Boston Accident Lawyer Blog

It’s January. It’s snowing. It’s Massachusetts. Add it up, and you’ve got plenty of skiers here. As just as much as going to the beach in summer is popular here, so is skiing in winter. Though not all skiing is downhill (vs. cross-country,) most is – and without a doubt, most of the injuries that result from skiing, involve the downhill variety.

Downhill skiing is dangerous business. Anyone who’s ever done it, can attest to this. Even the least challenging “Bunny Trails,” can pose significant risk to a skier – whether novice or experienced. Witness the death last year of Natasha Richardson, Liam Neeson’s late wife. She was on skis, but barely moving, and fell down, striking her head against an icy surface. She died from a subdural hematoma that resulted from the impact. True, most ski injuries result from moderate to high-speed collisions, but this tragic event illustrates the point: Skiing is very dangerous.

With that reality in mind, and considering the number of persons who frequent commercial ski resort operators in this state every winter (hundreds of thousands) you’d think that there would be a lot of injuries each year, and a lot of lawsuits against ski operators. You’d be right as to the first, wrong as to the second. Why? Because the ski resort industry, both nationally and in Massachusetts, is very powerful. A multi-billion dollar industry, the ski resort industry has successfully exerted their influence in both the Massachusetts state legislature, and in the courts, to limit their liability for injuries occurring at their facilities. The result, historically, has been a very hostile environment for plaintiffs seeking to hold commercial ski resorts liable for injuries that occur as a result of their negligence. In the past 20 years, successfully bringing such a suit, never mind winning one, has been a daunting legal task. The reasons have been due to a combination of very strict legislative enactments pushed into law by the ski resort industry, as well as judicial rulings that have been very hostile to plaintiffs.

In recent years, however, that ice (if you will) has begun to thaw. While the legal and judicial attitude toward ski injury plaintiffs used to be, “This is an inherently dangerous activity, you assumed the risk,” some recent case decisions have allowed victims of ski injuries, their day in court. While historically it was extremely difficult to hold a ski operator or fellow skier liable for negligence, that attitude may now be changing. Now, ski resorts are more and more being held liable for not exercising ordinary and reasonable care in the operation of their business. The legal attitude is changing from one that said, “Operators of ski resorts are not liable for any injuries by patrons using their facilities,” to “Operators may be responsible for injuries that are due to evidence of negligence.” Skiing related injuries usually involve collision incidents, and lift mishaps. However, it is collisions with poorly located signs and poorly marked obstacles that are generating the greatest change in judicial attitude these days, as well as injuries resulting from inadequate slope maintenance by resort employees. Injuries suffered in the course of ski instruction or while under the care of the ski patrol, are also receiving increased judicial attention.

Recently, a case brought by an injured skier in U.S. District Court in Boston, against Jiminy Peak Ski Resort of Hancock, Massachusetts, has generated significant attention among plaintiffs’ injury attorneys. A skier who was injured when she struck an inadequately marked snow gun, sued Jiminy Peak in federal court, arguing that that the ski resort was negligent in both it providing her with inadequate rented ski boots and equipment, as well as negligence in placing a snow gun in a traveled ski lane and failing to adequately mark it for visibility.

The ski resort moved for what is known as “summary judgment.” This is essentially a legal motion that asks the court to throw the case out, on the grounds that the plaintiff does not have a legally adequate cause of action. The resort’s motion was filed for both of the plaintiff’s two counts alleging negligence, above. While the court allowed the defendant’s motion on the negligence count involving the ski equipment rental, it denied the motion as to the count alleging negligence in the placement and marking of the snow gun. The court’s decision on the defendant’s motion, cited the Massachusetts Ski Safety Act, a legislative law governing ski operators’ liability in this state: "Though the Act imposes a duty on skiers to ski within their ability and avoid collisions, it is also the ski area operator's duty to operate ski areas ‘in a reasonably safe condition or manner.' ... This duty is simply incompatible with the notion that a ski area operator could place an obstacle or create some other hazard on the skiable area of a trail and have no duty to mark the hazard. …The general duty to operate the ski area in a reasonably safe manner may in certain circumstances include a duty to pad specific obstacles. ... As there are factual questions regarding the actual location of the snow gun in relation to the skiable area of the trail and whether it was adequately marked and padded, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied as to this claim. Although the trial will present challenges for Plaintiffs, they are entitled to their day in court on this claim. ...”

