Here is another video clip from Good Morning America about Lisa Steed.
Featured Posts
-
What should I do with my settlement money?
So you have settled your case. What do you do now?
-
What Is Excessive Force?
Have you ever wondered about the legal definition of excessive force? Read this article.
-
News Flash: Todd May'>
Here is the story of one of our clients who was beaten by the police.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Good Morning America: Lisa Steed
Today Show: Lisa Steed
You may have seen us in the news recently. Just this morning, we were on the today show talking about the Lisa Steed case.
Watch the clip to see more.
There is a new blog post coming on this, we promise.
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
Friday, November 9, 2012
What should I do with my settlement?
The day that you settle your lawsuit can be a great day. While winning a lawsuit might not solve your financial problems, being reimbursed for your losses can certainly make these problems easier to handle. However, you can get a little overwhelmed if you receive a large sum of money.
If you don’t know what to do with your settlement, here is a list of the most common suggestions we give our clients:
Pay your medical bills. After you have been injured, medical bills can pile up quickly. Luckily, if you have won or settled your lawsuit, you will likely be compensated for your damages. This may seem like an obvious suggestion, but this the best thing to do after you have received your settlement. Also, you may want to save some money so you will be able to pay for any future medical bills.
Use it to purchase things you need. Yes, everyone uses their money to buy the things they need; you can, however, have vastly different needs after you have been permanently injured. For example, we have had many clients in the past who, unfortunately, found themselves severely disabled, so they needed special modifications to their homes and cars. Investments like this can be invaluable to you if you are permanently injured.
Invest the money in your education. An education can be a life-changing thing. Even if you have already received an education, going back to school can really change your circumstances. Let’s say that your current job aggravates your injuries—or if you find that you are unhappy with your current employment situation—if you have enough money from your settlement, you will have the luxury of investing in an education or re-education.
Consider putting it into an annuity or structured settlement. Sometimes, if you have a large enough settlement, you will have the option to structure the settlement so you can get the payment in small sums of money over a long period of time. The great thing about this is that you can structure it almost any way you want. A structure can be set up so you receivemoney as frequently, and for however long, you want. Qualified structures can even be set up to accommodate for your Medicaid benefits.
Annuities and structured settlements can be a great thing! Even though you may not get all of your money up front, it can provide a steady income for as long as it is available. It also prevents friends or family members from “borrowing” money from you and spending away your settlement.
Save or invest your money wisely. The most important thing to keep in mind when it comes to your settlement is that you need to keep it safe. Always be aware of people asking for money or trying to offer you a deal to invest your settlement. They may or may not have good intentions, so be sure to do your research before you make any moves.
It is also important to mention that if you have entered into a structured settlement, people might offer to pay you a lump sum of money for it if they can have the full amount. This is NEVER a good idea. When you enter into this kind of agreement, you will get pennies-on-the-dollar of what you were originally owed. This means that the company that bought your annuity gets a large profit off of you.
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
Friday, October 12, 2012
What is Excessive Force?
We talk a lot about civil rights on this blog. Heck, we talk a lot about our client’s civil rights, and the majority of these cases have an awful lot to do with excessive force. This is a subject that our attorneys speak about regularly at seminars.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees our rights to not have our property searched or be arrested—or seized—without a warrant, our permission, or probable cause. It definitely allows room for force to be used, if necessary, for an arrest or search, however, it may not be excessive.
Excessive force is often a subject of confusion for a lot of people. Many people mistakenly think that if a crime was committed, the police can always use force. This is simply not true. What people often fail to recognize is that suspects of crimes have rights as well. On the other hand, people often think there was excessive force when any force was used. This is also incorrect. The law is that “not every push and shove is a constitutional violation” . However, if force is used, it must be reasonable for the situation.
Want to know more? Here are some general guidelines for determining if force is excessive:
First and foremost, there are limited situations where the use of force is reasonable. This is a pretty obvious point, however, just to clarify force can be used if, and only if, the suspect has or is (1) committing a crime, (2) dangerous, (3) resisting arrest and/or (4) fleeing. The severity of each of these factors must also be considered when force is used, which brings us to our next point.
