries and the youngest so far is 16 with parental consent.
Legal Minimum Driving Age
Minimum driving age refers to the legal age after which a person can obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle. The minimum driving age varies between jurisdictions but is generally between the ages of 14 and 18.
Legal Voting Age
The voting age is the minimum legal age at which a person may vote in a governmental election. That means carrying out the right to suffrage.
Legal ages were put into law for a reason. Age comes with education and experience and who would want a reckless, drunk 13-year-old driving down our streets, right?
James Monahan is the owner and Senior Editor of TopLegalSites.com and writes expert articles about law.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Legal_Age_101_When_Is_It_Going_To_Be_Legal.php
The Juvenile Lawyer
Sadly, today many youths get into trouble with the law. In fact, in many parts of the world and in the United States itself, this trend is on the rise. While sociologists and social workers along with the police and the courts are trying to resolve the causes of youthful delinquency, once a crime has been committed it is time to contact a juvenile lawyer.
The juvenile lawyer is special in that, in addition to a degree in law, the lawyer must possess a vast amount of patience and a fine understanding of the thought patterns of teens and other children. The reasons for this are simple. Children, like their older models, adults, lie. While it’s generally more transparent when a juvenile is being dishonest, there are often extenuating circumstances for such deception, usually involving protecting a friend or family member from incarceration, and thus emboldening the child to maintain the lie at all costs.
For this reason, juvenile lawyers have the added task of determining whether their client is the true culprit, or if he or she was influenced by an adult or an older child. Further, the arrest itself is important. It is of great importance that the police follow proper procedure in all arrests. Due to the nature of arresting a youth, many police while polite, will often violate the legal rights of a child, feeling that a child is beneath such understanding or need of such procedure. It is the duty of the juvenile lawyer, subsequently, to determine if procedure was followed correctly, and if not, to document this and prove it in a court of law.
Moreover, sometimes getting at the truth is more than just sifting through a pile of police reports and ruminating upon the tangled cobweb of data. It is with the art of the interview where the juvenile lawyer either shines or falls flat on her face. This includes speaking not only with police officers, hospital personnel, witnesses, and other relevant people, but especially with discussing the situation with the child in question. This involves not only gleaning information about the case from the youth, but comforting him or her, while at the same time explaining the legal situation in terms the child can understand. In some cases, juvenile lawyers have had to explain the law in simplified terms for the minds of children as young as 9 or 10 years of age. It is no easy task, yet the juvenile lawyer also gains great joy when she can aid her clients successfully.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/The_Juvenile_Lawyer.php
The juvenile lawyer is special in that, in addition to a degree in law, the lawyer must possess a vast amount of patience and a fine understanding of the thought patterns of teens and other children. The reasons for this are simple. Children, like their older models, adults, lie. While it’s generally more transparent when a juvenile is being dishonest, there are often extenuating circumstances for such deception, usually involving protecting a friend or family member from incarceration, and thus emboldening the child to maintain the lie at all costs.
For this reason, juvenile lawyers have the added task of determining whether their client is the true culprit, or if he or she was influenced by an adult or an older child. Further, the arrest itself is important. It is of great importance that the police follow proper procedure in all arrests. Due to the nature of arresting a youth, many police while polite, will often violate the legal rights of a child, feeling that a child is beneath such understanding or need of such procedure. It is the duty of the juvenile lawyer, subsequently, to determine if procedure was followed correctly, and if not, to document this and prove it in a court of law.
Moreover, sometimes getting at the truth is more than just sifting through a pile of police reports and ruminating upon the tangled cobweb of data. It is with the art of the interview where the juvenile lawyer either shines or falls flat on her face. This includes speaking not only with police officers, hospital personnel, witnesses, and other relevant people, but especially with discussing the situation with the child in question. This involves not only gleaning information about the case from the youth, but comforting him or her, while at the same time explaining the legal situation in terms the child can understand. In some cases, juvenile lawyers have had to explain the law in simplified terms for the minds of children as young as 9 or 10 years of age. It is no easy task, yet the juvenile lawyer also gains great joy when she can aid her clients successfully.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/The_Juvenile_Lawyer.php
Brief On Jailing Child Support Debtors In Unconstitutional Debtor Prisons
I. INCARCERATION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE REMEDY TO ENFORCE A CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION AGAINST AN IMPOVERISHED AND INVOLUNTARILY UNEMPLOYED PARTY.
The issue of whether civil contempt is an appropriate remedy to enforce a child support order against a destitute party is one of first impression for both the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court. To be imprisoned for civil contempt, the contemnor must be able to perform the act required to gain his or her release. Leonard v. Leonard, 207 Tenn. 609, 341 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn. 1960) (emphasis added). In civil contempt, it is often said that the convicted person holds the keys to the jail in her own pocket. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966). The burden is on the contemnor to show inability to perform, and where the alleged contemnor has voluntarily and contumaciously brought on himself disability to obey an order or decree, he cannot avail himself of a plea of inability to obey as a defense to a charge of contempt. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 23 Tenn.App. 359, 133 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tenn.App.1939) (citations omitted).
A person who is unemployed due to a lack of education, a lack of means of transportation, a lack of required skills, and time constraints in rearing her small children is NOT “voluntarily and contumaciously” bringing unemployment on herself.[12] The trial court held “Respondent’s voluntary and willful failures or refusal to diligently seek a job or fail to keep and maintain a job though she had the ability to do so prevents her from asserting inability to pay as a defense to this contempt action.” [Order, R. 21]. That statement demonstrates the trial court’s own lack of understanding of CIVIL contempt and its abuse of discretion. In characterizing the appellant as willfully underemployed, the trial court was focusing on past behavior and attempting to punish the appellant, which are wholly inappropriate for a civil contempt hearing.
When “inability to pay” equates to “inability to secure one’s own release from jail,” then “inability to pay” unambiguously becomes an absolute defense to incarceration for civil contempt under both U.S. and Tennessee constitutional law. Leonard, supra, 207 Tenn. at 609, Shillitani, supra, 384 U.S. at 364. For a destitute person, civil contempt is an inappropriate remedy to secure payment of a child support obligation: the party cannot be coerced into paying child support that instant, because she has no funds to pay it. Under such circumstances, incarcerating the appellant, and other destitute child support debtors similarly situated, serves no purpose at all. Tennessee’s Court of Appeals lags behind the courts of our neighboring states in recognizing this fact.
