Do you do what is best for your clients or what is best for you wallet?
Great question. I do what is best for my client. I believe my services are valuable, but I don’t compromise the client’s case for my own good.
Ask me anything about law or just me http://formspring.me/ericurbach
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
So Garth Brooks has sued Integris Canadian Valley Hospital located in Yukon, Oklahoma, Garth’s hometown. Garth’s allegation is that he made a $500,000 donation to the hospital with the understanding that part of the hospital would be named after his late mother, Colleen, and the hospital is now refusing to do what they promised. Evidently, settlement negotiations pre-lawsuit fell through and hence, the lawsuit.
What is interesting to me is the reaction of at least one of the Yukon City Council members, John Tipps. He told FOX 25 (paraphrased) that Yukon has done a lot to promote Garth Brooks and perhaps the City should take Garth’s name off of the water tower and take his name off of the street currently named after him.
My reaction to Mr. Tipps comment is, “Are you kidding me? Hasn’t Garth done more to promote Yukon by just being from there than anything Yukon has done for Garth?” Now, I don’t pretend to know all of the history of promotion between Garth and Yukon, but the suggestion to remove Garth’s name from the water tower and the street is preposterous. What Yukon should be MORE worried about is Garth telling YUKON to remove his name from the water tower and street.
The question begs, “Why the drastic reaction?” Is it because Garth filed a lawsuit against a hospital located in Yukon (that is neither owned or operated by the City of Yukon, by the way)?
See, when people hear about a lawsuit being filed they instantly think of the Plaintiff, (Garth in this instance) calling the Defendant (the hospital) out for a fight and that the Plaintiff has done something wrong by addressing his or her grievance in court. The indication is that the parties were unable to resolve the dispute themselves, so it IS the courthouse that is the best place to resolve disagreements, not the parking lot.
I don’t know what the evidence will show, but what I do know is this lawsuit will either be settled, decided by the judge by pretrial motions, or tried (likely to a jury). It will be resolved by the best (not perfect) method the world knows to resolve disputes. The checks and balances system of judge, jury and appeals courts works and it will work in this case. Oh, and if anyone is thinking, “Yeah, well it’s not fair that just because Garth has a problem he can make the Defendant pay a bunch of money to lawyers to defend Garth’s bogus claim.” In contract cases, the winner can collect attorney fees from the loser. Again, the system works.
If you’d like to follow the Garth v. Integris case, you can do so here
Please let me know if you have any questions/comments. Would love to hear your feedback.
[video]
News broke this morning that the judge who will hear the murder trial for an OKC pharmacist, who shot and killed a person in his pharmacy during a robbery attempt, will allow cameras in the courtroom. I responded to a Tweet on the subject that the decision was not a good one, in my opinion. I was asked why on my Facebook page. Here was my response:
First, I think it is an unnecessary distraction for the jury.
Second, this case will be perceived as a case involving racial prejudices (I don’t think it should be) and my fear is it will excite people and encourage “picking a side” for the wrong reasons. Video can over sensationalize things and I don’t think this case needs to be over sensationalized. I could see taping the trial to be used for documentary purposes AFTER a verdict, but not for news channels use for daily news stories after the tape is edited, etc.
The question becomes, where do we draw the line for cameras in the courtroom? Why this case, but not the next one?
Bottom line: I don’t see the VALUE in having the cameras in the courtroom when weighed against the potential negative consequences.
What do you think?
[video]