A car accident lawyer in Opelousas can help

Finding a car accident lawyer has become easy and convenient for all with constant access to the internet.

Whenever one is involved in an unpleasant car accident then it is as if everything and life itself comes to a standstill. Even if the injuries are not serious, the shock and trauma of the accident are too much to deal with and maybe one would require a few days at home, in rest to deal with the sudden changes. One may be thankful that one’s injuries were not very serious but at the same point one should not ignore the legal aspect of the incident. One may require a few days to get back on track but after that one should consult an experienced car accident lawyer in the city and ensure that a legal suit is filed against the other party involved in the car accident. Today one can find the best and the most reputed car accident lawyer Opelousas thanks to the internet and the constantly developing web technology. y.

Consult a well-known family law firm

One should only consult an experienced and reputed car accident attorney. One is sure to find one such well-known and well trained lawyer with any of the reputed family law firms in the city. Finding the best and the most popular family law firms in any city is no big deal today. A simple online search will yield the names of the best and the most well-known family law firms in town and this information is displayed along with the website addresses of the law firms. Once the website addresses are in hand then half the job is already done. All the remains to be done is to browse the websites of the popular law firms, check out the services offered by them, check for qualifications of the lawyers and accreditation of the law firm, if any and then compare the services.

Take the time to research

This can be done almost instantly and the method is bound to be much faster than making a phone call to the various law firms to enquire about their services offers and charges. This is by far the best way to find q reputed car accident lawyer, Opelousas and most of the people today are doing exactly this. When things have become so simple, hassle free and convenient then the customer should make use of these conveniences and resources to find the best service providers in town. He should not fall back on putting in the time and the effort to do some research so that he lands up with the names of the best services in town.

Illinois Medical Malpractice Lawyer Jerry Vinkler Named Super Lawyer

Jerry Vinkler, an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer, has been selected as a Super Lawyer. This is the fourth consecutive year Mr. Vinkler has earned this prestigious distinction.

Burr Ridge, IL, January 30, 2012 – Jerry Vinkler, of Vinkler Law Offices, Ltd. has once again stood above the rest with his work in medical malpractice law in Illinois. Mr. Vinkler has been honored as a Super Lawyer for 2012. This is Mr. Vinklers fourth consecutive award, having also been named in 2009, 2010 and 2011. This award designates Jerry Vinkler as one of the top 5% of all lawyers in Illinois.
From the Super Lawyers website:
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
Clearly, Mr. Vinklers outstanding work as an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer has distinguished him among his peers, gaining this level of attention and recognition. Candidates are selected using a multi-phased process which includes both peer review and third-party research. This rigorous and multi-faceted process ensures that only the best are recognized for this prestigious award. Because of this, being named a Super Lawyer ensures only the highest level of work, respect and distinction in a lawyers field.
Once a candidate is nominated by his or her peers, or found through Super Lawyers own research of specialists and leading attorneys, they are subject to independent research. The Super Lawyers body has their own, third-party research team, made up of attorneys. This team researches all nominees based on multiple areas of peer recognition and professional achievement. Once a candidate passes this step, the candidate is then judged first against other candidates in their field, and finally against other lawyers working at similarly sized firms. Only after all of this can a candidate be named a Super Lawyer.
The Super Lawyers final list represents no more than 5% of a states top lawyers. This list is then published and distributed both regionally and nationally. The list is published annually in regional and state versions of the Super Lawyer magazine. This magazine is made available to top law libraries. The list can also be found on the Super Lawyers website at SuperLawyers.com.
Jerry Vinklers work as an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer has been consistently stellar. Year after year, he has shown he is the gold standard in his region and field. This nomination is a testament to his excellent service and record. His fourth consecutive Super Lawyer award is just more proof that his peers have recognized his work. As an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer, Jerry Vinkler truly is a Super Lawyer.

The Penniless Attorney And His Obligation To Pay Child And Spousal Support

You know that paying child and spousal support is tough in California where even a high paid attorney complains about his support obligations. In the case of Marriage of Mosley, an attorney pleaded with the court to modify his monthly child and spousal support payments, claiming that he was financially destitute after making his payments.

After sorting out the interesting facts of this case, the Court of Appeal had to address two common issues: 1) how to apply bonus income to the support calculations; and 2) when to impute earning capacity to a party who insists on not working. I think you will find that the Court applied some common sense in rendering its decision.

The Initial Support Orders

Paul and Dawn Mosley were married for twenty years, lived in Orange County, and had five children. Both parties were licensed attorneys. Notably, Paul was a real estate lawyer during the recent real estate boom. Dawn, on the other hand, quit practicing law early on in the marriage to tend to their children. In 2002 the parties were divorced.

The parties’ 2002 Judgment of Dissolution ordered Paul to pay Dawn $6,810 per month and 21 % of all of his bonus income. The child support order was based on the fact that Paul earned $447,150 for the year 2001, which equated a gross monthly income of $32,175. Paul’s timeshare with the children was 32 percent (a factor considered by California’s guideline formula). No income was imputed to Dawn when support was calculated, since she was still unemployed and taking care of the minor children at the time the divorce was finalized.

