Payee Notification Would Have Prevented Most of Conrad Fraud
AppId is over the quota
The Virginia State Bar has just reported that it's Client Protection Fund has paid out an astonishing $411,165 in claims to former clients of former Virginia personal injury attorney Stephen ("the felon") Conrad.
There's a simple procedure, now being proposed in Virginia, that would have prevented most of this fraud. Its called payee notification and what it says is that if the insurance company sends your lawyer a settlement check of $5,000 or more, they send you a notice that they've paid your lawyer.
Like an old ad I remember: "simple, inexpensive, and it works."
Trouble is, some Virginia lawyers are opposed to this consumer protection statute . In fact, as of this writing the official position of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association (of which I am a member) is "opposed."
Sorry, but there's not a consumer out there who thinks that payee notification is a BAD idea.
By the way...who do you think pays for the money that goes into the fund?
The lawyer members of the Virginia State Bar. Who does that cost get passed to? The consumer/client.
Thus, it seems rather simple that a reduction in claims by virtually preventing the type of fraud Conrad engaged in (i.e. he was settling your case and forging your name on checks and never telling you, the client) will reduce the cost of legal services in Virginia.
I'm still waiting to hear the rational basis for the argument against this law...HINT: the basis can't begin "it will hurt our (lawyers) feelings!"
Message:
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
For security purposes, please enter the graphic text in the box below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]
Payee notification would most was Conrad have prevented
It is a simple procedure, now in Virginia, which most was this prevents would have proposed. Its listed Recipients notification and what it says that if your lawyer is a the insurance company settlement check of $5,000 or more sends it a message send, which you have paid your lawyer.
Like an old ad I remember: "simple, inexpensive, and it works."
The problem is that lawyers against these consumer protection statutes are some Virginia. In fact as of this writing the official position of the Virginia trial lawyers Association (of which I am a member) "contrary."
I'm sorry, but it is not a consumer is, which says that payee notification is a bad idea.
By the way..., pays you think in the Fund for the money goes?
The lawyer members of the Virginia state bar. Passed, the costs to? The consumer/client.
It seems pretty simple that a reduction in the claims virtually prevents employed the type of fraud of Conrad (i.e. He was settlement of your case and forging your name on tests and never tell you, the client) reduces the cost of legal services in Virginia.
I still waiting to hear the rational basis for the argument against this law...Note: the base does not start, "It will hurt our (lawyers) feelings!"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
Conrad allows the former to step forward against insurance company
Prince William County Circuit Judge William D. Hamblen enabled an applicant allowed their personal injury claim with a 2003 car accident first Conrad's original cases is that, which still has allowed against an insurance company. Nicole Andrews, who is now 22, was facial fractures had suffered and with scars, according to her lawyer.
Conrad Nicoles parents had hired to represent the case. Supposedly, he is two claims in the amount of $80,000, but never informed its customers. Instead, he has not the first time Conrad, who had done at the money that was allegedly. He was charged with resolving cases without tells to steal its customers and then their money. It is believed that he stole more than 250 customers.
In 2007, Conrad was American and in 2008, he guilty fraud after he allegedly almost $4 million in settlements such as by Nicole case steel. He is serving now in prison, an 11-year sentence.
Judges continue to assign plaintiff attempts, reopen their claims that insurance companies reasonably on Conrad's authority negotiate claims for its customers leave. Fairfax County Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush had said that the insurance company should be held responsible for the loss, because the client was the "accredited Conrad" by hiring him.
"" Judge Hamblen cites a decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia from 1926, that "the apparent authority must the product a belief that"traceable on the principal manifestations."" What does that mean? Judge Hamblen was basically say there had to be an action of the client that would show that he or she rely apparent authority on the lawyer.
Konrad was a dishonest lawyer, and there are others out there. That is why consumers informed lawyer about the hiring process must be. It is the book the truth about lawyer also why I wrote advertising.
One comment to "case, forward against insurance company allows former Conrad move"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
Former Conrad client allows to track accident case in Loudoun County
Many Conrad's had little luck former customers, when you try to recover compensation for their cases. Many decisions have been made, that the settlements reached with the insurance companies are binding. These decisions were based on Conrad's "apparent authority" negotiations with insurers.
The last case went against this trend. Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas Horne decided a plaintiff to make progress with his auto accident case allow, although Conrad had made a previous agreement. Judge CITES Horne a 1926 Supreme Court of Virginia decision, which explains that in order to "apparent authority" have the client, the Attorney has something more than just rent.
Conrad had 2004 handled the car accident claim to $18,000 in 2006. The case will now continue.
This is the second decision by Virginia judge where Conrad's former customers continued their demands. Prince William County Circuit Court Judge William D. Hamblen others decided in April 2010. Read more about the case in our blog post, "former Conrad allows on to move case forward against insurance company."
Read the opinion here.
One comment to "Client, allows former Conrad accident case in Loudoun County track"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
The most Conrad payee notification would have prevented fraud
It is a simple procedure, now in Virginia, this fraud prevented would have proposed the most. Its called payee notification and what it says, that if your lawyer is a the insurance company settlement sends check of $5,000 or more, a communication send you, which you have paid your lawyer.
Like an old ad I remember: "simple, inexpensive, and it works."
The problem is, some Virginia lawyers against this consumer protection statute. In fact, as of this writing the official position of the Virginia trial lawyers Association (of which I am a member) "contrary."
Sorry, but there is no consumer is, which says that payee notification is a bad idea.
By the way... which do you think pays for the money that goes into the Fund?
The lawyer members of the Virginia state bar. Passed, the costs to? The consumer/client.
It seems pretty easy, that a reduction in the claims involved virtually prevents the type of fraud of Conrad (that is, it was resolving your case and forging your name on tests and tell you, the client never) reduces the cost of legal services in Virginia.
I am still awaiting the insurance components according to objective criteria for the argument against this law to hear...Note: the base does not start, "It will hurt our (lawyers)!"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
For security purposes, you give the graphic text in the box below: [press F5 if you can't read the text]
Conrad allows the former to step forward against insurance company
Prince William County Circuit Judge William D. Hamblen enabled an applicant allowed their personal injury claim with a 2003 car accident, which original cases is the first Conrad's, which still has allowed against an insurance company. Nicole Andrews, who is now 22, had sustained facial fractures and remained with scars, according to her lawyer.
Conrad, Nicole's parents had hired to represent the case. Allegedly, he have two claims in the amount of $80,000, but never learned his customers. Instead, he has not the first time Conrad, who had done at the money that was allegedly. He was accused, settle cases without tells its customers and then steal their money. It is believed that he stole more than 250 customers.
In 2007, Conrad was American and in 2008, he was guilty to after he allegedly almost $4 million in settlements similar to Nicole's case steel. He now served in prison, a 11 years in prison.
Judges have continue to assign plaintiff attempts, reopen their claims that insurance companies reasonably on Conrad's authority negotiate claims for his customers leave. Fairfax County Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush had said that the insurance company should be held responsible for the loss, as the client that was, accredited it by setting the "Conrad".
Judge Hamblen cited a Supreme Court of Virginia decision of 1926, that "the apparent authority the product of a faith must be the 'traceable on the principal manifestations.'" What does that mean? Judge Hamblen was basically say there had to be an action of the client that would show that he or she left apparent authority on the lawyer.
Konrad was corrupted and there are others out there. That is why consumers informed lawyer about the hiring process must be. It is the book the truth about lawyer also why I wrote advertising.
One comment to "case, forward against insurance company allows former Conrad move"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
For security purposes, you give the graphic text in the box below: [press F5 if you can't read the text]
