Scott and Fenderson Law Blog

Daily Businss Review - Is regulation required for attorney referral services?

Julie Kay ContactAll Articles

Daily Business Review

September 12, 2011

After Kathy Wilson was in a fender bender, her husband recalled a catchy tune in a radio commercial for 411 Pain. She called, hoping to get some medical relief for her back pain.

What the Jacksonville woman didn't expect was to find a lawyer at the clinic where a van loaded with other patients dropped her off.

"I didn't even know I was supposed to meet with a lawyer, but he was waiting for me," said Wilson, an administrative aide for the Jacksonville Urban League. "I wasn't thinking of suing anyone. I was thinking it would be good for my back."

While Wilson was waiting to see a doctor, the lawyer went through a lengthy explanation of what kind of legal case she had and examples of people who had won sizable settlements. She was told she could not see a doctor until she signed his paperwork.

Over the four hours Wilson was at the clinic, she got some X-rays but never saw a doctor. Wilson later canceled her contract with the lawyer but said it took repeated calls.

Wilson's experience, and others like it, have put the spotlight on for-profit lawyer referral services in Florida such as 411 Pain, 1-800-Ask-Gary, Call a Doc First and Who Can I Sue. Consumer complaints have prompted calls for new state legislation, inspired the formation of a Florida Bar committee and even triggered criminal investigations. But The Bar has been historically gun-shy about disciplining attorneys in this area. From 1989 to 2000, The Bar recommended punishing only five attorneys for improper patient solicitation or brokering, a statewide grand jury found.

The initiatives dovetail with efforts to repeal the state's mandatory $10,000 personal injury protection coverage with support from the deep-pockets PIP player, the insurance industry.

With billboards and radio and television commercials, lawyer referral services appeal to people involved in car accidents. In one radio spot, 411 Pain states: "Car accidents happen. Telling everyone on Facebook isn't solving your problems. Calling 1-800-411 Pain could. You may be entitled to up to $100,000. Maybe even more depending on the facts. Remember, after 911, call 411."

The services contract with lawyers, maintain a lawyer database and refer callers to lawyers who match their needs. According to testimony at a Bar hearing in June, lawyers pay up to $5,000 a month to referral services. But the fee could pay off in a big way: one Sarasota lawyer earned a $9 million paycheck off a referral from 1-800-Ask-Gary, according to testimony presented by the service's lawyer, Greg Zitani of St. Petersburg.

The Florida Bar, the state Department of Financial Services, the state CFO, legislators and lawyers have all raised concerns about the explosion in referral services around the state. But if new regulations and other actions are required, what form shall they take?

"We do not object to reasonable regulation with regard to referral as long as it's not burdensome and interfering with our business," said Lester Perling, a Broad and Cassel partner in Fort Lauderdale who represents 411 Pain and the company's founder, Oakland Park chiropractor Robert Lewin. "But I have no reason to believe that illegal activity such as kickbacks and patient brokering is tied to lawyer referral services, or that the services make it more or less likely. No one has offered any evidence of that. If lawyer referral services go away, I think this problem will continue."

Perling said 411 Pain is under investigation by the Florida attorney general's office under Florida's Fair and Deceptive Trade Act for potentially misleading advertising. The ad that consumers complained about shows a picture of a police officer who is not truly an officer. Perling said he expects the 4-week-old investigation to be resolved shortly and noted the ad included a disclaimer explaining that the officer was not a real officer.

Criminal Probes

The state agency that regulates referral services is the Department of Financial Services, which is investigating several lawyer referral services and lawyers for alleged illegal solicitation, patient brokering and kickbacks, according to Capt. Steve Smith, statewide PIP fraud coordinator for the agency.

No referral services or lawyers have been charged with any wrongdoing. But in June, Smith told a Florida Bar committee hearing on for-profit referral services that his department is taking a look. He did not name any firms or individuals.

"We are investigating several services for illegal solicitation, patient brokering and kickbacks," Smith testified. "We've learned that oftentimes the use of advertising is a cover for illegal activity. It all starts with PIP. That's where the big dollars are. It's become so pervasive that anyone involved in an accident is aware that I can make some money."

Smith said he has seen referral services pay a police department employee or pose as a member of news media to obtain vehicle crash reports. Referral services that solicit accident victims within 60 days of an accident violate state law. Smith said crash victims who have been solicited were told to say they called referral services after seeing their ads on bus benches or billboards. The department also has received reports of services offering money or in-kind services to patients to go to a particular clinic or lawyer.

"We have seen a tremendous spike in the rise of PIP fraud in our state," Smith testified.

Variations range from traditional health care fraud like billing for services not rendered to fraudulent car-crash lawsuits and patient brokering among doctors, diagnostic facilities and lawyers.

"Organized fraud rings continue to steal Floridian's hard-earned dollars and undermine the intent of Florida's PIP laws," Florida's Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater said after charges were filed against seven suspects from Miami and Naples this year in an insurance fraud and patient brokering case.