The law in Alabama is well settled that imprisonment for contempt should never be imposed by a judge where the failure to pay . . ., is not from contumacy, but from inability to comply with the order. Ex parte Talbert, 419 So. 2d 240, 241 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). See also Boykin v. Boykin, 659 So. 2d 664 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). When the punishment no longer has any coercive effect, it becomes impossible to enforce. Id. Because it is impossible to coerce that which is beyond a person's power to perform, once the confinement ceases to have any coercive impact, continued imprisonment for civil contempt constitutes a violation of due process. Id. Therefore, although one may be guilty of contempt for failing to comply with a court's order imposing a child support obligation, imprisonment as a means of coercing payment, may not be imposed if there is shown a present inability to pay. Ex parte Talbert, 419 So. 2d at 241.
Savage v. Ingram, 675 So. 2d 892, __ (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (bold added).
A trial court, however, may not continue incarceration for civil contempt when the respondent lacks the ability to purge himself. Poole v. Wright, 188 Ga. 255, 258 (3 S.E.2d 731) (1939). Imprisonment under civil sanctions is always conditional and a party found in contempt may apply for release at any time upon a showing of inability to pay. Carlton v. Carlton, 44 Ga. 216, 220 (1871); see also Dan E. McConaughey, Georgia Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, §§ 14-6 (1997). As we have long held, the moment it appears that there is inability, it would clearly be the duty of the judge to discharge the party. Carlton, 44 Ga. at 220. Because the purpose of civil contempt is to provide a remedy and to obtain compliance with the trial court's orders, the justification for imprisonment is lost when that compliance is impossible. The trial court found and DHR admits that Hughes lacks the ability to purge himself because he lacks money and property and his only source of income is manual labor. Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in continuing Hughes' incarceration for civil contempt. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
Hughes v. Dept. of Human Resources, 269 Ga. 587, ___, 502 S.E.2d 233, ___ (Ga. 1998) (bold added). Incarcerating the appellant did not lead her to transfer money to the appellee, because she had no funds to transfer. Incarcerating the appellant did not coerce her into accepting employment she was then willfully refusing to accept.[13] In fact, the appellant received no job offers immediately prior to her contempt hearing, nor did she receive any offers for many months after her release from jail. The appellant acknowledges that the unreported Court of Appeals decisions cited in this brief do not serve as binding precedents for this court. In the unreported case below, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has already held that criminal contempt is an inappropriate remedy to enforce child support against an indigent party:
[T]the lower court found the Father had the ability to pay child support but did not and therefore was guilty of at least nine counts of willful contempt. After a careful review of the record, and adherence to Rule 13(d), Tenn. R. App. P., we disagree and conclude that the State has failed to meet its burden to show that the Father had the financial ability to comply with the child support order. . . . Finally, there was no proof that the Father had in his possession sufficient funds to pay the judgment against him. In fact, the evidence was that the Father had very little money. . . . In conclusion, we find that there remains a substantial and reasonable doubt that the Father was able to earn enough income or that he was in possession of sufficient funds to meet his support obligations. Thus, we find that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the Father was guilty of criminal contempt.
State ex rel. Richardson v. Richardson, No. 01-A-01-9706-CV00274 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (reprinted in the addendum filed concurrently with this brief). The time has long been overdue for the Court of Appeals to extend the ruling of Richardson to the sanction of civil contempt against indigent child support debtors.
Because this issue presents one of first impression for the Tennessee appellate courts, it is appropriate to look to guidance from other states. Following the highest court of the state of Maryland in its unanimous decision in Lynch v. Lynch, 342 Md.509, 677 A.2d 584 (1996), and its numerous progeny, the appellant invites the Tennessee Court of Appeals to resolve the issue now before the court by holding: (1) A defendant who lacks the present financial ability to comply with a child support order, whether or not that inability is purposeful, may neither be held in civil contempt nor imprisoned. Alternatively, the court may wish to hold: (2) In child support cases, the defendant's inabilty to pay precludes imprisonment for civil contempt, and an unintentional inability to pay precludes imprisonment for either civil or criminal contempt.
The Maryland high court's reasoning is particularly germane to the issue confronting the Tennessee Court of Appeals in this appeal:
[T]he goal of civil contempt proceedings, to coerce compliance with a court order entered primarily for the benefit of private parties to a suit, cannot be accomplished when the responsible party is unable, for whatever reason, to comply. The same is true in the case of court-ordered child support payments. If the responsible party does not have the money, or any means of obtaining it, payment cannot be coerced. Indeed, this is true whether the responsible party chose intentionally to frustrate the court order, as, for example, acting in bad faith, to impoverish him or herself, or whether his or her inability is unintentional. . . .Whether a defendant has failed to pay court ordered support when he or she had the ability to do so and whether that defendant has, in bad faith, caused his or her own present inability to comply, with the intent of frustrating the court order, are material, and indeed, necessary, considerations bearing on whether a defendant should be punished. Those considerations do not address whether the defendant is in civil contempt, the object of which is remedial - to force compliance. Even if the present inability to comply is the product of the defendant's bad faith, compliance still cannot be coerced by civil contempt.
Lynch v. Lynch, 342 Md.509, 521_22, 677 A.2d 584, 590 (1996).
Similarly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi noted that a public policy exception exists to the Mississippi constitutional prohibition against incarcerating someone for failing to pay a civil debt. Child support obligations and alimony are two such exceptions that may be enforced with contempt proceedings. However, even when a public policy exception is found, such as child support enforcement, “we have held that an individual must be given the opportunity to show he or she is without the present ability to discharge the obligation, and thereby avoid being held in contempt. Jones v. Hargrove, 516 So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1987).” In Re: Nichols, 749 So. 2d 68, __ (Miss. 1999). This case reflects numerous Mississippi Supreme Court precedents including Jones v. Hargrove , 516 So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1987), where the Court stated:
The law is well settled that upon establishment of a prima facie case of contempt, the defendant may avoid judgment of contempt by establishing that he is without present ability to discharge his obligation, but he has the burden of proving his inability to pay, and such a showing must be made with particularity and not in general terms. Clements v. Young , 481 So.2d 263, 271 (Miss.1985). Nothing in this opinion should be construed to challenge these basic principles. It is also a well-settled rule in this state that the court's power to commit a person to jail until he complies with the terms of a decree depends upon his present ability to comply with the decree. Wilborn v. Wilborn, 258 So. 2d 804, 805 (Miss.1972).