Hence, the plaintiff here will at least get the chance to prove her claim to a jury. Even this, would not likely have been allowed as recently as 10 years ago.

Hence, as a Massachusetts injury attorney, I can advise you that the laws in the area of ski injuries in Massachusetts, and nationally, are gradually changing to a more plaintiff-friendly outlook. Not perfect yet, but the legal atmosphere in this area of law is improving. And to the more conservative, pro-business types who don’t like these changes, I say: Exposure to liability like this, is what causes businesses – especially big business – to operate with greater safety to the public. The life that may be saved by such changes, may be your own.

In my last post, I discussed the importance of a jury being able to see the amount of medical bills that were generated to pay for a plaintiff’s medical care – vs. the amount of discounted medical bills actually paid by a health insurer (as part, of course, of a suit alleging injuries caused by a defendant’s negligence). At trial in July 2006, in the case I blogged about previously, the defendant (Griffith) argued that because the plaintiff (Law) did not have to pay the full $112,269 that was billed for her care by her medical providers, only the lower, discounted figure that was actually paid by her health insurer - $16,387.14 – should be shown to the jury for the purpose of their assessing any damages. In that Superior Court case, the judge in that case agreed with the defendant – a highly unusual ruling, given state precedent in these cases. The result: The jury was only allowed to see the $16,387.14 figure. And the result of that? The jury awarded this plaintiff – who suffered substantial injuries which generated over $112,000.00 in medical bills - only $48,500. Undaunted, the plaintiff appealed this judge’s ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, and that court ruled that the Superior Court judge erred on the medical bills issue, and ordered a new trial. Not to be outdone, the defendant then petitioned the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) for a final answer, and that is where the case sits now. How’s that for some “legal tennis?” Not uncommon.

As a Boston injury lawyer, I can assure you that the stakes behind this case are enormous: Juries are not “experts,” or vocational economists, in case valuation. When assessing damages that they might wish to award a plaintiff for personal (physical) injuries, they rely on the amount of the medical bills put before them. If they see a total figure that is relatively small (i.e., the amount of medical expenses actually paid,) as opposed to a much higher figure (i.e., the amount of medical expenses billed,) they will intentionally reduce the amount of any award they render. That is only common sense. Think of it this way: Assume you or someone you love is seriously injured due to someone else’s negligence – it could be a car accident, a slip-and-fall injury, or any variety of injuries. Assume that the medical expenses involved in the treatment of these injuries amount to $100,000. That figure reflects a number of things, but most importantly, it reflects and illustrates the severity of the injuries suffered. This is key for any jury reviewing the matter, later – when all the physical results of those injuries are not always visible to the eye. Assume that the plaintiff’s health insurer negotiated with the medical providers, to pay 20 cents on the dollar – a total of $20,000. Now, assume that instead of the jury being allowed to see these $100,000 in medical expenses, they are only allowed to see only what the insurance company actually paid - $20,000.

Do you think such a jury would view your injuries as being as severe as they actually were, if it sees medical expenses of only $20,000? It won’t. Appearances are everything to juries; they are comprised of human beings, and as my late father used to caution me, “You cannot remove the human element” in any trial. It’s unavoidable.

In this legal debate, the insurance industry is “at it again.” In essence, this is one more attempt by the insurance industry to enact more “tort reform” - this time through judicial decision, rather than legislative enactment. Actually, two types of insurance industries are at work here: The health insurance companies want to be able to use their economic muscle to “negotiate” medicals bills down with hospitals and doctors, to pay them just cents on the dollar for medical bills. As if that weren’t bad enough, the liability insurance companies – the ones who pay jury awards and settlements – want to come in after the health insurers are through hacking down a patient’s medical bills, and allow juries to only see medical expense actually paid, not billed.

All this may seem confusing to a non-lawyer. But the impact of this decision on Massachusetts personal injury suits will be serious and wide-ranging. Unlike a bill before the legislature, there is nothing any non-lawyers can do to affect the outcome of this decision.

All the public, and the plaintiff’s trial bar who stand up for them, can do, is wait, and hope. I’ll keep you posted. Oh, and by the way - Happy New Year to all my readers. Let's hope that 2010 is a better year, in many ways, economic, social and otherwise, than was 2009.

I have a favorite saying (which my wife Debbi would readily tell you,) that “The devil is in the details.” Along those lines, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is now considering a case that has very serious implications for anyone filing a Massachusetts personal injury suit in the future. The entire focus of the case that the SJC is weighing, (Law v. Griffith; SJC No. 10463) centers on medical bills and how juries assess damages that they may award to plaintiffs.

