WDC Journal - Summer 2010
President’s Column: The Year in Review
by: Catherine M. Rottier, President, Wisconsin Defense Counsel
My term as president of Wisconsin Defense Counsel is coming to an end, so this is my last President's Column. Don't think you've heard the last from me, though, because I plan to remain active in the organization. As a personal mission, I pledge to continue our fight to reform Wisconsin's unfair default judgment rules.
Attacking Unreasonable Expert Fees
by: Joshua B. Cronin, Esq., Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, S.C.
As a defense attorney, you sometimes find yourself opposing a position that in most other circumstances you would zealously advocate. Some time ago, I had just such an experience after I gave a plaintiff my expert’s fee schedule for deposition testimony. When the plaintiff received this fee schedule, he filed a Motion for Relief from the costs my medical expert was charging to be deposed. My expert was charging in excess of $3,000 for a one-hour deposition. Of course, I needed to oppose this motion, but I personally found the motion persuasive. After all, $3,000 for a single hour of deposition testimony is rather striking. I also thought that the defense bar often suffers from similarly excessive fees. Nonetheless, I drafted a brief in opposition to this motion and attended the oral argument.
2009-10 Legislative Review
by: Andrew Cook, The Hamilton Consulting Group
On April 23, the Wisconsin Legislature adjourned the 2009-10 legislative session. A number of bills introduced had a direct impact on WDC members, including the businesses and individuals that WDC members represent. Ultimately, each of these bills was defeated thanks in great measure to the efforts of WDC leadership and members.
WDC Makes a Difference
by: Jim Hough, The Hamilton Consulting Group
One of the primary reasons for the existence of any trade or professional association is the desire to impact public policy decisions which affect the manner and/or profitability of carrying on that trade or profession. WDC (or CTCW, as it was previously known) has always viewed and treated its legislative involvement as a top priority. The right to lobby is a constitutional right “to petition the Government.” That right is also a practical necessity, required to ensure that our legislative processes remain representative and consider the respective positions of competing interests.
The Plaintiff Has Died, Who Must Be Notified?
by: Aaron J. Graf, SmithAmundsen, LLC
It is not all that uncommon for defense counsel to be faced with the situation in which the plaintiff has died during the course of litigation. A Wisconsin statute permits a continuation of the action through substitution of a new plaintiff, but sets specific procedural requirements – and even a time limit – for any such substitution. This article will describe what the defense should do, and not do, in cases where the plaintiff has died during the pendency of the action.
You Can Cry Me a River but My Client’s Not Paying: The Non-Compensability of “Litigation-Induced” Stress
by: Neal S. Krokosky, Otjen, Van Ert & Weir, S.C.
State and federal courts have consistently rejected plaintiffs’ claims for litigation-induced stress. However, to date, no appellate court in the State of Wisconsin has ruled on this issue. The lack of controlling authority may lead (and has led) creative plaintiffs’ attorneys to seek these damages in lawsuits prosecuted in the State’s courts. The goals of this article, therefore, are two-fold: (1) to provide a comprehensive guide to the authority available to defeat plaintiffs’ claims for litigation-induced stress; and, (2) to briefly discuss the legal mechanisms through which such claims may be defeated. In the first section of this article, I outline the policies underlying the courts’ rejection of plaintiffs’ claims for litigation-induced stress. In the second section, I briefly discuss the legal mechanisms available to prevent recovery for such claims. Given the deferential standard of review afforded to trial courts’ rulings pertaining to evidence and jury instructions, the best opportunity to prevent plaintiffs from recovering for litigation-induced stress is at that level.
by: Catherine M. Rottier, President, Wisconsin Defense Counsel
My term as president of Wisconsin Defense Counsel is coming to an end, so this is my last President's Column. Don't think you've heard the last from me, though, because I plan to remain active in the organization. As a personal mission, I pledge to continue our fight to reform Wisconsin's unfair default judgment rules.
Attacking Unreasonable Expert Fees
by: Joshua B. Cronin, Esq., Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, S.C.
As a defense attorney, you sometimes find yourself opposing a position that in most other circumstances you would zealously advocate. Some time ago, I had just such an experience after I gave a plaintiff my expert’s fee schedule for deposition testimony. When the plaintiff received this fee schedule, he filed a Motion for Relief from the costs my medical expert was charging to be deposed. My expert was charging in excess of $3,000 for a one-hour deposition. Of course, I needed to oppose this motion, but I personally found the motion persuasive. After all, $3,000 for a single hour of deposition testimony is rather striking. I also thought that the defense bar often suffers from similarly excessive fees. Nonetheless, I drafted a brief in opposition to this motion and attended the oral argument.
2009-10 Legislative Review
by: Andrew Cook, The Hamilton Consulting Group
On April 23, the Wisconsin Legislature adjourned the 2009-10 legislative session. A number of bills introduced had a direct impact on WDC members, including the businesses and individuals that WDC members represent. Ultimately, each of these bills was defeated thanks in great measure to the efforts of WDC leadership and members.
WDC Makes a Difference
by: Jim Hough, The Hamilton Consulting Group
One of the primary reasons for the existence of any trade or professional association is the desire to impact public policy decisions which affect the manner and/or profitability of carrying on that trade or profession. WDC (or CTCW, as it was previously known) has always viewed and treated its legislative involvement as a top priority. The right to lobby is a constitutional right “to petition the Government.” That right is also a practical necessity, required to ensure that our legislative processes remain representative and consider the respective positions of competing interests.
The Plaintiff Has Died, Who Must Be Notified?
by: Aaron J. Graf, SmithAmundsen, LLC
It is not all that uncommon for defense counsel to be faced with the situation in which the plaintiff has died during the course of litigation. A Wisconsin statute permits a continuation of the action through substitution of a new plaintiff, but sets specific procedural requirements – and even a time limit – for any such substitution. This article will describe what the defense should do, and not do, in cases where the plaintiff has died during the pendency of the action.
You Can Cry Me a River but My Client’s Not Paying: The Non-Compensability of “Litigation-Induced” Stress
by: Neal S. Krokosky, Otjen, Van Ert & Weir, S.C.
State and federal courts have consistently rejected plaintiffs’ claims for litigation-induced stress. However, to date, no appellate court in the State of Wisconsin has ruled on this issue. The lack of controlling authority may lead (and has led) creative plaintiffs’ attorneys to seek these damages in lawsuits prosecuted in the State’s courts. The goals of this article, therefore, are two-fold: (1) to provide a comprehensive guide to the authority available to defeat plaintiffs’ claims for litigation-induced stress; and, (2) to briefly discuss the legal mechanisms through which such claims may be defeated. In the first section of this article, I outline the policies underlying the courts’ rejection of plaintiffs’ claims for litigation-induced stress. In the second section, I briefly discuss the legal mechanisms available to prevent recovery for such claims. Given the deferential standard of review afforded to trial courts’ rulings pertaining to evidence and jury instructions, the best opportunity to prevent plaintiffs from recovering for litigation-induced stress is at that level.