516 So.2d at 1357. Civil contempt is an inappropriate enforcement mechanism against impoverished and indigent parties, who lack the “present ability” to pay child support or pay a purge amount for civil contempt and secure their own release from jail. The Mississippi Supreme Court summarized this point nicely in its concluding sentence in Nichols: “The (appellees) are free to collect the judgment by execution, garnishment or any other available lawful means so long as it does not include imprisonment.” In Re: Nichols, 749 So. 2d 68, __ (Miss. 1999).
To understand why civil contempt is inappropriate to enforce child support orders upon an indigent party, consider a classic example of coercive civil contempt: the jailing of Susan McDougal for failing to answer questions from the Whitewater Special Prosecutor. In theory, Susan McDougal could have secured her own release from jail by agreeing to answer those questions. Susan McDougal theoretically had the power to obtain her own release, i.e., she had the keys to the jailhouse in her pocket. In contrast, Gwen Knox did not have the power to obtain her own release from incarceration. The only way she could secure her own release from jail in February 1999 was to pay $1,000, and she did not have access to or control over that much money. Gwen Knox was impoverished, and that is an objective fact clearly established by her affidavits and proven by events based on the length of time she remained incarcerated when she desperately wanted her freedom. See Ex parte Rojo, 925 S.W.2d 654, ___ (Tex. 1996) (citing In re Dustman, 538 S.W.2d at 410 (duration of relator's incarceration corroborates her indigency and inability to pay)).
II. THE TRIAL COURT'S PRIOR ORDERS IN THIS CASE AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED HAVE CREATED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEBTORS' PRISON REGIME
Neither the trial court nor the opposing counsel ever addressed appellant's contention that her incarceration amounted to an unlawful debtor's prison. The following quotation from the Sixth Circuit[14] summarizes succinctly the injustice visited upon the appellant and other similarly situated destitute child support debtors throughout Tennessee.
The government faulted her for not trying to make arrangements to slowly pay back the $235.00 she was ordered to pay. The government does not explain what arrangements a welfare mother with one child could make to repay a debt on a total income of $135.00 a month. The attitude and beliefs of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Kentucky notwithstanding, there are no debtor's prisons in this country. Banks v. United States, 614 F.2d 95, 100 n.13 (6th Cir., 1980).
Similarly in this case, the state's attorney faulted Ms. Knox for not trying to make arrangements to pay more child support and reduce the arrearage that she had been ordered to pay. The government did not explain what arrangements a welfare mother with three dependent children under age 5 could make to repay a debt on a total income of $55 a month.[15] The attitude and beliefs of the Child Support Enforcement attorneys notwithstanding, there can be no debtor's prisons in Anderson County or any other county in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated in Going v. Going, 148 Tenn. 522 at 552, 256 S.W. 890 at 898 (1923) that a debtor, such as Ms. Knox, cannot be imprisoned merely for failing to find work with which to pay the arrearage. And as late as 1990, this judicial prohibition of debtor prisons was endorsed and followed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals:
The State argues that under the circumstances of these cases, the respondents must show (with proof beyond their mere oral testimony) that they cannot borrow the money with which to purge themselves of the contempt. See Ex Parte Hennig, 559 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977); Ex Parte Rine, 603 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980). Our Supreme Court, however, considered and rejected that argument in Going v. Going, 148 Tenn. 522 at 552, 256 S.W. 890 at 898 (1923). In that case the court stated the proposition in this way: Some courts, indeed, have gone to the length of saying that a husband who has no property, but is able to work, must be imprisoned, the theory being that this will put the pressure on him to raise the money somehow. Relying on decisions from South Carolina, Alabama, and California, the Court in Going adopted what it called the contrary and ... better reasoned view of the question. The Court went so far as to quote with approval decisions from those other states that indicated a person could not be imprisoned merely for the failure to find work with which to pay the arrearage. State ex rel. Everson v. Gooch and State ex rel. Alderson v. Gentry, 1990 WL 3976 at p.2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).
In the appeal now before the court, the trial court declared that Ms. Knox was an able-bodied person and concluded that she was willfully underemployed.[16] Such summary conclusions by the court cannot form the basis for incarcerating someone for civil contempt. A lack of job opportunities for people without vocational or college educations is an economic reality, and no judicial fiat will cure this economic circumstance. Appellant asserts that a debtor's prison regime, in which impoverished and unemployed people are sentenced to jail for failing to pay civil debts [child support] far beyond their means, violates both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution. In addition to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the Eight Amendment also contains the Excessive Fines and Excessive Bail Clauses.[17] Together these three clauses mandate fair and just sentencing, and a debtor prison sentence is neither fair, nor just.
Furthermore, Art. I, Sect. 18 of the Tennessee Constitution proscribes the state legislature from enacting any law that would create a debtor prison. It follows that if the Tennessee legislature cannot pass any law authorizing a court to create a debtor prison regime, and Tennessee trial courts lack the inherent authority to create such a regime, then the Anderson County Juvenile Court lacked authority to create a debtor prison for Gwen Knox and abused its contempt power.
Finally, Art. I, Sect. 16 of the Tennessee Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. The Tennessee Supreme Court has frequently interpreted the Tennessee Constitution as conferring more rights upon citizens than do the similar sections of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Dusina, 764 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. 1989) (holding that our state constitution's right to jury trial is even broader than the federal constitutional right). Given the appellant lacked funds to purge herself of civil contempt, then the appellant’s eight-day incarceration was a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Art. I, Sect. 16 of the Tennessee Constitution.