You see, juries are allowed to take into consideration a number of factors when assessing and awarding damages when they find in favor of a plaintiff. Some of these factors can include:
• Evidence of conscious pain and suffering
• Evidence of lost income – past and future
• Past medical bills
• Expert testimony regarding future medical bills
• Loss of consortium – that is, the sense of society, companionship that a married person enjoys with a spouse
• And other factors

Juries in Massachusetts are allowed to consider all these factors, if and when they award damages to a plaintiff in a personal injury action. Of these, however, one of the most important is the amount of (past) medical bills that were generated to provide for hospital and/or medical care for the plaintiff, as the result of the injuries that were caused by a particular defendant’s negligence. The medical costs that are involved to treat a plaintiff’s injuries are heavily relied upon by juries when assessing total damages, and at issue in the case under review by the SJC, is whether medical bills that are issued - as opposed to medical expenses that are actually paid - should be admitted into evidence for a jury to consider. This is not a small, technical matter – it is an extremely important difference, which could affect the value of every single personal injury suit filed in Massachusetts in the future.

A little history as to what brought this case before the SJC: In February 2001, a Ms. Joanne Law (the injured party and plaintiff) was struck by a Mr. Daniel Griffith (the defendant,) in a car accident in Woburn. The evidence indicated that Griffith caused the accident by running a stop sign. In July 2003, Ms. Law commenced a personal injury suit against Griffith in Superior Court, alleging negligence. As a result of the accident, Ms. Law suffered neck, arm and wrist pain and later underwent neck surgery to treat these injuries. Although Law incurred a total of $112,269.94 in medical bills by the time the trial began, MassHealth, the state agency who was her health insurer, paid her health care providers only $16,387.14. Note: It is not at all unusual for a health insurer, private or public, to pay a medical a provider far less than the amount actually billed. You may have seen this yourself, if you’ve ever reviewed or compared statements between what a doctor or hospital billed you for care, and what your health insurer actually paid that provider. Health insurers use their large size and economic muscle to “negotiate” these bills down to a lump-sum payment that is usually cents on the dollar. As a great many hospitals and health care providers operate under great financial stress, health insurers can usually succeed with this tactic. Most hospitals these days are hurting financially.

I’ll detail what happened once the jury in this case saw these medical "expenses", in my next post. Until then, Happy Christmas!

In a type of case that is a hybrid between a Massachusetts personal injury suit and a civil rights claim, the City of Attleboro, Massachusetts has agreed to pay a 17 year-old girl $100,000 in damages to settle a suit against the city alleging excessive use of force, and police brutality.

Esther Durex, then 16 years old at the time of the incident on October 12 2008, said she was beaten by police after leaving a party on that date last year. The settlement was negotiated with the city by the youth’s attorney, and was approved recently by Judge Robert Kane of Fall River Superior Court. Reportedly, the settlement will be paid by the city's insurance company. The settlement required a judge’s approval because the plaintiff is a minor.

Durex’s attorney, David Cass, calling her a "model student," said the Attleboro High School senior was stopped and eventually arrested by police after leaving a party on the date in question. He said his client was struck by officers with clubs in the head, legs and arms. Durex suffered a broken wrist in the incident. The victim incurred approximately $2,700 in medical bills and has had to receive psychological counseling as a result of the incident, according to her attorney.

According to a police report filed in the incident, officers who had been called to investigate a loud party found the girl walking on Leedham Street in Attleboro. Officers claimed in the report that Durex was swaying and slurring her words as though under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The report also said the girl refused a ride home, used profane language and had to be restrained after becoming disorderly and wandering into the street. Police also charged the teen with assaulting officers Matthew Cook and Christopher Ulbrich, along with disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. The teen denied ever assaulting the police. Further, All charges against Durex were dismissed in juvenile court, according to her lawyer for that proceeding. Police Chief Richard Pierce could not be reached for comment by reporters.

This settlement isn’t reported here to advance the idea that police officers regularly abuse innocent civilians. In my experience as a former Special Assistant District Attorney for Norfolk County and a practicing Boston personal injury lawyer, I believe the majority of police officers are ethical and responsible law enforcement professionals. But occasionally, as in any profession or vocation, there are a few bad apples, and it’s important to be vigilant about this possibility, especially when dealing with authority figures such as police officers. When such civil rights violations occur, they can be prosecuted in either state or federal court, depending on the circumstances, and jury verdicts and settlements can be substantial, assuming the evidence in the plaintiff’s favor is persuasive. It should be noted that the evidence in this case (with a 16 year-old girl suffering a broken wrist,) was apparently quite clear, thus providing for a rapid and appropriate financial settlement with the city.