Bar Review

A primary issue on the regulatory front is whether referral services pressure their lawyers to refer clients back to them. Other concerns are that lawyers may be engaged in improper solicitation by being at clinics when new patients arrive, referral services may be illegally buying or acquiring accident information from police departments for future solicitation, and the services were set up expressly to quickly exhaust PIP benefits.

Bar officials, lawyers and some legislators fear referral services constitute a loophole allowing lawyers to skirt strict advertising rules. For example, one referral service ad depicts a police officer, something lawyers are barred from doing in their ads.

"We've heard complaints about how these services communicate with people, the way people were hustled in for medical treatment," said Grier Wells, chair of The Florida Bar committee created in January to study lawyer referral services. "We've been trying to look into this to see if the lawyer referral services comply with rules regulating The Bar."

While The Bar has received anecdotal evidence of wrongdoing by some referral services, Wells noted, The Bar is somewhat stymied because its authority to regulate the services is limited to regulating the lawyers who may participate.

"We're trying to get more evidence of people who have been affected by some of the practices that have been occurring," said Wells, a Jacksonville-based GrayRobinson attorney. "Unless people come forward there's not much we can do about it."

It was his committee that conducted the all-day public hearing during The Bar's annual conference in June. It will hold another one Sept. 22 at the midyear Bar conference in Orlando.

Concerns center on services as opposed to nonprofit services run by virtually every county bar association and The Florida Bar, which vet lawyers to ensure they have no disciplinary action and carry $100,000 in malpractice insurance.

For example, the Broward County Bar Association maintains a lawyer referral list, charging lawyers $75 a year to be included and requiring them to be in good standing with The Bar and carry malpractice insurance. The association gets 12,000 calls a year from people seeking lawyers, executive director Art Goldberg said.

The for-profit referral services are controversial among the trial bar members, too.

"I have never used them," said Walter "Skip" Campbell, a prominent Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyer and former state senator. "I think it's ambulance chasing at its worst. I think it's a black eye on the profession. I think lawyers should use the old method of getting clients — from referrals, friends and other lawyers."

Campbell said he is solicited by lawyer referral services every week and tells them all, "no thanks, I can get my own clients."

Some referral services and the lawyers who use them maintain the services are already regulated by The Bar and must submit all their ads to The Bar.

In The Legislature

An effort to pull the plug on PIP benefits altogether could eliminate perceived problems with referral services. The insurance industry has pushed PIP repeal for years and succeeded for six months in 2006 before it was reimposed.

"For the first time in maybe 10 years, we don't think the Legislature will be spending all its time on property insurance since it passed a massive property insurance bill last year," said Sam Miller, executive vice president of the Florida Insurance Council, which represents 50 insurance companies. "We've been told that auto insurance and PIP will be the big issue this time."

The Senate banking and insurance committee and the House Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy Council are studying the issue.

About 10 states require mandatory PIP coverage, which allows for direct billing of insurance companies for up to $10,000 by doctors as well as compensation for lost wages. Florida's no-fault PIP law was implemented in 1972 but came under fire in recent years, with studies showing the frequency of vehicle accidents declined from 2004 to 2009 while the cost of PIP claims jumped from $1.43 billion in 2008 to $2.37 billion in 2010, state Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said at a recent Cabinet meeting.

"If the Legislature cannot fix PIP, they may repeal it," Miller said.

State Rep. Rick Kriseman, D-St. Petersburg, is more interested in regulating lawyer referral services. He introduced a bill last year that did not make it out of committee but has refiled the bill for the next session and lined up a Republican Senate sponsor whom he declined to name.

The measure echoes some Bar restrictions by banning false, misleading and deceptive communication and requiring all ads to be approved by The Bar. But his bill also would require referral services to disclose their financial relationship with any lawyers or health care providers, prohibit services from requiring a lawyer to recommend a particular clinic or doctor and bar services from making referrals only to clinic and doctors with ownership stakes in the referral service.

The bill also would require referral services to send a letter to prospective clients informing them of the financial interest of the referral service in a clinic, mandate forfeiture for violations and set civil penalties of $1,000 for a first offense and $5,000 for each subsequent offense.

Kriseman, a Clearwater personal injury lawyer with Lucas Green & Magazine, said his bill was prompted by lawyer colleagues — both plaintiff and defense — insurance carriers and doctors.

"It's kind of an interesting issue because you don't often see so many diverse groups behind a bill," he said. "This is a completely nonpartisan issue."

He said he doesn't buy the argument that lawyer referral services make it possible for tiny personal injury shops to compete against the big boys, which can afford to do their own advertising. He notes Morgan & Morgan, one of the largest personal injury firms in the state, uses 411 Pain.

"I find that argument laughable," he said. "If you look at the lists of attorneys who use these, it's a lot of the big firms. Actually, the small, one-man, two-man firms are the ones who are being hurt more than anybody. They don't have the financial resources to compete."

Julie Kay can be reached at (305) 347-6685.

Subscribe to Daily Business Review

Business of Law Writer
Daily Business Review
American Lawyer Media
1 SE Third Ave., Ste. 900
Miami, FL 33131
www.dailybusinessreview.com

Learn more about ALM, visit http://www.alm.com . – ALM, an Integrated Media Company, is a leading provider of news and information for the legal and commercial real estate markets. ALM’s market-leading brands include The American Lawyer, Corporate Counsel, GlobeSt.com, Insight Conferences, Law.com, Law Journal Press, LegalTech, The National Law Journal and Real Estate Forum.