In response to these arguments, the AG previously argued Ms. Knox asserts that the juvenile court's orders created an unconstitutional debtor's prison. . . . She bases her attack on what she labels the juvenile court's `summary conclusion' that she was `able-bodied' and `willfully underemployed.' [Appellee’s original brief filed in 1999 at 16]. The AG has erroneously stated the entire gist of the appellant's debtor prison argument.
A debtor prison occurs when a party owes a civil debt to another, that party lacks the income or assets to pay that debt regardless of whether the inability to pay is willful or involuntary, and a court sentences the party to prison with or without a purge clause calling for payment, which the party could not afford to pay in any event. The United States abandoned the practice of creating debtor prisons in the 1830s and 1840s, and the Tennessee Constitution contains a specific prohibition against them.
Nevertheless, the AG's cavalier attitude towards incarcerating destitute, impoverished, and indigent child support obligors has not escaped the notice of legal commentators.
The entire arena of Family Law has become a domain of Constitutional violations and usurpation of civil rights. What a normal person would consider a Debtor's Prison has been instituted. To usurp the Constitution, the courts have legislated a perversion of the law declaring contempt as the new Debtor's Prison Mantra by stating it is not a debtor's prison because the jailing for contempt can be remedied upon clearing the contempt (i.e. paying the DEBT! (aka Debtor's Prison)). One man who earns $70 a week as a street musician is in jail now and will NOT be allowed to get out unless he can come up with $28,000. [63] . . . A California appeals court also declared that some Child Support incarcerations were a violation of the 13th Amendment for involuntary servitude.[64]. . . . Nearly every state has legislation to seize bank accounts and real property without a court order (for “child” support) eliminating due process without a sworn statement that the money is owed. In child support politics, the Constitution has become passé and encumbers or impedes the cash machine that has been created. In this entire domain of “Family Law” the Constitution as we know it has ceased to exist. State judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights.[67] Many deadbeat [parents] are just plain “deadbroke”.[69] They are humiliated and bankrupted by a system that hides alimony in child support payments. . . .The deadbeat dad myth, is just that, a myth. [Non-custodial parents] want accountability and equity in a system that is both unconstitutional and out of control.[71]. [Non-custodial parents] are being destroyed by a system that seeks to squeeze every ounce of money possible before discarding them, with disdain for [their] essential roles as nurturing parents, protectors, role models, and caretakers of their children. A [non-custodial parent] in Canada (a country with similar custody policies and child support “guidelines” as the US) recently killed himself after being ordered to pay TWICE his income in support payments [72].
Footnotes: [63] Man is jailed again in Child Support battle, The [New Jersey] Star Ledger, Timothy O’Conner, March 19, 2000. [64] LLR No. 9609060.CA Moss V. Moss, September 25, 1996. [67] Goss v. State of Illinois, 312 F2d. 1279 (US App Ct, Illinois, 1963). [69] Some 'Deadbeat' Dads Are Dead Broke, David Crary, Associated Press, November 7, 1999 [71] Father’s protests deserve airing, Kathleen Parker, USA Today, November 8, 1999 [72] Anti_Male Bias in Family Courts blamed for Man’s Suicide, couldn’t afford support payments, backers say, Donna Laframboise, National Post, March 23, 2000.
Joint Statement of Dr. Richard Weiss, Director of Children’s Rights Council of Alabama, and William Wood, Coordinator for the Children’s Legal Foundation and the Justice Coalition, concerning H.R. 1488, The Hyde_Woolsey Child Support Bill, March 16, 2000, Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C., (bold added).
The demonization of noncustodial parents is used to justify all manner of inhumane treatment. Sylvia Folk, a noncustodial mother, testified before Congress that she was incarcerated for seventy-two days for nonpayment. The judge candidly acknowledged his awareness that she lacked the money to pay but vowed to, and did, hold her until the ransom was paid by her church. Ms. Folk's treatment is by no means uncommon. As Family Court Judge L. Mendel Rivers, Jr., explained: The problem is, chronic non-supporters do not have dependable jobs, nor tax refunds, nor seizable property. That's why they are chronic. . . . As cruel as it sounds, the one remedy that almost always works is incarceration. We family court judges call it the magic fountain. . . . Of course, there is no magic. The money is paid by his mother, or by the second wife, or by some other innocent who perhaps had to liquidate her life's savings.
The theory is that child support is set to meet the child's needs within the limits of the obligor's ability to pay. When the difference between theory and reality is so great that the required revenue can only be generated through medieval kidnappings for ransom, in the style of Judge Rivers, the system must ultimately collapse of its own weight. This is exactly what is happening.
Ronald K. Henry, Child Support at a Crossroads: When the Real World Intrudes Upon Academics and Advocates, 33 Family Law Quarterly 235, 240 (Spring 1999) (citations omitted) (bold added). The article goes on to describe deplorable debt collection practices, similar to those experienced by the appellant in the case at bar.
Every year the federal and state governments spend more money on child support enforcement only to report larger caseloads, backlogs, and arrearages. The collection tactics practiced for child support debt are tolerated for no other form of debt in American society, yet after every round of new coercions, we find that the problem has only worsened. We have delayed the realization that child support obligations imposed on low-income obligors are not sustainable but the truth cannot be suppressed forever. Frontline enforcement workers who begin with zeal their crusade against deadbeats end up reporting that I just couldn't stand what they were doing to people. I got a call from a homeless shelter and was told that I had put a man and . . . his four children on the street because I had put an enforcement order . . . for 50% of his income. I was devastated. That was the beginning of the end for me, because I think that was the first time I was in touch with the ramifications of what I was doing.
Ibid., at 240 - 241, (quoting former Los Angeles deputy district attorney Elisa Baker) (bold added). This law review article is a fantastic piece of forward-looking research. A copy of the law review article in its entirety was attached to the appellant’s reply brief [Reply Brief, Arch. R] submitted in 1999 and is thus contained in the archived record.