Our office has handled such claims in the past. If you feel that you or someone you now has clearly been the victim of such excessive force, contact us for a free consultation.

I've been traveling out of office for a couple of weeks, and I haven't posted anything for too long - my apologies to my loyal readers. Today, I want to send this brief message: I've been given a lot of good things in this life. I've had my share of suffering and personal losses, also, but I am grateful for what I have. Most importantly, for the gift of my beautiful wife (who had a birthday yesterday,) and for those I am close to. We are all at different places in life, and we all have different blessings and burdens. But I think we can all agree that, unfortunately, there are always those who have less then we do, and that we can all be grateful to varying degrees for what we have in life. Debbi and I are blessed to be here in Hawaii over Thanksgiving, and while this is a beautiful place, it is also marked by a very high cost of living, and by the sadness of too much poverty for too many who live and work here. We hope we can do our part to leave this place having extended some kindness and benevolence to those who live here, especially on Thanksgiving Day during our visit.

I passed a Buddhist statuary today, and a particular contemplation struck me as important: "When Wishes Are Few The Heart Is Happy." That is a tall order in a world dominated by a consumerist-mentality and by nonstop messages of "Buy, Get, Acquire." But these age-old words are important to remember, or it becomes hard to be grateful for anything.

And so I give thanks for the blessings I have, including my loyal readers, my friends and my clients.

My best wishes to all of you.

Thankfully,

Bill Kickham

In my previous post on this topic – “tort reform” – I explained how and where the misinformation campaign of tort reform was developed: the liability insurance industry. I also explained that this campaign has been so successful, that a national bar association that has existed for over 60 years, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA,) apparently felt that the public perception of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers had been so damaged by this misinformation campaign, and public opinion of trial lawyers had sunk so low as a result, that it actually decided to change its name to the “American Association for Justice” (AAJ.) If you click on the link for AAJ, you will notice that the Home Page lists the AAJ as “Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA,) due to the insistence of many trial lawyers who are proud of ATLA's name.

The campaign for tort reform has taken a thousand stories of the civil jury system, and twisted them like a pretzel to portray a civil liability system that is “out of control”, awarding “outrageous jury verdicts” to “questionable plaintiffs”. All of this, of course, reflects the main objective of the insurance industry’s campaign, which is to frighten people into believing that their liability insurance premiums – whether for automobile insurance, homeowners’ insurance, medical malpractice coverage, municipal liability, corporate liability or any kind of liability insurance offered in this country – are high because of a “lawsuit crisis”, caused by “greedy tort lawyers." Why does the liability insurance industry want to do this? Why are they spending tens of millions of policyholders’ dollars to create public pressure to pass tort reform legislation wherever they can?

A simple one-word answer, and I know you’ve all heard it before: Money. You see, (here's a link to a good book explaining this,) “tort reform” basically dismantles the civil jury system – the system that decides whether a person or company is liable for someone else’s injuries, and if so how much should be paid to compensate the victim of those injuries. What this “reform” does, is take away your legal rights to sue a defendant in court for your injuries, such as a car accident, a dog bite, or a slip and fall injury. And if “reform” passes? If you’re still lucky enough to be able to file a suit against someone who has injured you, the damages that you would have received earlier (before “reform”) would be capped, or limited to a maximum amount. And if that amount is not enough to compensate you for perhaps lifelong injuries you might have suffered, such as in a medical malpractice case or nursing home neglect or abuse case? Tough. You'd be out of legal options, out of luck, and out of money.

Now you see why the insurance industry is behind “tort reform”: These drastic changes to our 200-plus year-old civil jury system quietly take away your legal recovery rights, limit what insurance companies have to pay for the negligence of their customers, and pad the industry’s profits even more than they are now. Remember: The insurance companies who are behind this campaign are the same types of companies like AIG, which was responsible for a major part of the economic collapse of 2008, and who have taken billions of dollars in bailouts at taxpayers’ expense. Now they want to go further, and take away Americans’ legal recovery rights in court.