Florida Trend Article

 

1-800-New-Rules?

High-profile ads are earning for-profit lawyer referral services unwanted attention

by Art Levy   Florida Trend Magazine 9/14/2011

Gary Kompothecras is paying a reported $375,000 a year to put his company's name on an amphitheater in Tampa. [Photo: Skip O'Rourke/St. Petersburg Times]

For-profit lawyer referral services have operated in Florida since the mid-1980s, but the businesses didn't get much notice until a few years ago when some of the larger ones, such as 1-800-ASK-GARY and 1-800-411-PAIN, began aggressively advertising. In radio and television commercials, the companies urge motorists to call a referral service as soon as possible after a crash and get linked to a lawyer and doctor. In some of the ads, actors portraying police officers or emergency workers advise accident victims to call for a referral just after calling 911.

As the industry has grown, the marketing has become more sophisticated: 1-800-ASK-GARY is paying an estimated $375,000 a year for three years to put its name on a major concert venue in Tampa; 1-800-411-PAIN introduced a 411-PAIN iPhone app this year that allows accident victims to "catalog and report an accident to 411-PAIN, including pictures of the vehicles involved, photos of drivers' licenses, insurance cards and license plates, and record any bodily pain you have."

The advertising has attracted attention from more than potential clients. The Florida Bar created a special committee this year to investigate the services and determine if it needs to regulate them. The committee met in June and is scheduled to meet again this month.

"We're hearing more and more complaints from consumers, and we're hearing anecdotal complaints from members of the Bar who feel that some of the tactics of some of the lawyer referral services are questionable," says Grier Wells, the committee's chairman and an attorney at GrayRobinson in Jacksonville.

State Rep. Rick Kriseman, a St. Petersburg Democrat and personal injury attorney, has proposed a bill that would regulate the services and force even those not owned by attorneys to abide by Florida Bar advertising rules. Kriseman's bill would also require the firms to disclose any financial links between the referral service and the medical clinics and law offices where it sends clients. 1-800-ASK-GARY, for example, is owned by Gary Kompothecras, a Sarasota chiropractor who also owns the medical clinics where many of 1-800-ASK-GARY clients get treatment. Kriseman also wants potential clients to know if the attorneys have to pay a fee for getting on the referral list.

"If people understand how the fingers are entwined, they may not be as anxious to use these services," Kriseman says.

The for-profit referral services are also getting a close look from state Department of Financial Services insurance fraud investigators. Steve Smith, a captain with the Division of Insurance Fraud, says the concern is that clinics associated with some of the referral services seem more interested in exhausting an accident victim's PIP insurance — which provides up to $10,000 to someone hurt in a car accident — than actually treating the patient in the best way.

Howard Pohl, a Department of Financial Services attorney, says he has heard "numerous examples of situations where clinics stop treatment after the PIP is maxed out."

Smith also thinks the most sensational of the commercials contribute to insurance fraud. "If you're not hurt, you shouldn't be going to a doctor or lawyer," he says. "But the ads have permeated the society and the culture that everybody knows if I'm in an accident, whether I'm hurt or not, I can make some money. If the Bar doesn't clamp down on it or the legislation doesn't pass and clamp down on it, it will only get worse."

Wells says his committee will continue soliciting input from all sides of the issue. 1-800-ASK-GARY attorney Greg Zitani, who could not be reached for comment by Florida Trend, told committee members that the service follows all Bar rules and that lawyers who work for the service are under no pressure to refer patients to 1-800-ASK-GARY clinics.

Attorney Tim Chinaris, a representative of 1-800-411-PAIN, wrote the committee a letter suggesting that the Bar has its own reasons for showing interest in the for-profit referral industry.

 

"It is no secret that some lawyers and law firms would like to drive private lawyer referral services out of business because the services attract clients that used to go to those lawyers," Chinaris wrote. "The committee should not permit itself to be used as a cover for blatantly anti-competitive regulation action."

The committee's report is due next year, and Wells doesn't expect it will suggest that the for-profit lawyer referral industry shouldn't exist.

"That train left the station some time ago, and I don't know that we can turn it back," he says. "It well may be that we will be looking at additional rules that govern not only advertising but professional behavior or looking at strengthening existing rules and enforcement mechanisms."

FLORIDA'S STAND YOUR GROUND LAW

If you are in Florida, you have the right to use force, including deadly force to defend yourself or others, if you have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to yourself or  another, if you are defending yourself against an intruder in your residence or automobile. In addition , you can use force including deadly force if you are attacked in any other place where you have a right to be, you have no duty to retreat, and may stand your ground, and meet force with force, including deadly force,  if you reasonably believe it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

There are several instances of the use of the word IF in this law, which means that one who does stand their ground has to prove the facts that the law requires. As an example IF you reasonably believe you are in iminent danger of harm, or IF you  are in your residence, of IF you are in your automobile, or IF you are in a place you have the right to be, and IF you reasonably believe your actions are necessary to prevent harm to yourself or others, etc. Below is the entire statute, which is worth reading in light of the fact that there may be a time when you need to know this law and how it might affect you.