The appellant urges the Tennessee Court of Appeals to strike down the statewide practice of incarcerating indigent child support debtors as unconstitutional, before a federal court has to intervene and enforce these citizens’ FEDERAL rights against debtor prisons.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Brief_On_Jailing_Child_Support_Debtors_In_Unconstitutional_Debtor_Prisons.php
The issue of whether civil contempt is an appropriate remedy to enforce a child support order against a destitute party is one of first impression for both the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court. To be imprisoned for civil contempt, the contemnor must be able to perform the act required to gain his or her release. Leonard v. Leonard, 207 Tenn. 609, 341 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn. 1960) (emphasis added). In civil contempt, it is often said that the convicted person holds the keys to the jail in her own pocket. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966). The burden is on the contemnor to show inability to perform, and where the alleged contemnor has voluntarily and contumaciously brought on himself disability to obey an order or decree, he cannot avail himself of a plea of inability to obey as a defense to a charge of contempt. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 23 Tenn.App. 359, 133 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tenn.App.1939) (citations omitted).
A person who is unemployed due to a lack of education, a lack of means of transportation, a lack of required skills, and time constraints in rearing her small children is NOT “voluntarily and contumaciously” bringing unemployment on herself.[12] The trial court held “Respondent’s voluntary and willful failures or refusal to diligently seek a job or fail to keep and maintain a job though she had the ability to do so prevents her from asserting inability to pay as a defense to this contempt action.” [Order, R. 21]. That statement demonstrates the trial court’s own lack of understanding of CIVIL contempt and its abuse of discretion. In characterizing the appellant as willfully underemployed, the trial court was focusing on past behavior and attempting to punish the appellant, which are wholly inappropriate for a civil contempt hearing.
When “inability to pay” equates to “inability to secure one’s own release from jail,” then “inability to pay” unambiguously becomes an absolute defense to incarceration for civil contempt under both U.S. and Tennessee constitutional law. Leonard, supra, 207 Tenn. at 609, Shillitani, supra, 384 U.S. at 364. For a destitute person, civil contempt is an inappropriate remedy to secure payment of a child support obligation: the party cannot be coerced into paying child support that instant, because she has no funds to pay it. Under such circumstances, incarcerating the appellant, and other destitute child support debtors similarly situated, serves no purpose at all. Tennessee’s Court of Appeals lags behind the courts of our neighboring states in recognizing this fact.
The law in Alabama is well settled that imprisonment for contempt should never be imposed by a judge where the failure to pay . . ., is not from contumacy, but from inability to comply with the order. Ex parte Talbert, 419 So. 2d 240, 241 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). See also Boykin v. Boykin, 659 So. 2d 664 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). When the punishment no longer has any coercive effect, it becomes impossible to enforce. Id. Because it is impossible to coerce that which is beyond a person's power to perform, once the confinement ceases to have any coercive impact, continued imprisonment for civil contempt constitutes a violation of due process. Id. Therefore, although one may be guilty of contempt for failing to comply with a court's order imposing a child support obligation, imprisonment as a means of coercing payment, may not be imposed if there is shown a present inability to pay. Ex parte Talbert, 419 So. 2d at 241.
Savage v. Ingram, 675 So. 2d 892, __ (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (bold added).
A trial court, however, may not continue incarceration for civil contempt when the respondent lacks the ability to purge himself. Poole v. Wright, 188 Ga. 255, 258 (3 S.E.2d 731) (1939). Imprisonment under civil sanctions is always conditional and a party found in contempt may apply for release at any time upon a showing of inability to pay. Carlton v. Carlton, 44 Ga. 216, 220 (1871); see also Dan E. McConaughey, Georgia Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, §§ 14-6 (1997). As we have long held, the moment it appears that there is inability, it would clearly be the duty of the judge to discharge the party. Carlton, 44 Ga. at 220. Because the purpose of civil contempt is to provide a remedy and to obtain compliance with the trial court's orders, the justification for imprisonment is lost when that compliance is impossible. The trial court found and DHR admits that Hughes lacks the ability to purge himself because he lacks money and property and his only source of income is manual labor. Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in continuing Hughes' incarceration for civil contempt. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
Hughes v. Dept. of Human Resources, 269 Ga. 587, ___, 502 S.E.2d 233, ___ (Ga. 1998) (bold added). Incarcerating the appellant did not lead her to transfer money to the appellee, because she had no funds to transfer. Incarcerating the appellant did not coerce her into accepting employment she was then willfully refusing to accept.[13] In fact, the appellant received no job offers immediately prior to her contempt hearing, nor did she receive any offers for many months after her release from jail. The appellant acknowledges that the unreported Court of Appeals decisions cited in this brief do not serve as binding precedents for this court. In the unreported case below, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has already held that criminal contempt is an inappropriate remedy to enforce child support against an indigent party:
[T]the lower court found the Father had the ability to pay child support but did not and therefore was guilty of at least nine counts of willful contempt. After a careful review of the record, and adherence to Rule 13(d), Tenn. R. App. P., we disagree and conclude that the State has failed to meet its burden to show that the Father had the financial ability to comply with the child support order. . . . Finally, there was no proof that the Father had in his possession sufficient funds to pay the judgment against him. In fact, the evidence was that the Father had very little money. . . . In conclusion, we find that there remains a substantial and reasonable doubt that the Father was able to earn enough income or that he was in possession of sufficient funds to meet his support obligations. Thus, we find that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the Father was guilty of criminal contempt.
State ex rel. Richardson v. Richardson, No. 01-A-01-9706-CV00274 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (reprinted in the addendum filed concurrently with this brief). The time has long been overdue for the Court of Appeals to extend the ruling of Richardson to the sanction of civil contempt against indigent child support debtors.
Because this issue presents one of first impression for the Tennessee appellate courts, it is appropriate to look to guidance from other states. Following the highest court of the state of Maryland in its unanimous decision in Lynch v. Lynch, 342 Md.509, 677 A.2d 584 (1996), and its numerous progeny, the appellant invites the Tennessee Court of Appeals to resolve the issue now before the court by holding: (1) A defendant who lacks the present financial ability to comply with a child support order, whether or not that inability is purposeful, may neither be held in civil contempt nor imprisoned. Alternatively, the court may wish to hold: (2) In child support cases, the defendant's inabilty to pay precludes imprisonment for civil contempt, and an unintentional inability to pay precludes imprisonment for either civil or criminal contempt.