The force must be reasonable at that precise moment. This means two things. The first is that the amount of force used must be equal to the infraction being committed. Secondly, anything that happened before the moment the force was used should not have any bearing on the amount of force that is being used when it is applied. For example, even if a suspect was causing a huge disturbance before the police showed up and the police decide that he needs to be arrested and he or she resists or even quietly submits, more force than necessary can’t be used. This brings us to the last point.
Force may not be used on someone who is restrained or is quietly submitting. There is absolutely no reason that force should be used on someone who the police have securely under arrest. This one is a no-brainer, but it still happens. When a suspect who is in the control of the police and is no longer resisting is being beaten or kicked, it is almost always excessive.
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
Friday, September 28, 2012
News Flash: Todd May
Often, many of the world’s injustices go unnoticed. Luckily, over the last few weeks one of these injustices was noticed. If you have been watching the local news, you may have seen some of these stories, including the reports about one of our clients whose civil rights were severely violated. He ended up paying dearly for it.
Ogden resident, Todd May, was in his car following a woman he had recently met. They were headed to his office so Todd could help her with some car problems she was having. On the way there, a police officer pulled Todd over for following the woman too closely. The woman, who turned out to be a confidential informant for the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, was also questioned and the officer claimed that she said that she thought Todd had drugs on him. The officer asked Todd if he had any illegal drugs, to which he replied no.
It is important to clarify that at this point, the officer told Todd that he was not under arrest. He was told to take off his shoes so he could be searched. Todd had a prescription pill for narcolepsy that he kept in his shoe so it would not get lost or stolen. As Todd took off his shoe, he took the pill and swallowed it. The officer reacted by yelling at Todd to spit out the pill. This officer then began to grab Todd around the neck, and other officers joined in, piling on top of him, putting him in a chokehold, violently punching him eight or more times in the face and back, and Tasering him at least twice. As a result, Todd suffered a concussion and a mild brain injury.
This story, which caught the attention of local papers and news stations like KSL and Chanel 2, illustrates the serious consequences to the public when officers use excessive force.
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
Ogden resident, Todd May, was in his car following a woman he had recently met. They were headed to his office so Todd could help her with some car problems she was having. On the way there, a police officer pulled Todd over for following the woman too closely. The woman, who turned out to be a confidential informant for the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, was also questioned and the officer claimed that she said that she thought Todd had drugs on him. The officer asked Todd if he had any illegal drugs, to which he replied no.
 |
| Photo from Deseret News, Utah |
It is important to clarify that at this point, the officer told Todd that he was not under arrest. He was told to take off his shoes so he could be searched. Todd had a prescription pill for narcolepsy that he kept in his shoe so it would not get lost or stolen. As Todd took off his shoe, he took the pill and swallowed it. The officer reacted by yelling at Todd to spit out the pill. This officer then began to grab Todd around the neck, and other officers joined in, piling on top of him, putting him in a chokehold, violently punching him eight or more times in the face and back, and Tasering him at least twice. As a result, Todd suffered a concussion and a mild brain injury.
This story, which caught the attention of local papers and news stations like KSL and Chanel 2, illustrates the serious consequences to the public when officers use excessive force.
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
Friday, September 7, 2012
Absolute Immunity
Recently there have been stories in the news about a Justice Court Judge for Saratoga Springs and West Valley, Utah, appealing a reprimand for two incidents where he was found to have violated the civil rights of two women on separate events.
The first case began in May, 2009, in West Valley where Barbara Acord was cited for not having proof of insurance or registration. She was able to provide proof of insurance, however, her lack of registration prompted the court to send her a delinquency notice. She called them to set up a hearing for the same day, but when she called back to let the court know that she would not be coming in, the judge issued a $10,000, cash only warrant. This was a shockingly high price to pay for a small offense.