The stand your ground law is codified in the 2011 Florida Statutes, Title XLVI - CRIMES

Chapter 776 - JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Take a short tour of Scott and Fenderson PA

 

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT UM INSURANCE COVERAGE

What Most People Don’t understand about UM insurance.

There are two common misconceptions about UM, also known as un-insured or under-insured motorist insurance coverage.

First Many insurance agents discourage people from purchasing UM coverage and tell their customers that UM is not necessary or they can save a little money by not purchasing this coverage. For the most part UM is not an expensive addition to your policy premium compared to liability coverage or collision coverage, neither of which cover your injury in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist. The real reason agents discourage buying UM is that it is a very affordable coverage and a great bargain for the client, but not a good deal for the insurance company.

Second Many people who do have UM coverage don’t want to pursue a claim against their own insurance carrier, or don’t understand how or why they would have a claim under their UM coverage.

In Florida the only insurance that is mandatory is PIP (Personal Injury Protection which covers 80% of your medical bills and 60% of your lost wages after an accident regardless of fault up to $10,000.00. Right now PIP is being overhauled in the Florida Legislature and may change drastically after this week, unless our law makers in Tallahassee are unable to reach some agreement.

If you are involved in an accident in which the at fault driver either has no liability insurance coverage or is under-insured with regard to bodily injury liability, you may find that there is no coverage for your injury, or insufficient coverage for your injury, other than the minimum PIP coverage as required by law.

If your injury is serious, your medical bills may well exceed $10,000.00, and if you have a serious or permanent injury you may be entitled to compensation for those injuries from the at fault driver that caused the accident. You would expect the at fault driver to have liability insurance to cover your loss, but in Florida there is no requirement that any driver carry bodily injury liability insurance. In the current economy, many drivers elect the minimum required insurance coverage of PIP and property damage, and forego purchasing liability coverage.

To add insult to injury, if the at fault driver is in such a financial condition that he or she cannot afford liability insurance coverage, then they probably don’t have any assets to speak of, which means that filing a lawsuit against them would not be of any benefit either, as any judgement you might achieve in court would likely be uncollectible.

Uninsured motorist coverage then takes the place of the bodily injury coverage the at fault driver failed to carry, or supplements the inadequate or under-insured coverage of the at-fault driver.

The injured person can pursue a claim against their UM coverage in the same manner that they would have pursued their claim against the un-insured or under-insured driver.

In the case of an under-insured driver, for example, the at fault driver carried $10,000 in liability, but your loss is in excess of this amount, you would first pursue a claim against the at fault driver for the limits of their liability coverage, then pursue a claim under your own UM coverage for the remaining value of your injury claim. In the case of an un-insured driver, your claim is under your own UM from the outset once it is determined that the at fault driver has no liability insurance.

Clients are often hesitant to pursue a claim against their own insurance company when the accident is not their fault, however this would defeat the whole purpose of having UM coverage. It is like having homeowners insurance and not wanting to file a claim after your house burns down. It makes no sense not to utilize a coverage that you paid for, which will cover your loss.

Making a claim under your uninsured motorist coverage is not any easier, or simpler than making a claim against the at fault driver. Most insurance companies do not simply pay out the benefit available under your UM coverage and require that you prove your claim, normally with the assistance of a lawyer, in the same manner as you would against the at fault driver. Clients normally find their own insurance company fighting them for the UM benefits they paid for, and offering settlements under the UM coverage that are far less than the value of the claim.

If you want more information about pursuing a UM claim, call Scott and Fenderson for a free consultation 727-321-0099 or visit www.scottandfenderson.com

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE IN THE NEWS ABOUT TEXTING AND DRIVING

Good article in Tampa Bay Times today on the dangers of Texting and Driving. http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/parents-who-know-terrible-toll-of-texting-while-driving-press-for-florida/1217180

We continue to give away free bumper stickers urging people not to text while driving. Just ordered another 5000 printed so get yours today, just ask. Call 727-321-0099 or visit www.scottandfenderson.com

Take a short tour of our offices

 

TIPS ON PASSING THE FLORIDA BAR EXAMINATION

By Kelly Humphrey, Esquire

It’s that time of year again. Time for law school graduates to test their knowledge, skill, ability, and endurance whilst sitting for the Florida Bar Examination. Ah, the Florida Bar Examination; my former nemesis. An examination that is only offered twice a year and spans a full 2 days, encompassing both Multi-state Law as well as Florida specific law. Covering areas of law that you might have studied during your time in law school, but could just as easily have never had the opportunity to study. A test, that some would argue, is geared to be difficult and to weed out those who have not fully prepared....or simply lack standardized testing skills. Oh, but the test is so much more than that. Without a passing score, law school graduates will never earn the prestigious title of Esquire. Sure, they will be required to repay those exorbitant school loans and will hopefully find work as a legal assistant, but they can never rise to the level of an attorney without passing the Florida Bar Examination.