The Maryland high court's reasoning is particularly germane to the issue confronting the Tennessee Court of Appeals in this appeal:
[T]he goal of civil contempt proceedings, to coerce compliance with a court order entered primarily for the benefit of private parties to a suit, cannot be accomplished when the responsible party is unable, for whatever reason, to comply. The same is true in the case of court-ordered child support payments. If the responsible party does not have the money, or any means of obtaining it, payment cannot be coerced. Indeed, this is true whether the responsible party chose intentionally to frustrate the court order, as, for example, acting in bad faith, to impoverish him or herself, or whether his or her inability is unintentional. . . .Whether a defendant has failed to pay court ordered support when he or she had the ability to do so and whether that defendant has, in bad faith, caused his or her own present inability to comply, with the intent of frustrating the court order, are material, and indeed, necessary, considerations bearing on whether a defendant should be punished. Those considerations do not address whether the defendant is in civil contempt, the object of which is remedial - to force compliance. Even if the present inability to comply is the product of the defendant's bad faith, compliance still cannot be coerced by civil contempt.
Lynch v. Lynch, 342 Md.509, 521_22, 677 A.2d 584, 590 (1996).
Similarly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi noted that a public policy exception exists to the Mississippi constitutional prohibition against incarcerating someone for failing to pay a civil debt. Child support obligations and alimony are two such exceptions that may be enforced with contempt proceedings. However, even when a public policy exception is found, such as child support enforcement, “we have held that an individual must be given the opportunity to show he or she is without the present ability to discharge the obligation, and thereby avoid being held in contempt. Jones v. Hargrove, 516 So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1987).” In Re: Nichols, 749 So. 2d 68, __ (Miss. 1999). This case reflects numerous Mississippi Supreme Court precedents including Jones v. Hargrove , 516 So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1987), where the Court stated:
The law is well settled that upon establishment of a prima facie case of contempt, the defendant may avoid judgment of contempt by establishing that he is without present ability to discharge his obligation, but he has the burden of proving his inability to pay, and such a showing must be made with particularity and not in general terms. Clements v. Young , 481 So.2d 263, 271 (Miss.1985). Nothing in this opinion should be construed to challenge these basic principles. It is also a well-settled rule in this state that the court's power to commit a person to jail until he complies with the terms of a decree depends upon his present ability to comply with the decree. Wilborn v. Wilborn, 258 So. 2d 804, 805 (Miss.1972).
516 So.2d at 1357. Civil contempt is an inappropriate enforcement mechanism against impoverished and indigent parties, who lack the “present ability” to pay child support or pay a purge amount for civil contempt and secure their own release from jail. The Mississippi Supreme Court summarized this point nicely in its concluding sentence in Nichols: “The (appellees) are free to collect the judgment by execution, garnishment or any other available lawful means so long as it does not include imprisonment.” In Re: Nichols, 749 So. 2d 68, __ (Miss. 1999).
To understand why civil contempt is inappropriate to enforce child support orders upon an indigent party, consider a classic example of coercive civil contempt: the jailing of Susan McDougal for failing to answer questions from the Whitewater Special Prosecutor. In theory, Susan McDougal could have secured her own release from jail by agreeing to answer those questions. Susan McDougal theoretically had the power to obtain her own release, i.e., she had the keys to the jailhouse in her pocket. In contrast, Gwen Knox did not have the power to obtain her own release from incarceration. The only way she could secure her own release from jail in February 1999 was to pay $1,000, and she did not have access to or control over that much money. Gwen Knox was impoverished, and that is an objective fact clearly established by her affidavits and proven by events based on the length of time she remained incarcerated when she desperately wanted her freedom. See Ex parte Rojo, 925 S.W.2d 654, ___ (Tex. 1996) (citing In re Dustman, 538 S.W.2d at 410 (duration of relator's incarceration corroborates her indigency and inability to pay)).
II. THE TRIAL COURT'S PRIOR ORDERS IN THIS CASE AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED HAVE CREATED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEBTORS' PRISON REGIME
Neither the trial court nor the opposing counsel ever addressed appellant's contention that her incarceration amounted to an unlawful debtor's prison. The following quotation from the Sixth Circuit[14] summarizes succinctly the injustice visited upon the appellant and other similarly situated destitute child support debtors throughout Tennessee.
The government faulted her for not trying to make arrangements to slowly pay back the $235.00 she was ordered to pay. The government does not explain what arrangements a welfare mother with one child could make to repay a debt on a total income of $135.00 a month. The attitude and beliefs of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Kentucky notwithstanding, there are no debtor's prisons in this country. Banks v. United States, 614 F.2d 95, 100 n.13 (6th Cir., 1980).
Similarly in this case, the state's attorney faulted Ms. Knox for not trying to make arrangements to pay more child support and reduce the arrearage that she had been ordered to pay. The government did not explain what arrangements a welfare mother with three dependent children under age 5 could make to repay a debt on a total income of $55 a month.[15] The attitude and beliefs of the Child Support Enforcement attorneys notwithstanding, there can be no debtor's prisons in Anderson County or any other county in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated in Going v. Going, 148 Tenn. 522 at 552, 256 S.W. 890 at 898 (1923) that a debtor, such as Ms. Knox, cannot be imprisoned merely for failing to find work with which to pay the arrearage. And as late as 1990, this judicial prohibition of debtor prisons was endorsed and followed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals:
The State argues that under the circumstances of these cases, the respondents must show (with proof beyond their mere oral testimony) that they cannot borrow the money with which to purge themselves of the contempt. See Ex Parte Hennig, 559 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977); Ex Parte Rine, 603 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980). Our Supreme Court, however, considered and rejected that argument in Going v. Going, 148 Tenn. 522 at 552, 256 S.W. 890 at 898 (1923). In that case the court stated the proposition in this way: Some courts, indeed, have gone to the length of saying that a husband who has no property, but is able to work, must be imprisoned, the theory being that this will put the pressure on him to raise the money somehow. Relying on decisions from South Carolina, Alabama, and California, the Court in Going adopted what it called the contrary and ... better reasoned view of the question. The Court went so far as to quote with approval decisions from those other states that indicated a person could not be imprisoned merely for the failure to find work with which to pay the arrearage. State ex rel. Everson v. Gooch and State ex rel. Alderson v. Gentry, 1990 WL 3976 at p.2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).