Paul was also ordered to pay Dawn spousal support, in the amount of $4,100 per month, plus 15 percent of his bonus income. The spousal support order included a provision that the amount of support was insufficient to maintain the marital standard of living. The total amount of support (child and spousal combined), amounted to $10,910, plus 36% of all of Paul’s bonus income.

The Times, They are a Changing!

As Paul’s tax returns revealed, the practice of a real estate attorney was quite lucrative between 2000 and 2003. This chart shows Paul’s income (base salary and bonuses combined), for the listed years:

2000 – $529,652

2001 – $616,697

2002 – $689,215

2003 – $753,651

Unfortunately, the real estate market’s bubble burst. Paul found himself out of a job when his law firm phased out their real estate practice. In February, 2005, Paul took up a new job as in house counsel with a home builder. Paul’s new base salary was $205,000. However, his new compensation package provided that he could also earn a discretionary bonus of up to 150 percent of his base salary. In 2006 Paul filed an Order to Show Cause for modification of support, asserting that there was a material change of circumstances, warranting the court to modify the support orders.

Paul made several arguments in support of his request for modification of the support orders. He explained to the court that he was not capable of paying $10,910 monthly support as ordered, since his take home pay was often less than the amount he was ordered to pay. Paul declared that in the first two months of 2006, he paid Dawn more than the amount of his take home pay and borrowed all of his living expenses. In March, 2006 Paul received the remaining $85,000 of his 2005 bonus, most of which he used to reduce prior borrowings. He estimated that the remaining amount of his bonus would permit him to go two months longer before he would have to start borrowing again. Paul expected he would have to borrow 100 percent of his living expenses for the remaining six months of the year.

Paul also argued that the court should impute income to Dawn based on her earning capacity, since she had been given a Gavron warning (an advisement that she should make efforts to become self supporting), she was an attorney with impressive credentials, and based on her education and work history. Paul asserted that Dawn could earn at least $78,000 a year, and the court should impute those wages to her, in spite of the fact she was not working.

In opposition, Dawn argued that she could not afford a decrease in child or spousal support, since her monthly living expenses amounted to $10,000, and she was already living below the marital standard of living. Dawn also argued that the court should not impute wages to her, since she quit the practice of law several years ago, based on an agreement that she and Paul had entered into at the beginning of their marriage. Paul and Dawn had agreed that Dawn would stay home to take care of the kids, while Paul would go to work, and advance his career.

Finally, Dawn argued that the support orders should not be modified, since there was no showing that Paul’s income had actually decreased to the point where a modification was warranted. Dawn pointed out that Paul’s end of the year income for 2005 amounted to $448,392 (which included his base salary and bonus). Although his 2005 income was less than it had been in several years, it was greater than his base income of $447,150, as reflected in the 2002 judgment. Therefore, Dawn argued, there was no change of circumstances and Paul still had the ability to pay the court ordered support. The trial court denied Paul’s request for modification after determining that there was no change of circumstances warranting a reduction of support. In addition, the court refused to impute income to Dawn, reasoning that there was no showing that a job was available to her, and it was not in the best interest of the children for Dawn to work.

The Court of Appeal Weighs in

In a harshly worded decision, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the matter back to the trial court, ordering the court to recalculate child and spousal support, using Paul’s base salary, exclusive of his bonus income.

As the Court explained, “It exceeded the bounds of reason to require Paul to pay nearly 100 percent of his take home pay in support payments, on the assumption, based on only a one-year history with the home builder, that he would continue to receive a six-figure bonus each subsequent year. It placed him in a position of having to borrow for his living expenses, and thus resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” The court further reasoned that, “It would be an abuse of discretion for the court to leave Paul nearly penniless while he awaits the potential of a bonus each year, especially in light of the current plight of homebuilders.”

The Court of Appeal also held that the new order must include a different method for paying support based on Paul’s bonus income, citing In Re Marriage of Ostler and Smith (1990) 223 Cal.App.3rd 33, as follow: “No future bonus is guaranteed. It would therefore not be appropriate to base a support order on Husband’s bonus income and then require him to file motions to modify at such times as the bonus is reduced.” Instead, the Court suggested Paul pay Dawn a percentage of his bonus income, when he actually received it.

The Court of Appeal also directed the trial court to reconsider its ruling with respect to imputing income to Dawn, based on her earning capacity. While discussing Dawn’s earning capacity, the Court restated the law that a court may not impute earning capacity to a parent unless doing so is in the best interest of the children, citing In Re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269. The Court then held that the same principal applies to when a Court calculates spousal support, citing Family Code, Section 4320.

But the Court of Appeal held that the trial court failed to consider all of the evidence before it in evaluating the best interest of the children. The Court recalled Paul’s testimony that if Dawn contributed to the support of the children, he would not need to spend as much time at work trying to maximize his bonus and would be able to spend more time with the children himself.