It took me 4 long years to pass it. Granted, I got married and had a baby during that time so I didn’t sit for it every time it was offered, but for all intents and purposes, it took me 4 years to finally earn the right to add an Esquire at the end of my name. Perhaps you will shirk away from hearing tips on passing the Florida Bar from a gal who clearly didn’t pass it the first time, but keep in mind that a lot of people sitting for the Florida Bar Examination do not pass it the first time. Also, know that I am an intelligent person. Education has always come easy to me and throughout my schooling I have excelled at my classes. I was in advanced placement classes in high school and received awards in college and law school. One would think all this would assist me in breezing through the exam. Clearly, not the case. I had never failed anything before failing the Florida Bar Examination and the effects of it really knocked me for a loop. Now, imagine failing it MULTIPLE times. Needless to say, it would have been easier to throw in the towel and just seek a new profession than to continue down such a rough road of disappointment. So why didn’t I give up? Call it tenacity, an unyielding desire, a need to prove to myself that I could do it - or just sheer stupidity - but I stuck to it. I continued to study. I skipped my honeymoon, I had to miss social events, I felt a pang of guilt anytime I was not studying, but I powered through and it paid off. I am an attorney! So here are my suggestions on how to study for and pass the Florida Bar Examination....all whilst holding on to your sanity and positive outlook.

1. Prepare. This is not the kind of test that you can cram for and expect to pass. Take months to study. Take practice tests and write practice essays. Know the idiosyncratic differences between multi-state and Florida law.

2. Get a mentor/study group. Find someone who will keep you on track. Someone you must be accountable to. Someone who will review your essays and give you honest feedback.

3. Preparation Course. This is really up to you. I tried it a couple different ways during my years of exam taking. First I paid for the big commercial prep course offered at my law school (did not help me). Then I tried just doing it on my own (also not a help). Finally, I signed up for Celebration Bar Exam Review and found a program that worked for me. It offered a prep course that I could do on MY time, invaluable study material broken down in a manageable format, and my very own mentor. Again, do what works for you.

4. Exercise. Go for a walk, run or bike ride before you begin your study sessions. It clears your mind and helps to keep you focused. Do NOT study whilst you exercise. I was not in a habit of exercising regularly when I began the process of taking this test, but during my final attempt, I made it a point to run every morning before I sat down to study and I honestly believe that this was a major factor in helping me pass.

5. Spend time with friends/family. As I stated above, I got married and had a baby during this whole process and refused to take any time away from my new family to study for the exam. So I woke up at before dawn every morning and studied before my family woke. When I put my baby down for a nap, out came the books. Point being, make time to study, but continue to spend time with the ones you love. It will help you keep your sanity.

6. Trial Run. Make sure you know where you will be testing. I am fortunate enough to live near the Tampa Convention Center (where the Florida Bar Examination is held) so I drove to the location and made sure I had the whole thing mapped out (even where to park) so there was no drama on the day of the exam. If you do not have the benefit of living close, book hotel accommodations and transportation in advance. They fill up fast.

7. Test Supplies. Only certain items are allowed in the testing area with you. Adhere to those rules. There are metal detectors and armed guards checking you over before you can enter the testing area and they will happily trash any item (regardless of how expensive or useful) that is not allowed into the center.

8. Expect to sit for 3 hours at a time. That is how long each testing session will last. When you study, study in 3 hour blocks of time. Try to avoid potty breaks and snack breaks. Keeping it as close to the real thing as possible will help during the real thing.

9. Time yourself. Whether you are practicing multiple choice questions or essay answers, make sure you time yourself and stay within the time constraints of the allotted time. The last thing you want to do it run out of time with unanswered questions.

10. Stay Positive. It’s a grueling process and passing or failing can be a life altering experience, but ultimately it’s a test. If you pass it, awesome! If you fail it, you can take it again. It in no way equates to your self-worth. Keep that in perspective as you study because its very easy to get overwhelmed.

Although I have the vast pleasure of sitting this one out, I am all too aware of the anxiety that future test takers are feeling right now. There comes a point when you feel as if your brain can hold no more material and yet there is still so much to learn. That overwhelming desire for the test date to arrive so that you can pour all that information out and that feeling of dread that the test date is way too near and you still need more time. All I can say is, prepare the best you can and go into the test with a positive attitude.

DISTRACTED DRIVING KILLS

WHAT IS
DISTRACTED DRIVING?

Distracted driving is any activity that could divert a person's attention away from the primary task of driving. All distractions endanger driver, passenger, and bystander safety. These types of distractions include: 

Texting

Using a cell phone or smartphone

Eating and drinking

Talking to passengers

Grooming

Reading, including maps

Using a navigation system

Watching a video

Adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player

But, because text messaging requires visual, manual, and cognitive attention from the driver, it is by far the most alarming distraction.