In the appeal now before the court, the trial court declared that Ms. Knox was an able-bodied person and concluded that she was willfully underemployed.[16] Such summary conclusions by the court cannot form the basis for incarcerating someone for civil contempt. A lack of job opportunities for people without vocational or college educations is an economic reality, and no judicial fiat will cure this economic circumstance. Appellant asserts that a debtor's prison regime, in which impoverished and unemployed people are sentenced to jail for failing to pay civil debts [child support] far beyond their means, violates both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution. In addition to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the Eight Amendment also contains the Excessive Fines and Excessive Bail Clauses.[17] Together these three clauses mandate fair and just sentencing, and a debtor prison sentence is neither fair, nor just.
Furthermore, Art. I, Sect. 18 of the Tennessee Constitution proscribes the state legislature from enacting any law that would create a debtor prison. It follows that if the Tennessee legislature cannot pass any law authorizing a court to create a debtor prison regime, and Tennessee trial courts lack the inherent authority to create such a regime, then the Anderson County Juvenile Court lacked authority to create a debtor prison for Gwen Knox and abused its contempt power.
Finally, Art. I, Sect. 16 of the Tennessee Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. The Tennessee Supreme Court has frequently interpreted the Tennessee Constitution as conferring more rights upon citizens than do the similar sections of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Dusina, 764 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. 1989) (holding that our state constitution's right to jury trial is even broader than the federal constitutional right). Given the appellant lacked funds to purge herself of civil contempt, then the appellant’s eight-day incarceration was a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Art. I, Sect. 16 of the Tennessee Constitution.
In response to these arguments, the AG previously argued Ms. Knox asserts that the juvenile court's orders created an unconstitutional debtor's prison. . . . She bases her attack on what she labels the juvenile court's `summary conclusion' that she was `able-bodied' and `willfully underemployed.' [Appellee’s original brief filed in 1999 at 16]. The AG has erroneously stated the entire gist of the appellant's debtor prison argument.
A debtor prison occurs when a party owes a civil debt to another, that party lacks the income or assets to pay that debt regardless of whether the inability to pay is willful or involuntary, and a court sentences the party to prison with or without a purge clause calling for payment, which the party could not afford to pay in any event. The United States abandoned the practice of creating debtor prisons in the 1830s and 1840s, and the Tennessee Constitution contains a specific prohibition against them.
Nevertheless, the AG's cavalier attitude towards incarcerating destitute, impoverished, and indigent child support obligors has not escaped the notice of legal commentators.
The entire arena of Family Law has become a domain of Constitutional violations and usurpation of civil rights. What a normal person would consider a Debtor's Prison has been instituted. To usurp the Constitution, the courts have legislated a perversion of the law declaring contempt as the new Debtor's Prison Mantra by stating it is not a debtor's prison because the jailing for contempt can be remedied upon clearing the contempt (i.e. paying the DEBT! (aka Debtor's Prison)). One man who earns $70 a week as a street musician is in jail now and will NOT be allowed to get out unless he can come up with $28,000. [63] . . . A California appeals court also declared that some Child Support incarcerations were a violation of the 13th Amendment for involuntary servitude.[64]. . . . Nearly every state has legislation to seize bank accounts and real property without a court order (for “child” support) eliminating due process without a sworn statement that the money is owed. In child support politics, the Constitution has become passé and encumbers or impedes the cash machine that has been created. In this entire domain of “Family Law” the Constitution as we know it has ceased to exist. State judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights.[67] Many deadbeat [parents] are just plain “deadbroke”.[69] They are humiliated and bankrupted by a system that hides alimony in child support payments. . . .The deadbeat dad myth, is just that, a myth. [Non-custodial parents] want accountability and equity in a system that is both unconstitutional and out of control.[71]. [Non-custodial parents] are being destroyed by a system that seeks to squeeze every ounce of money possible before discarding them, with disdain for [their] essential roles as nurturing parents, protectors, role models, and caretakers of their children. A [non-custodial parent] in Canada (a country with similar custody policies and child support “guidelines” as the US) recently killed himself after being ordered to pay TWICE his income in support payments [72].
Footnotes: [63] Man is jailed again in Child Support battle, The [New Jersey] Star Ledger, Timothy O’Conner, March 19, 2000. [64] LLR No. 9609060.CA Moss V. Moss, September 25, 1996. [67] Goss v. State of Illinois, 312 F2d. 1279 (US App Ct, Illinois, 1963). [69] Some 'Deadbeat' Dads Are Dead Broke, David Crary, Associated Press, November 7, 1999 [71] Father’s protests deserve airing, Kathleen Parker, USA Today, November 8, 1999 [72] Anti_Male Bias in Family Courts blamed for Man’s Suicide, couldn’t afford support payments, backers say, Donna Laframboise, National Post, March 23, 2000.
Joint Statement of Dr. Richard Weiss, Director of Children’s Rights Council of Alabama, and William Wood, Coordinator for the Children’s Legal Foundation and the Justice Coalition, concerning H.R. 1488, The Hyde_Woolsey Child Support Bill, March 16, 2000, Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C., (bold added).
The demonization of noncustodial parents is used to justify all manner of inhumane treatment. Sylvia Folk, a noncustodial mother, testified before Congress that she was incarcerated for seventy-two days for nonpayment. The judge candidly acknowledged his awareness that she lacked the money to pay but vowed to, and did, hold her until the ransom was paid by her church. Ms. Folk's treatment is by no means uncommon. As Family Court Judge L. Mendel Rivers, Jr., explained: The problem is, chronic non-supporters do not have dependable jobs, nor tax refunds, nor seizable property. That's why they are chronic. . . . As cruel as it sounds, the one remedy that almost always works is incarceration. We family court judges call it the magic fountain. . . . Of course, there is no magic. The money is paid by his mother, or by the second wife, or by some other innocent who perhaps had to liquidate her life's savings.
The theory is that child support is set to meet the child's needs within the limits of the obligor's ability to pay. When the difference between theory and reality is so great that the required revenue can only be generated through medieval kidnappings for ransom, in the style of Judge Rivers, the system must ultimately collapse of its own weight. This is exactly what is happening.