The next case is no less shocking.
It started when a man left his dog in the care of a friend while he was out of town. During that time the dog got loose, and was picked up. Most of the time this would simply result in a fine. Unfortunately, this was not most of the time. Instead they were required to report to the judge's court where they tried to bully him into pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge that would have resulted in a criminal record, a few-thousand dollars in fines, and probation.
After a few confrontational court appearances, Elaine Damron, the man's mother, was justifiably concerned. She decided to take matters into her own hands and record audio of the proceeding. A court volunteer noticed this and asked her to stop her recording, which she did. She then put the phone in her purse, pulled it out to check to make sure that it was turned off, and put it in her purse again. The prosecutor was informed that the proceedings were being recorded, and told the judge, who promptly had Ms. Damron detained, had her phone taken away without a warrant in order to be searched, and had her spend 24 hours in jail, all without having a proper trial.
Right now you might be thinking that this would be cause for a civil rights lawsuit. Unfortunately, you are wrong. Judges are protected from pretty much any civil lawsuit by something called absolute immunity. This is a kind of legal immunity which protects a judge from lawsuits for any judicial conduct regardless of how incompetent, negligent or malicious their conduct might be. For example, a judge is immune even if he convicts someone for a non-existent crime because convicting someone of a crime is a judicial act. However, a judge is not immune for non judicial acts such as ordering a courthouse sandwich seller to be cuffed for selling bad coffee.
Absolute immunity makes things very difficult for people like Ms. Damron and Ms. Acord whose rights were unjustifiably violated. Thankfully, judicial immunity does not protect a judge from being susceptible to reprimands by higher courts for ethics violations.
The judge is currently appealing the reprimand for the incident with Ms. Acord to the Utah Supreme Court. He stated, “My conduct, at worst, was accidental. Even in decisions this court handed down, you said judges are human. I added an extra zero. I put a comma in the wrong spot. I don't know what happened.”
In this case, Judge Claudia Laycock of the 4th District Court, overturned the contempt citation for Ms. Damron and wrote an opinion stating that "[The judge] failed to afford Ms. Damron the due process required. … [The judge's] error was egregious and its consequences were severe." She also went on to say that the judge’s testimony “lacked credibility” which is a polite way of saying that she did not believe him.
While the consequences for the judge's misconduct are far less than ideal, it is good to see that these things are being monitored and action is being taken.
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
The first case began in May, 2009, in West Valley where Barbara Acord was cited for not having proof of insurance or registration. She was able to provide proof of insurance, however, her lack of registration prompted the court to send her a delinquency notice. She called them to set up a hearing for the same day, but when she called back to let the court know that she would not be coming in, the judge issued a $10,000, cash only warrant. This was a shockingly high price to pay for a small offense.
The next case is no less shocking.
It started when a man left his dog in the care of a friend while he was out of town. During that time the dog got loose, and was picked up. Most of the time this would simply result in a fine. Unfortunately, this was not most of the time. Instead they were required to report to the judge's court where they tried to bully him into pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge that would have resulted in a criminal record, a few-thousand dollars in fines, and probation.
After a few confrontational court appearances, Elaine Damron, the man's mother, was justifiably concerned. She decided to take matters into her own hands and record audio of the proceeding. A court volunteer noticed this and asked her to stop her recording, which she did. She then put the phone in her purse, pulled it out to check to make sure that it was turned off, and put it in her purse again. The prosecutor was informed that the proceedings were being recorded, and told the judge, who promptly had Ms. Damron detained, had her phone taken away without a warrant in order to be searched, and had her spend 24 hours in jail, all without having a proper trial.
Right now you might be thinking that this would be cause for a civil rights lawsuit. Unfortunately, you are wrong. Judges are protected from pretty much any civil lawsuit by something called absolute immunity. This is a kind of legal immunity which protects a judge from lawsuits for any judicial conduct regardless of how incompetent, negligent or malicious their conduct might be. For example, a judge is immune even if he convicts someone for a non-existent crime because convicting someone of a crime is a judicial act. However, a judge is not immune for non judicial acts such as ordering a courthouse sandwich seller to be cuffed for selling bad coffee.