The best way to end distracted driving is to educate all Americans about the danger it poses

Key Facts and Statistics 

• In 2009, 5,474 people were killed in crashes involving driver distraction, and an estimated 448,000 were injured. (NHTSA)
• 16% of fatal crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving. (NHTSA)
• 20% of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving. (NHTSA)
• In the month of June 2011, more than 196 billion text messages were sent or received in the US, up nearly 50% from June 2009. (CTIA)
• Teen drivers are more likely than other age groups to be involved in a fatal crash where distraction is reported. In 2009, 16% of teen drivers involved in a fatal crash were reported to have been distracted. (NHTSA)
• 40% of all American teens say they have been in a car when the driver used a cell phone in a way that put people in danger. (Pew)
• Drivers who use hand-held devices are 4 times more likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (Monash University)
• Text messaging creates a crash risk 23 times worse than driving while not distracted. (VTTI)
• Sending or receiving a text takes a driver's eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent-at 55 mph-of driving the length of an entire football field, blind. (VTTI)
• Headset cell phone use is not substantially safer than hand-held use. (VTTI)
• Using a cell phone while driving - whether it's hand-held or hands-free delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (University of Utah)
• Driving while using a cell phone reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37%. (Carnegie Mellon)

Scott and Fenderson is doing their part to reduce distracted driving by giving away free "Dont Text and Drive" bumper stickers, along with a free cell phone wallpaper to remind you not to text and drive. See our web site

http://www.scottandfenderson.com/index.php/about-us/causes-and-community-involvement

View this video to see first hand how distracted driving can result in tragedy.

http://www.distraction.gov/content/faces/index.html#/faces/casey-feldman/

take  a short tour of our offices

 

 

Girl Power in Pinellas County, Florida

I attended the PACE Believing in Girls Lunch yesterday. Thank you to Shelli Askin at Sun Country Cleaners who invited me. I was blown away by what an awesome program PACE is. I was also inspired by the women and girls there and by the concept of "Girl Power" in general.

If you want to get involved with helping women and girls and/or networking with other women here in Pinellas County, here are ten links to awesome women and girls resources to help women and to connect with other women:

1. PINELLAS COUNTY PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS:  http://pacecenter.org/pinellas

2. CASA IN ST. PETERSBURG Community Action Stops Abuse:  http://www.casa-stpete.org

3. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN ST. PETERSBURG: http://www.bpwstpetepinellas.org/index.htm

4. PARC Turning Disabilities into Capabilities (not just for girls): http://www.parc-fl.org/

5. WOMEN ON A MISSION:  www.woamtec.com or contact Coni Notter at coni@IQPrintMedia.com for information about the Wendesday mid-Pinellas lunches.

6. LIB - LADIES IN BUSINESS: Contact Morgan Smith at morgancooksmith@yahoo.com for information on this monthly lunch meeting.

7. WIN - WOMEN IN NETWORKING:  http://www.wintampabay.com

8. Soroptimists International:  http://www.largosoroptimists.org/

9. Pinellas County Roller Girls!:  http://www.pinellascountyrollergirls.com/

10. My Hope Chest:  http://www.myhopechest.org/.

Go check out the links and find a way to connect with these organizations that are helping women and girls right here in Pinellas County, Florida.

Feeding America Tampa Bay - Thanksgiving Food Drive at the Law Office of Scott & Fenderson in St. Petersburg

Scott & Fenderson is proudly partnering with Feeding America Tampa Bay to host a Thanksgiving Food Drive! 

How is the food used: Feeding America Tampa Bay is partnered with over 600 charities and churches that distribute this food to the hungry in West Central Florida through their pantry and soup kitchen programs.  Through this network of partner agencies, the food bank dispenses the equivalent of over 250,000 meals for the hungry each week.  Since it began in 1982, the food bank has distributed over 150 million pounds of food.

Who are the people they help?  The working poor who struggle to get by, the grandparents who find themselves fulfilling the role of parents once again, the disabled no longer able to work, and those simply finding the road back from hard times.

Every 1 percent increase in unemployment in Florida equates to an additional 2.5 million pounds of food needed.  The Food Bank distributed almost 17 million pounds of food last year, but it’s an amount that must be doubled in order to fulfill the ever growing need.  Please help.
Thank you for your support.

Items  needed include: canned meats, canned vegetables, canned or dried beans, cereal, peanut butter, canned fruits, canned and boxed meals, pasta and rice, crackers, dry milk, and other nonperishable food items.

Food Donation Items may be dropped off from November 1 through November 21, 2011 from 9 am to 5 pm at the Law Office of Scott and Fenderson, 4755 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida.

For more information, contact Katrina at 727-321-0099 or email at katrinaatscottandfenderson@gmail.com.

RED LIGHT CAMERAS - WHO BENEFITS?

(From the August 1 issue of The Weekly Standard.)

---

Rolling Back the Nanny State

One red-light camera at a time

Jonathan V. Last

August 1, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 43

Last March the city council in San Bernardino voted 5-0 to kill their red-light camera system. Since the cameras were installed in 2005, the program had brought them little but grief. In 2008, the city was caught shortening the timing of yellow lights in order to gin up more citations. Later that year a California appellate court ruled that the city’s contract with the red-light camera service American Traffic Solutions (ATS) was in violation of state law. And in 2010, a county court ruled that images from red-light cameras were inadmissible hearsay. The cameras were such a debacle for San Bernardino that in the end the city paid ATS $110,000 to get out of a contract that would have kept the cameras in place until 2014.

