Wills Law Firm

As a trial lawyer, I am a member of the American Association for Justice (AAJ), and recently had the opportunity to combine two of my passions - practicing law, and entrepreneruialism.  My article, "Starting Your Own Lawfirm?" appeared in the Winter 2010 edition of the AAJ New Lawyers Division Newsletter, The Sidebar.  It discusses some of the issues to consider in making the decision to open your own practice.  I encourage you to check it out. 

Last week I wrote a really interesting Brief addressing "personal jurisdiction."  For the non-lawyers out there, personal jurisdiction is one of the things the plaintiff, the person bringing bringing a civil lawsuit, must establish before the case can go forward.  Essentially, the civil defendant can force the plaintiff to prove that the court is allowed to bind the defendant to a judgment.  If not, the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. 

To show that the Court has jurisdiction and is allowed to hear the case, the plaintiff, at least in my case, must prove that the defendant was "transacting business" in the state of Ohio.  You're probably saying to yourself, "Well, that's pretty easy, right?"  Not necessarily.  The US Supreme Court has, over the course of many years, set forth a number of tests that ultimately boil down to answering this question - does the defendant have "minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?"

In my case, my client, the plaiintiff, claims the defendant broke the terms of an agreement, and is seeking to be made whole.  We, of course, are arguing that the defendant did "transact business" in Ohio and, therefore, that Ohio can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  We're still at the very early stages of litigation, but it's looking to be an exciting ride.   

Despite my recent hiatus from the blog scene, I have to comment on some great news for Ohioans. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranks Ohio as the 11th best state for small businesses and entrepeneurs. While there are, of course, critics of the Council's logic and methodology, given the current state of Ohio's economy, identifying Ohio as one of the top-15 states in which to do business can't hurt. The ranking is based on an analysis of taxes, healthcare costs, minimum wage rates, legal liability costs, internet taxes, government spending levels, and private property protection.       

Being "pro-business" could mean that Ohio fails to adequately protect its workers and residents. This is a valid concern, and one that I share. Is receipt of a positive rating for legal liability costs and minimum wage rates code for being pro-tort "reform"? I'm not sure. But I do know that Ohioans need jobs, and that the tough economic situation of the last year has taken its toll. Too often I speak to clients who are pushed into making bad decisions because they can't make ends meet. I hope that Ohio strikes a balance by providing a suitable environment for new and innovative businesses to flourish, while at the same time taking care of its workers. 

Either way, I hope that having Ohio as the 11th best state for entrepreneurs and small businesses draws innovators and jobs to Ohio. It's a great place to do businesses, and an even better place to live.   

A colleague just forwarded me this fascinating article on NPR called "The Telltale Wombs of Lewiston, Maine."  In the late-60s, Dr. Jack Wennenberg received a grant to improve the provision of medical services in the U.S.  Before trying to improve care, Wennenberg first wanted to get a handle on what care was actually being provided.  In the mid-70s, Wennenberg stumbled on Lewiston, Maine, where he discovered that by age 70, 70 percent of Lewiston women would have had a hysterectomy.  This percentage is significantly higher than other areas of the country, and Wennenberg wanted to figure out why. 

Wennenberg presented various hypothesis, from geography, to healthier vs. less-healthy populations, to physician training, to fear of lawsuits.  Ultimately, however, it came down to money.  Generally, American physicians work in a fee-for-service culture.  The more high-tech, high-priced procedures they can do, they more they will get paid.  Like any of us, they want to be busy, and they want to be paid for the services they provide.  Many would assume that more because we receive more medical care, we will be healthier.  But this is not necessarily so. 

In fact, the article describes a 25 year old woman who has undergone multiple back surgeries, and now is essentially disabled.  It also describes areas of the country where more money is spent on health care - sometimes 60 percent more.  In these areas, patients spent more time in hospitals, more time visiting specialists, and risked more exposure to medical error and side-effects.  The article concludes by noting the anti-intuitive conclusion that more medical care is not necessarily better, because much of it is the kind of care that doesn't actually help people - and that the annual cost of this extra care is $660 billion.   

How does this factor into the debate on health care reform?