Finding a good lawyer is not as easy as it may seem. Often more so than not, it is a fairly difficult task. Out there is a world filled with lawyers, and it can be fairly difficult to determine which one you should hire. This is precisely why you should throw a great deal of attention for hiring a lawyer. Especially for some legal cases which are delicate, you should dedicates your time and put in some serious effort into finding a decent lawyer and observing all the legal services marketing.
That being said, lawyers are like doctors. They specialize in certain branches on the law and they are better at certain legal issues, then it is the case with others. This basically means that even though someone might be an excellent divorce lawyer, that doesn’t mean that they can handle your case with the deals with property. This is precisely why you should take out some time to consider all your options when it comes to hiring a good lawyer. Then, of course, there are also lawyers which are bad even in their own field of expertise. But how could you chose of one lawyer if you allow yourself are not an expert in legal matters?
Well, the first thing you should have in mind is that you should do some research. First of all, do some research about the given field and area of law which concerns your particular case. Then, take some time and chose a dozen of lawyers which seemed to be experts in this area. Prepare questions for in these lawyers which are relevant and which will show their level of knowledge and expertise. Then you should make appointments with these lawyers and interview them in order to get some relevant information. After all this preparation and interviewing, you will probably be able to make a sound judgment which of these lawyers it is the most competent and the most knowledgeable, as well as most cooperative is suitable for you regarding other relevant matters such as that price and communication. When you have taken all the relevant factors into consideration you will be able to choose of a lawyer which will suit your needs and which will represent you in the best possible way in front of the court, four just give you a legal advice that you seek.
If you happen to stumble across a lawyer who is not as a good as you think a lawyer should be, do not be afraid to stand firm ground and even change your lawyer. It happens that people in all areas, take different approaches to their professional work. You all are looking for a professional, and that that is all that matters. Also, you are looking for someone who will be able to fulfill your needs and give you the best possible advice. You should be able to trust your lawyer and to work towards the same goal.
The story of the woman who sued her twelve-year-old nephew for an exuberant hug spread across the internet like wildfire last week. It seemed simple enough with clear details; the nephew who was eight years old at the time had excitedly hugged his aunt whilst telling her he loved her, and she had personally sued him for damages to her wrist.
Twitter users were universally infuriated by the seemingly harsh action, with many finding a quote from the Aunt, Jennifer Connell, on the witness stand in the Connecticut court where she spoke about her difficulty in “holding a tray of hors d’oeuvres” at a Manhattan party recently. The New York Daily News even referred to her as “the Auntie Christ”.
More Than Meets the Eye
However, is there more to this case than meets the eye? In a recent interview with CNN, Connell explained that the case was meant to be a simple homeowner’s insurance case, and that her attorney had provided her with advice and guidance regarding how the lawsuit was to be worded.
Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in insurance law, says that this scenario is “perfectly plausible”. He told the Guardian that this kind of suit is often a common occurrence if an individual finds themselves with medical bills that are not covered by their medical insurance and may be covered under homeowners’ insurance providing that liability can be proved.
Baker agrees how this story might become an internet sensation, however he stated that to him it doesn’t sound like anything other than somebody following the rules. “One must question why those are the rules”, Baker said, “but it’s hard to blame her”.
In the interview with CNN, Connell said that she adored her nephew and they would never want to hurt each other. She went on to say how the internet has an amazing amount of power to make something go viral and completely out of context. She argued that she is simply trying to pay her medical bills, not retire to some villa in the south of France.
If Connell’s insurance didn’t cover her medical bills and there was a chance that they could be covered under the homeowners insurance taken out by her nephew’s family, legal experts say that there may be more to the story than an act of material vindictiveness. Director of the insurance law center at the University of Connecticut, Professor Brendan Mather, said that it is absolutely possible to file this type of suit with no malice involved, simply to trigger coverage from homeowners insurance.
According to Maher, it’s possible to sue another person without being angry at them if they have been negligent, with the idea that they have insurance which will cover the negligent acts. The amount of $127,000 that at first seemed so punitive is more than likely to just have been an amount set by the homeowner’s insurance coverage.
According to CNN, the family remains tight knit and no bad feelings have arisen as a result of the suit. In fact, Connell reports having gone on a shopping trip recently with her nephew, to find him a Halloween costume.
Psychologists who allegedly earned millions of dollars for assisting the CIA in devising and implementing post-9/11 techniques for interrogation which critics refer to as torture are facing a lawsuit on behalf of three men, one of whom passed away in the custody of the spy agency.
Attorneys working on the case believe that a report carried out on the CIA’s interrogation tactics carried out by the Senate intelligence committee will eventually lead to their victory. A summary of this report was released in December last year. Steven Watt, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, says that the Senate torture report was the basis on which the lawsuit was filed.
Previous cases brought by the ACLU in response to the interrogation program of the CIA have failed, due to the government stating that the cases would put state secrets in jeopardy. Failed cases include a suit against a Boeing subsidiary that allegedly provided transport for torture victims, and a lawsuit against the former CIA director George Tenet by German citizen Khaled El-Masri who was unlawfully detained and allegedly subjected to torture.
Watt describes any potential similar claims by the government against the new lawsuit as absurd, saying that all of the information which the ACLU relies on for their clients’ claims is available publicly and primarily in the report by the Senate.
The two remaining survivors involved in the lawsuit are Libyan Mohammed Ahmed Bed Soud and Tanzanian Suleiman Abdullah Salim, who were never charged with any crimes. The two men say that they were detained for years at the mercy of the CIA and interrogated using the psychologists’ torture methods at CIA facilities.
Salim alleges that he was taken captive in Somalia, and taken to Afghanistan where he was held and tortured for five years. Ben Soud was kidnapped in Pakistan according to the lawsuit, and taken to Afghanistan where he was held for two years. He was then taken to Libya and imprisoned by Gadhafi’s dictatorship government until 2011.
The late Gul Rahman is the third alleged torture victim represented in the lawsuit, with damages being sued for by his estate on his behalf. 2002 Rahman died of suspected hypothermia, as a result of being shackled sitting on a cold floor without clothing. The lawsuit says that the Senate report shows that one of the psychologists was involved in the overseeing and encouraging of Rahman’s treatment.
James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen are the psychologists named in the lawsuits, and initially worked as contractors for the CIA after the events of 9/11 in order to help break down detainees. They earned $1.5 million and $1.1 million respectively, according to the report. In the report they were identified using the false names ‘Grayson Swigert’ and ‘Hammond Dunbar’.
The levels of torture alleged are horrific, with Salim alleging that once he had been taken, the CIA cut his clothes off and forced an object into his anus, causing him incredible pain. He also alleges that he was dressed in a diaper and photographed before moving to another location, where he was subjected to other torture methods such as waterboarding and beatings.
If the case is resolved in the men’s favor, they are expected to receive a significant sum based on the serious violations of human rights, according to Watt.