Absolute immunity makes things very difficult for people like Ms. Damron and Ms. Acord whose rights were unjustifiably violated. Thankfully, judicial immunity does not protect a judge from being susceptible to reprimands by higher courts for ethics violations.
The judge is currently appealing the reprimand for the incident with Ms. Acord to the Utah Supreme Court. He stated, “My conduct, at worst, was accidental. Even in decisions this court handed down, you said judges are human. I added an extra zero. I put a comma in the wrong spot. I don't know what happened.”
In this case, Judge Claudia Laycock of the 4th District Court, overturned the contempt citation for Ms. Damron and wrote an opinion stating that "[The judge] failed to afford Ms. Damron the due process required. … [The judge's] error was egregious and its consequences were severe." She also went on to say that the judge’s testimony “lacked credibility” which is a polite way of saying that she did not believe him.
While the consequences for the judge's misconduct are far less than ideal, it is good to see that these things are being monitored and action is being taken.
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
Friday, August 31, 2012
As Seen On TV: Suits
It's almost September and our favorite summer TV shows are ending. Even though the fall season is starting, we still need a little time to recover from the drama of the summer season, particularly from the show Suits.
This is a fairly new legal drama on the USA Network. It was a long wait for the second season, and it did not disappoint. The show is about Mike Ross, a tortured genius who has always wanted to be a lawyer but couldn’t because of some unfortunate circumstances in his life. Since he wasn’t able to go to law school, he illegally takes the LSAT exam to make money so he can take care of his grandmother. Mike gets down on his luck and needs money. His n’er do well friend, Trevor, convinces him to run drugs to a client at a hotel but this drug run turns out to be a sting operation. Mike runs away and ends up in a job interview with Harvey Specter, a talented, ruthless and charming senior partner for Pearson Hardman. Harvey hires Mike on the spot despite Mike not having a law degree after he impresses Harvey with his near encyclopedic knowledge of the law.
 |
| "Suits" season one poster. USA Network |
While this show is interesting and constantly has you on the edge of your seat, like many other shows, it isn’t very true to life. The most obvious problem with this show are the serious ethics concerns. Mike, as much as we like him, is not really a lawyer. Pearson Hardman would open themselves up to legal malpractice lawsuits if that information came out and the people who knew about it would probably lose their license to practice law (i.e. Jessica and Harvey). In reality, Pearson Hardman would go careening into the ground faster than Dewey & LeBoeuf.
However, let’s say for argument’s sake that Mike is a lawyer and Pearson Hardman wouldn't be facing massive ethical concerns. The lawyers in this show are ruthless, cutthroat even. They bury the opposing side in paperwork; talk to the opposing side's clients without counsel present; and they often make decisions that protect the firm’s interests and not the interests of their clients.
There are some things about this show, however, that are accurate. For instance, this show accurately illustrates what it would be like to work in a large corporate law firm. These huge firms are well designed to meet the needs of large corporations, like the ones portrayed in the show, as opposed to individuals or smaller companies.
The structure of Pearson Hardman is also similar to other law firms of the same size. These firms have senior partners that hold stock in the company like Harvey and Jessica; junior partners like Louis; and entry-level associate lawyers like Mike (or rather, not like Mike since he isn’t really a lawyer). It wouldn’t be hard to believe that these lawyers probably have a massive workload (especially the associates), work incredibly long hours, and make the money to prove it.
While the show has sketchy characters and some Damages-style ethics, it's really a gripping show. It is hard to imagine Pearson Hardman without all of its secrets. Among other things you will always wonder if Mike will be found out or whether or not the seat of power will be transferred from the all-powerful Jessica Pearson back to the dishonest Daniel Hardman. We can hardly wait for the next season!
Robert B. Sykes and Associates