To convince voters and legislators of the “need” to pass tort reform legislation at the federal and state level, a million half-truths and outright lies have been rolled out in the process. But the all-time “Granddaddy”, the all-time winner in this distorted media campaign, has to be “The McDonald’s Lawsuit.” I’ll bet you’ve all heard it: About how a woman who spilled hot coffee on her lap, was awarded “millions of dollars” by a “runaway jury”. This story is 'Exhibit A' in the insurance industry’s excuse about why they’ve had to gouge their policyholders with sky-high premiums (which supposedly causes businesses to shut down, which supposedly causes all kinds of subsidiary problems.) And who do the insurers say is to blame? Trial lawyers, who have created a “Lawsuit Crisis”.

As a Boston personal injury attorney, I can assure you this story is completely false. What makes it false: The same thing that usually makes a truth a lie: Omitting critical information which tells the real truth. So now that you’ve heard their story, prepare yourself for the real story – in my next and last post on this topic.

Before I started practicing law twenty years ago as a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, I worked as Public Affairs Counsel (lobbyist) and Media Spokesperson for the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys. MATA is the state bar association for plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers (lawyers who represent injury victims who have been harmed due to someone else’s negligence,) and is the state affiliate of the American Association for Justice. Here is where this story gets a little interesting: The AAJ used to be known for many, many years as the “American Association of Trial Lawyers of America” – ATLA – but several years ago, they changed their name to the “American Association for Justice”, after decades of being widely known as ATLA. Care to take a guess why the name change?

My readers who follow the issue of tort reform will know the answer. And that answer, quite sadly, is this: Polls and study groups had indicated that the public image of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers (or tort lawyers,) had sunk so low in the public’s mind, that ATLA felt that they needed to take the words “trial lawyers” out of their name. (A disclaimer: I do not speak here for the AAJ, and I do not know for an indisputable “fact” that this was the reason the association changed its name, but most plaintiffs’ trial lawyers would privately tell you, that was the reason.) And prey tell, why had the public’s perception and public opinion of trial lawyers reportedly sunk so low as to prompt this name change? Is what the members of my profession do so un-admired, so low, that a national bar association would want to change its name to take out the words “trial lawyers”? Is what we as trial lawyers do in helping injury victims recover a fair measure of compensation and justice from the negligent party who caused their injuries so shameful, so disreputable? Is fighting insurance companies who would be only too glad to offer someone who has been injured, crumbs for financial compensation, so distasteful?

The answer to all these questions is, obviously, a resounding "No." So why, then, has the perception of a once-admired and esteemed profession been so defamed, so damaged? The answer comes down to three words: liability insurance companies. More accurately, two words: tort reform. You see, for almost every damages award or settlement that is paid in a personal injury or tort case, there is an insurance company that pays that award or settlement amount on behalf of the defendant that is found to be responsible (legally liable) for those damages. Whether the case involves a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident, a premises liability, or a medical malpractice case, 99% of the time, an insurance company – who has been paid premiums by the defendant (its policyholder) to provide that very coverage – pays the award or settlement. And guess what? Despite the fact that liability insurance companies are in business to do just that – pay for damages when their insured negligently harms someone – they don’t like paying out money. Of course, these are the very companies, like AIG, that took billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars in bailout money.

So, what do you when you’re the liability insurance industry (comprised of companies like AIG,) and you don’t like paying for the negligent acts of your customers? Well, one way is to adopt an aggressive trial approach and combative legal strategy toward every personal injury claim that comes before you, and refuse to pay almost anything but the smallest sum, but that’s a piecemeal approach. No, the liability insurance industry knew that a much larger-scale attack would be needed to pad their profits even more – a strategy that wouldn’t just address cases on an individual basis – but on a societal, national level.

Enter the concept and campaign for “tort reform”. What’s that? A coordinated, sophisticated, public relations misinformation campaign, specifically designed to convince all manner of people and business sectors that the reason their insurance premiums are so high, is “frivolous lawsuits”, “runaway jury verdicts” and “greedy tort lawyers.” The objective: Stoke public anger toward tort lawyers. Make every car & motor vehicle owner, every home owner, every municipality, every doctor, every hospital, every charity, every business from a mom-and-pop store to Microsoft Corporation, think that their high insurance premiums are due to a “lawsuit crisis.” Bring this misinformation and smear campaign to such a fever pitch that even the mention of the words “trial lawyer” will prompt resentment and distaste.

And that’s why such a distinguished bar association like ATLA, apparently felt it was forced to change its name, taking out the words “trial lawyers.”