It sounds like an extraordinary story: a city, in the middle of a recession, paying a vendor to cancel a contract that is supposed to produce revenue. But it turns out that San Bernardino isn’t extraordinary at all. Across California and the rest of the country, cities and towns are dismantling their red-light camera regimes. And it’s this larger story that’s remarkable, because it shows that even at this late date, the people can, from time to time, still hold their governments to account.

Like many cultural plagues, the red-light camera originated in Europe. Invented by a Dutch race-car driver, Maurice Gatsonides, red-light cameras were installed by European municipalities throughout the 1980s to ticket drivers without the necessity of using actual police. In 1993 the sickness crossed the Atlantic, and New York City permanently installed cameras of its own.

The idea behind the red-light camera is simple: Place the device in an intersection, and when a car passes through after the light has turned from amber to red, it snaps away—taking photos of the car’s position, the driver’s side window, and the license plate. In practice, the system is only slightly more complicated because the local police do not operate the cameras themselves. Instead, the city contracts with one of several big corporations (such as American Traffic Solutions, based in Arizona, or Redflex, an Australian firm) who do the work for them. The company installs, maintains, and monitors the cameras. When they catch someone running a red light, they electronically send the file to the local police department for a pro forma sign off, and then they mail out the ticket themselves. The company typically collects the fine and returns some share of the money to the municipality. It’s a little like privateering.

And like privateering, red-light cameras are a pretty good business. American governments initially justified them under the rubric of public safety—the cameras were supposed to make intersections safer and protect, bless their little hearts, The Children. But the fig leaf of safety frittered away as study after study showed that the cameras made little difference and in some cases actually made intersections less safe. Drivers, knowing cameras were watching, tended to jam on their brakes suddenly at yellow lights, causing accidents. Further research showed that there was a way to make intersections safer: Simply lengthen the duration of amber lights, allowing drivers more time to make the critical decision to stop or go.

But there’s no money in longer yellow lights. And it turned out that there was lots of it—piles and piles, really—in red-light cameras. In Washington, D.C., red-light cameras raised $15.6 million in their first 30 months of operation. In one year—2009—Chicago made $64 million from them. It’s such big business that in 2001, Lockheed Martin sold their red-light camera division to another company, Affiliated Computer Services, for $800 million.

Which is why, throughout the ’90s, red-light cameras sprouted across the American landscape. A company would come to town and pitch the local pols with the kind of deal that sold itself. “Just let us set up the cameras,” they’d say, “and we’ll give you a stream of never-ending revenue from a source that has no constituency. All you have to do is take credit for saving lives.” Five hundred thirty-nine cities in 25 states signed up.

For a while, it looked as though the red menace might spread, slowly and irresistibly, to every intersection in America. After all, this is the mode of public life to which we’ve become accustomed: Officials, some elected, some not, decide to add little annoyances to our daily lives—more regulations for light bulbs, toilets, seatbelts, speed bumps—that prove irrevocable. Oh sure, on the big-ticket items—war, abortion, taxes, spending—elections have consequences. But when it comes to the little things, modern government has become a ratchet that only turns one way.

Yet the spectacle of government handing law enforcement duties to private companies with a monetary incentive to write as many citations as possible was a bridge too far. And city by city, the cameras have been pushed back.

Amazingly enough, in some cases the courts actually helped. In California they’ve made life difficult for the camera companies with decisions like the ones in San Bernardino. In Ohio a federal appeals court ruled that Cleveland’s camera law was so poorly crafted that since it said car “owners” could be ticketed, people who lease their vehicles were exempt. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minneapolis’s entire red-light camera program was illegal and forced the city to refund the $2.6 million it had collected.

In some cities, the government bureaucracy has pushed back, too. In Los Angeles last June, the Police Commission voted unanimously to drop its contract with ATS and get rid of cameras altogether. Despite the fact that L.A.’s red-light tickets are $476 a pop, and that the program has written $80 million worth of citations since 2004, the city has found a way to lose money on the deal. Once the camera company takes its fat cut, the residual dollars aren’t enough to cover the costs of the seven police officers who monitor the program and make the pro forma signoffs.

But the real muscle has come from voters. Petitions have put cameras on the ballot in local elections across the country, and whenever voters are given a choice on the matter, they say “no.” In Houston, a pair of lawyers fought city hall to get a charter amendment (Proposition 3) on the ballot. The city’s camera company, ATS, spent $1.7 million in advertising during the race. The cameras lost. In Anaheim, an amendment banning cameras won 73 percent. In Sulphur, Louisiana, an anti-camera measure took 86 percent. From Maryland to Ohio to Arizona to Illinois, whenever voters get to pull the lever, the cameras get run out of town.

Which is why many towns (and the camera companies) have tried to keep the matter out of voters’ hands. In its 2010 annual report, Redflex noted that, while citizens have attempted to introduce ballot measures on cameras in many localities, the company was “actively implementing measures to defend against them” so as to “protect and improve our interests” in these “markets.” That’s not just bare-knuckled Redflex tactics, it’s the industry standard. In Mukilteo, Washington, for instance, ATS asked a court to issue an emergency injunction preventing a proposed camera ban from appearing on the town’s ballot. The court declined; the anti-camera measure won, 70 to 30.

