Complaint Review: Rad Law Firm - Adam Hardison - Dallas Texas

My name is Adam Hardison, and I have just learned that Lindatoto has posted serious allegations against me and Rad Law Firm concerning the outcome of her case. While Linda is certainly entitled to be upset over the tragic death of her daughter, she is wrong to fault me or Rad Law Firm for the outcome of what was an extremely difficult case. I am writing to set the facts straight. The Facts Shirley and her husband were both killed when Shirley's husband failed to yield the right of way and turned left into the path of an oncoming pickup truck. A construction crew had blocked off the outside lane of the two lane road on which the approaching truck was traveling, and Shirley's husband turned left just as the truck moved from the outside to the inside lane and entered the intersection. The police report reflected that the construction crew had placed two warning cones and a flagman in the road to caution approaching motorists to slow down. Liability There were three possible defendants against whom we could make a claim: 1) Shirley's husband; 2) the driver of the pickup truck; and 3) the construction company who was pouring a sidewalk at the corner of the intersection where the collision occurred. 1. Shirley's husband was clearly liable for this collision, and we were able to quickly secure a policy limits offer of $25,000 from his liability insurance policy. However, we were not able to officially accept this offer until we could determine whether others might also be liable. 2. The driver of the pickup truck that collided into Shirley's vehicle was clearly liable, but unfortunately, he was also uninsured. 3. This case was about trying to uncover facts showing that the construction company was also liable for this collision. I felt that the construction company's equipment was probably in the road obstructing visibility and that the construction company had not followed various rules concerning placement of cones and signs. The construction company's witnesses said they did follow these rules, but I uncovered some evidence that showed they did not. Damages In trying to settle this case, I was concerned that a Jury would place the majority of the liability on Shirley's husband and/or the uninsured driver of the pickup truck. The other serious problem was that there was only one client Shirley's young daughter who had had any real relationship with Shirley. In a wrongful death case, the damages are based primarily on the loss of the relationship between the survivors and the deceased. In this case, however, the facts established that Shirley had not had the type of relationship with Linda, her father, or her two sons that would persuade a Jury to render a sizeable verdict to them. The Settlement When we went to mediation, we were able to negotiate a settlement from the construction company in the gross amount of $100,000, with $80,000 being offered to Shirley's daughter and $20,000 being offered to Shirley's parents and her two sons. Assuming that the construction company was found to be 10% at fault, this settlement represented a $1,000,000 verdict, an unlikely outcome given the facts. Ultimately, all the clients agreed to accept this settlement with the understanding that the majority of the money would be used to take care of Shirley's daughter, who had lost both of her parents in this collision and who is now being raised by her grandfather, Shirley's father-in-law. They agreed that it was better to provide for the welfare of Shirley's daughter than to risk going to trial. The daughter's money was placed into an annuity, and when she reaches 18 years of age, it will have grown sufficiently to put her through college. After the clients accepted the settlement, we still had to have a Minor Prove-up Hearing for the Court to approve the settlement before any of the money could be disbursed. This process involved having the Court appoint a guardian ad litem to meet with the clients, finding an annuity company, and having a hearing to approve the settlement as being in the minor children's best interest. This was a lengthy process. We also had to address a variety issues with a competing probate action that further delayed the hearing. Eventually the Court heard the case, it approved the settlement, and all monies were disbursed to the clients. A Note About Me I graduated from Baylor Law School in 1990, I am a board-certified personal injury trial lawyer, and I have represented thousands of clients in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I have worked hard to maintain an excellent reputation with my clients and my peers. I regret that Linda is unsatisfied with the outcome of her case, but I know that because of the excellent work that I did, Shirley's daughter received a recovery that she would not otherwise have received. Because of that, she will have the opportunity to complete her education and live a successful life. Adam R. Hardison

Everybody that thinks Russ is a lawyer, raise your hand!

I've been told that since I am reporting about LAWYERS that I have to declare that everything I say about THEM is alleged because I can't PROVE any off this except for public records that THEY file!!! I can prove this-it's October 8th 2007. Shirley Dawn died July 15th 2003. I have not received any kind of settlement although I signed settlement papers July 14 2006. I also want to add that "Phil" Bally really seems to be trying to help me. I guess he may be one of those ethical people trapped in an unethical job.

Read the attorney contract which, undoubtably, you signed. No attorney would proceed without one. Standard is 33.3% if the case settles before a suit is filed, 40% is settlement occurs before trial, and 50% of the settlement after trial. In addition, attorneys have the right to reimburse themselves for reasonable expenses while litigating the case. As I see it, the attorney settled for 40% plus expenses. The Bar Association was correct, there was no worngdoing.