As a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer who used to specialize in responding to the media about this misinformation, I can assure you that this campaign has been, and continues to be, one of the biggest lies perpetrated on the American public in decades, and I’ll discuss 'Exhibit A' in that evidence file, in my next post.

Continue reading "Personal Injury Cases in Massachusetts, and Elsewhere: Lies and The Truth: Part 1 of 3" »

My post today is not about a case decision or a new law, but about a person I know who qualifies in my opinion as one of the finest trial lawyers, and finest people, I know. His name is Leo Boyle. A founding partner of Meehan, Boyle, Black & Bogdanow in Boston, most people outside of legal circles might not know that name, but he is one of the true unsung heroes of our day – for several reasons.

First, Leo has dedicated his life to fighting for the “little guy” in society: The person who has been injured because of someone else’s negligence – be it a corporation or another unknown person. Regardless of who injured such a person, he or she had to go up against powerful corporate and insurance interests to achieve a measure of justice. That’s how our civil justice (civil liability) system works – 95% of the time, when an injured person sues a company or another person for negligently injuring them or worse, causing death to a loved one, it is an insurance company or corporate interest that defends the claim. And trust me, as a Boston injury lawyer who represents people who have suffered terrible injuries, I can assure you: Those insurance companies and corporate interests fight hard. The typical injury victim is usually an unknown person, without much power or influence: Literally David up against a huge corporate Goliath. Without a dedicated, talented lawyer to take up their cause, they don’t stand a chance. To employ some slang parlance, they’re toast.

Enter a man like Leo Boyle. Leo has spent his entire career fighting for the “little guy” – with incredible results. More lawyers should be like Leo; I know I’ve tried to be. Fortunately, I had the chance to observe and get to know Leo almost 25 years ago, when I was Public Affairs and Media Counsel for the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (MATA,) and Leo was on the Board of Governors. He’s always been a source of wisdom and advice to me. Recently, the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, or ATLA,) honored Leo by bestowing upon him the Leonard M. Ring Champion of Justice award in Washington, D.C. While the AAJ honored Leo for many different instances of justice that he has achieved for so many over the years, the award centered on Leo’s actions when he was President of that national bar association in 2001, then known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA.)

Leo was President of ATLA when September 11 2001 struck. In those days following 9/11, Boyle did the exact opposite of what critics of trial lawyers would have expected: He called on trial lawyers across the country to refrain from filing lawsuits in connection with the national disaster. He did so because he knew that if such lawsuits were filed by every person or family who lost a loved one during these events, those victims would be tied up in litigation for years on end, not seeing a dime of compensation until those suits were settled perhaps a decade later. Instead, he lobbied Congress, one by one and in groups, to establish the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund that expeditiously directed a streamlined claims system and compensation payments to injured victims and their families, and to all those who lost loved ones in the disaster. Stop and think about the valor and decency of that effort: If Leo hadn’t done that, and Congress hadn’t established the streamlined Victims Compensation Fund that they did, a great many of those lawsuits that would have resulted would still be ongoing today – while the victims’ families languished, waiting for justice. Beyond convincing Congress to set up the streamlined claims and compensation system, Leo’s leadership helped to establish a national pro bono organization that offered free legal services for the victims' families. Funny, but I didn’t hear or see any “tort reform” advocates talk much about that. These are the same corporate interests that would like to severely limit, or take away, your right so sue someone in court if their negligence injures you or a loved one.

After Leo was successful in urging Congress to create the Victims Compensation Fund, he went further, recruiting hundreds of (largely New York City) lawyers to represent the thousands of victims for free. Knowing this was going to be a tall order, he made a difficult trip to New York City in October 2001 to convince attorneys there that this free, uncompensated work was morally necessary.

"It was a pretty daunting task to represent all of the victims for free," he recalled. "Everyone (in the legal profession) was aware that a lot of the work was going to fall to New York lawyers. There was a legitimate debate (among them) about ‘can we do this and still remain in business, and how are we going to do this?’" At this very uncomfortable meeting, Boyle stood up and said, "How can we not do this? If a fireman can rush into a building and lose his life trying to save somebody he doesn't even know, how can I not represent his children for free?"

That sealed it. Lawyers volunteering across the country eventually procured more than $7 billion from the fund for victims, all without being compensated for any of their efforts.

So the next time you think of 9/11 and of “heroes,” think of a man you’ve probably never met or heard of, but who saved thousands of victims and survivors of that tragedy from even more pain still. His name is Leo V. Boyle, and I’m proud to call him a friend.