Ronald K. Henry, Child Support at a Crossroads: When the Real World Intrudes Upon Academics and Advocates, 33 Family Law Quarterly 235, 240 (Spring 1999) (citations omitted) (bold added). The article goes on to describe deplorable debt collection practices, similar to those experienced by the appellant in the case at bar.
Every year the federal and state governments spend more money on child support enforcement only to report larger caseloads, backlogs, and arrearages. The collection tactics practiced for child support debt are tolerated for no other form of debt in American society, yet after every round of new coercions, we find that the problem has only worsened. We have delayed the realization that child support obligations imposed on low-income obligors are not sustainable but the truth cannot be suppressed forever. Frontline enforcement workers who begin with zeal their crusade against deadbeats end up reporting that I just couldn't stand what they were doing to people. I got a call from a homeless shelter and was told that I had put a man and . . . his four children on the street because I had put an enforcement order . . . for 50% of his income. I was devastated. That was the beginning of the end for me, because I think that was the first time I was in touch with the ramifications of what I was doing.
Ibid., at 240 - 241, (quoting former Los Angeles deputy district attorney Elisa Baker) (bold added). This law review article is a fantastic piece of forward-looking research. A copy of the law review article in its entirety was attached to the appellant’s reply brief [Reply Brief, Arch. R] submitted in 1999 and is thus contained in the archived record.
The appellant urges the Tennessee Court of Appeals to strike down the statewide practice of incarcerating indigent child support debtors as unconstitutional, before a federal court has to intervene and enforce these citizens’ FEDERAL rights against debtor prisons.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/Brief_On_Jailing_Child_Support_Debtors_In_Unconstitutional_Debtor_Prisons.php
How Can An Injury Lawyer Help You?
Every day, in every country, there are people getting hurt. Such is par for the human condition. Sadly, many of these injuries are brought about –directly or indirectly, by the negligence of others. When this is the case, and it is provable, then an injury lawyer is required.
Many people have thought that they could negotiate their cases themselves, without the aid of a solicitor, but this usually results in confusion and frustration. The level of bureaucracy and legal jargon that will face a person in this situation can be nightmarish. Thus, an injury lawyer is usually indispensable.
There are numerous such incidents which may require the services of an injury lawyer which are unknown to the average person. These includes –but are by no means limited to - motor collision (including incidents with pedestrians), medical malpractice, work injuries, animal attack, injury in a public place, health care personnel abuse (including in nursing homes), defective products, and even death due to incompetence or recklessness.
As mentioned before, this is only a brief list, and if it fails to describe an incident that has occurred to you, the best person to speak with would be an injury lawyer. As an added aspect of calamity that may have befallen you, consider moral defamation –whether in the form of slander (verbal defamation) or libel (written assault). These two are illegal and unethical, and so may also be pursued in a court of law. As well, false arrest is also punishable in civil court as it can damage a person’s good name.
Due to the multiplicity of personal injuries, physical and abstract, there are cadres of different types of the injury lawyer that can help you with your specific situation. Even before contacting an injury lawyer, first write down every fact that you can think of regarding the incident in question, preferably right after it has happened. As well, stay organized. Keep a copy of the police record and any other paperwork together.
When you go to see an injury lawyer for the first time, bring all of this information with you –and make sure you have copies of it all (preferably the originals of important documents like police reports and hospital bills) at your home. The fact is that the law is based on paperwork and proof – which many times amount to the same thing.
Upon speaking with a barrister, ensure that s/he has not only a good reputation, but also a goodly amount of experience. Simply ask the lawyer to detail this. S/he should have no problem with this, and if there is a problem, simply go to another lawyer. In fact, shop around even if the first lawyer seemed fine, as it’s good to get the best deal you can, right?
You should be told of impending action within no more than 2 or 3 weeks. Of course, the date that you go to court may not be for another year (another reason that you should write everything down, lest you forget some of the details that may prove valuable later). With this basic plan, you’ll be ready for whatever you need to do to win your case.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/How_Can_An_Injury_Lawyer_Help_You.php
Many people have thought that they could negotiate their cases themselves, without the aid of a solicitor, but this usually results in confusion and frustration. The level of bureaucracy and legal jargon that will face a person in this situation can be nightmarish. Thus, an injury lawyer is usually indispensable.
There are numerous such incidents which may require the services of an injury lawyer which are unknown to the average person. These includes –but are by no means limited to - motor collision (including incidents with pedestrians), medical malpractice, work injuries, animal attack, injury in a public place, health care personnel abuse (including in nursing homes), defective products, and even death due to incompetence or recklessness.
As mentioned before, this is only a brief list, and if it fails to describe an incident that has occurred to you, the best person to speak with would be an injury lawyer. As an added aspect of calamity that may have befallen you, consider moral defamation –whether in the form of slander (verbal defamation) or libel (written assault). These two are illegal and unethical, and so may also be pursued in a court of law. As well, false arrest is also punishable in civil court as it can damage a person’s good name.
Due to the multiplicity of personal injuries, physical and abstract, there are cadres of different types of the injury lawyer that can help you with your specific situation. Even before contacting an injury lawyer, first write down every fact that you can think of regarding the incident in question, preferably right after it has happened. As well, stay organized. Keep a copy of the police record and any other paperwork together.
When you go to see an injury lawyer for the first time, bring all of this information with you –and make sure you have copies of it all (preferably the originals of important documents like police reports and hospital bills) at your home. The fact is that the law is based on paperwork and proof – which many times amount to the same thing.
Upon speaking with a barrister, ensure that s/he has not only a good reputation, but also a goodly amount of experience. Simply ask the lawyer to detail this. S/he should have no problem with this, and if there is a problem, simply go to another lawyer. In fact, shop around even if the first lawyer seemed fine, as it’s good to get the best deal you can, right?
You should be told of impending action within no more than 2 or 3 weeks. Of course, the date that you go to court may not be for another year (another reason that you should write everything down, lest you forget some of the details that may prove valuable later). With this basic plan, you’ll be ready for whatever you need to do to win your case.
http://www.paralegalcoursesonline.com/Articles/How_Can_An_Injury_Lawyer_Help_You.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)