Conclusion

It is important to note that where bonus income is at issue, the trial court has the discretion, to include bonus income to the paying parent’s gross monthly income. However, based on the Marriage of Mosley, we know that the trial court should not include bonus income in calculating the monthly payment, if there is not a sufficient track record to predict receipt of the bonus income for future years, and when the support payment will leave the party penniless.

Be Legally Ready To Face Any Personal Injury Case

A personal injury lawyer is one who handles cases relating to any injury caused to an individual in person, property, rights or reputation. Such injuries could happen at work, in a traffic accident, because of a faulty product or a faulty repair, because of a mistake during medical treatment, or because you slipped and fell on a wet floor or pavement. The personal injury can be physical or psychological but, to be considered actionable, it must occur due to the negligence or unreasonably unsafe actions of your employer, a manufacturer, your doctor, your landlord, or some other person or organization who owes you a duty of ordinary care.

There are many guidelines that help you make the right choice and we are glad to share a few here. Before you go for any legal consultation make sure you keep all your documents ready. The most important ones are enlisted below: :

1. Copies of police reports or accident reports detailing your injury

2. Copies of hospital, doctor and therapy records

3. Bills from medical care providers

4. Information regarding insurance coverage of your medical bills

5. Reports from doctors regarding your diagnosis and prognosis

6. Information about anticipated future medical costs

For the right choice when it comes to personal injury lawyers, you need to keep some factors in mind. As you will not have a lot of time, try to go for referrals from known people like friends or family or family lawyers. One needs to find out a few statistical data before finalizing on his or her lawyer since personal injury is a sensitive aspect and you will be spending a lot of money once you sign him or her. You need to know the success statistics of the personal injury lawyer like how many trials he or she has taken up and how many have been won.

Details like how long he or she has been in practice and whether he or she usually represents injured people or defendants. Find out your options and the type of experts your lawyer will use to prove your case. Determine the time limit also called as statute of limitations by which you must settle the case or file a lawsuit.

In Florida, for example, you have the Hudson Law Office, which provides you with personal injury lawyers. They operate all over Florida with branches in Bradenton, Key West and Sarasota, FL. The presence of qualified juris doctors will help you achieve the best you want out of the situation that you or your dear one could be in. So anytime you are around Sarasota, FL and in need of a lawyer in a case of personal injury, you know what to do.

I am an author providing information regarding personal injury law. For more information on personal injury lawyer Sarasota, FL, You can visit www.injurylawyersarasota.com.

Common Defenses for a Drunk Driver Accident Attorney

You should rest easy if you have an attorney to argue out your drunken driving accident case. The attorneys are professionally trained on how to put a solid defense even when you are on the wrong. The main duty of a lawyer is to defend you at all cost so never consider going it on your own. It might cost you a penny but never mind enlisting the services of a drunk driver accident attorney to represent you in court. The following are some of the common defenses that your attorney will argue out in court to ensure you are set free without charges. When an attorney puts the defense of necessity, he or she tries to prove to the court that the damages incurred in an accident are lesser than what it could have been had the accused not acted that way.

The logic behind this defense is for the attorney to convince the presiding judge that the accident was caused as the accused person was evading a more serious catastrophe. It does not rest there as the attorney must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it’s the case and the accused was not guilty. Duress is another defense that you might see your drunk driver accident attorney putting up in your defense. In this, the lawyer will try to prove that the accused caused the accident after being forced to do so by another person. He or she could have been drunk or in an awkward condition to drive but the attorney will insist that it was as a result of pressure from the person that the accident occurred. Just like cars, drunken motorcyclists can be forced to drive without personal consent which might end up in an accident.

For the entrapment defense, it lays the blame squarely on an officer who allegedly forces the accused to drive when drunk in a frame-up situation. The attorney will have the burden of proof in convincing the court that had the accused not been forced to drive, he or she would not have done it voluntarily for being drunk. Involuntary intoxication defense applies where the accused person caused an accident for driving after taking alcohol without any knowledge. The attorney will advance the argument that the accused never knew that he or she was drunk. Most of these are affirmative defenses that a drunk driver accident attorney will pin hopes on winning a case outright.

Improper stop can be a very tricky defense that you will get an attorney putting up to save you from imprisonment. This implies that as the accused, you did not have a reason to make an emergency stop but it was forced by circumstances. Other common defenses touch on administration and will include accuracy of portable, standard and field sobriety breathalyzer tests. In all these defenses, the drunk driver accident attorney will be under the burden of proof to convince the court that you are not on the wrong. The most important thing is justice to prevail.

Resource Box You need to know about some of the common defenses that a drunk driver accident attorney will put up in defending you. They all have the burden of proof but it should not be a concern to you as long as you get justice. You can interrogate your Amarillo DWI accident attorney – http://quackenbushlawfirm.com/recent-case-profiles.html to get more on that.