Part of the reason people hate cameras is that the alliance of business and government tends to bring out the worst in both. In 2009, Danny Park was driving through Santa Ana when a camera operated by Redflex tagged him for running a light. He fought the $436 ticket on the grounds that the city had not provided a 30-day warning period for the camera, which California state law requires at every intersection where a camera is operational. Park took his case all the way to the appellate division of the Superior Court in Orange County. And he won. The decision was scheduled for publication when the city of Santa Ana took the extremely unusual step of petitioning the state Supreme Court to “depublish” the decision. Why? It wouldn’t change the verdict in the Park case, but an unpublished decision would mean that other California drivers wouldn’t be able to use the case as precedent. Instead, they’d have to re-create Park’s entire argument from scratch—and likely work their way up the appeals chain, since the trial courts almost always find for the state in such cases—if they wanted to fight illegally manufactured tickets. (The High Court denied the request.)

When they’re not trying to game the legal system, the camera industry runs creepy Astroturf campaigns proclaiming its beneficence. Whenever cameras are in danger of going on ballots, a website appears. In Mukilteo it was KeepMukilteoSafe.com. The sites purport to be grassroots hubs for pro-camera voters, but they’re prefab constructs without a whit of actual public support behind them. At least 18 of them appeared across the country recently, nearly identical in form and content. All of the sites were registered by a company called Advarion, which provides web services to ATS.

Already prone to suspect the worst about camera companies and local governments, a ring of anti-camera activist websites went to work ferreting out other bits of Astroturf. (They followed in the footsteps of anti-camera activist Richard Diamond’s invaluable TheNewspaper.com.) They noticed that a particular line in favor of cameras kept appearing in the comments sections of stories about camera bans: “Seriously, you don’t hear non-smokers complain about cigarette taxes so why should we believe these whiners are anything but reckless drivers who don’t want to get caught?” The exact same wording and punctuation appears on dozens of websites, from the Washington Post to the Newark Star-Ledger. Other camera company fronts are slightly less bald-faced. The “National Coalition for Safer Roads,” for instance, is a nonprofit dedicated to showing that red-light cameras save lives. It’s actually staffed and run by a former Bush appointee. The organization is also, as the website demurely puts it, “supported by” ATS.

There’s nothing new or shocking about an industry lobbying for itself, standing up fake grassroots support, and spending money to influence elections. But the fact that the camera companies behave like any other rent-seeking business tells you everything you need to know about them. Except that in this case, the rent they’re seeking doesn’t come from private-sector competitors. It comes from you.

And like other rent-seekers, the camera industry doesn’t stoically accept the strictures of law and elections. It fights back. In 2009, voters in College Station, Texas, killed the town’s camera program. A week later, an organization called “Keep College Station Safe” sued the city, claiming that the petition leading to the referendum was invalid. “Keep College Station Safe” is a political action committee with $67,100 in total funding: $30,000 from ATS, $5,000 from an ATS consultant, $8,000 from a contractor who works for ATS, $5,000 from an ATS subcontractor, and $16,600 from a company that prints the tickets for ATS.

Voters in College Station then ran up against another obstacle: When “Keep College Station Safe” sued College Station, the city government—which was pro-camera—was eager to roll over and lose the case. It was only after citizen pressure forced the city to hire outside counsel that the lawsuit was defeated and the cameras came down.

Houston has the same problem. After voters approved a measure to get rid of cameras earlier this year, ATS filed suit on similar grounds. In the case of Proposition 3, they maintained that the city could only cancel the program via a “referendum,” but that the vote was put on the ballot as a “charter amendment.” In this case, ATS won. The judge told the city to turn the cameras back on. And it wasn’t at all clear that Houston’s politicians were unhappy to lose in court—the mayor and her city attorney are both camera supporters who didn’t even feign reluctance when they started the cameras running again. Only this time, they no longer pointed to safety as a reason for the cameras. Now the mayor said that she had to keep the cameras running because ATS was holding the city hostage. “Realizing that we have already laid off nearly 750 city employees through a very difficult budget process,” she said, “I can’t in good conscience allow millions of dollars in exposure to ATS under this contract.”

If anything, the case of Houston shows how remarkable it is that the public has made any progress at all against red-light cameras. Because the government is usually more foe than friend. For example, earlier this summer the California assembly took up a bill that would allow cities to reduce posted speeds in certain areas by 5 mph. The reason: cameras. In many intersections, a lower posted speed limit allows traffic lights to have shorter yellow-light intervals. And shorter amber times mean, well, yes, more accidents. But more camera citations, too.

Such are the minutiae of the menace cameras pose to the American system of governance: tenths-of-a-second on yellow-light times and the legal distinction between referendums and charter amendments.

None of it—not shorter yellows or the cameras or the $400 tickets—represents a grand, existential threat to the Republic. But it’s a threat all the same.       A threat to the idea that government should be a tool of the people. Not a ratchet.

---

Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!

Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.

Copyright 2010 Weekly Standard LLC.