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 in Virginia back in the news
AppId is over the quota
Payee notification has made its way back into the news. According to Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Virginia State Bar President Irving M. Blank told the agency's executive committee today that he expects statewide bar groups and the Supreme Court of Virginia to revisit the issue of payee notification soon.
Payee notification simply means that when an insurance company sends a check to a lawyer that is for a client (i.e. payment on the personal injury claim) the client gets notification of that transmittal.
Simple. Effective. Consumer friendly.
For some reasons, some trial lawyers don't payee notification think this is a good idea. I've made my position on this consumer friendly rule here and here.
I'd like any lawyer who can articulate a good reason why this rule should is a bad idea to comment here.
Thanks!
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 in Virginia-some lawyers against it and they are wrong
There is payment recipients in Virginia a simple solution and its notification.
Amazing, against some lawyers in Virginia of this consumer protection statute.
They need it to questions, why.
I invite to "have it" on this blog and express their opinions as why Virginia payee notifications now not should adopt.
One comment to "payee notification in Virginia-some lawyers against it and they are wrong"
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]
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]
Lawyer Ben glass letter to the payee notification statute Editor
Virginia injury lawyer Ben glass has made previously known his views on the issue of the "payee notification.".
Payee notification an insurance company would have to e-Mail communication a settlement to the applicant at the same time that it sends the settlement of the plaintiff lawyer check.
This simple idea makes a lot of sense, in part because is that tiny percentage of the lawyers, which prevents from getting away with their crimes to steal money and it would be absolutely no cost to lawyers. Steve Conrad belonged and he is now doing big time jail time.
Instead, some "alternative" payee notification include costs of time or money to all lawyers.
What makes more sense for you?
Here is Ben glass letter to the editor in Virginia lawyers weekly on the subject.
One comment to "lawyer Ben glass letter regarding payment recipient notification status"
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]
Notification good for consumers why some lawyers attempt to oppose payment recipient
Some Virginia trial lawyers is a simple and smart consumer protection statute that would have prevented the theft of millions of now imprisoned lawyer Stephen Conrad opposed. They appear even concern over reputation the trial bar against the Statute of its own.
I argue that support the measure would increase, not reduce the reputation of the trial lawyers, because the measure to support, is the right thing to do and not consumers of legal services would think that this is a bad idea.
My thought on the Virginia debate on the proposed payee notification statute here can be read.
One comment to "Payee notification good for consumers why some trial lawyers are against"
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]
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]
Payee notification in Virginia-some lawyers against it and they are wrong
There is a simple solution and your payee notification in Virginia called.
Amazing, against some lawyers in Virginia of this consumer protection statute.
You have to them on issues, why.
I invite to "have it" on this blog and express their opinions, as why Virginia payee notifications now not should adopt.
One comment to "payee notification in Virginia-some lawyers against it and they are wrong"
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]
Lawyer Ben glass letter to the editor regarding beneficiary notification statutes
Virginia injury lawyer Ben glass has his views on the issue of the "payee notification." known done before.
Payee notification should an insurance company e-Mail communication a settlement to the applicant at the same time that the settlement sends it check the applicant's lawyer.
This simple idea makes a lot of sense, in part, because is that tiny percentage of the lawyers, the money prevents from getting away with their crimes to steal and absolutely no cost to lawyers, it would be. Steve Conrad was and he is now doing big time jail time.
Instead, some "alternative" payee notification include cost of time or money to all lawyers.
What makes more sense for you?
Here is Ben glass letter to the editor in Virginia lawyers weekly on the subject.
One comment to "lawyer Ben glass letter to the editor for payee notification statutes"
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]
