The simple answer is: lawyers actually have work to do. Often, that is why they buy computers.  Therefore, lawyers who want to get work done must buy computers that work.  The logic is simple.    But of course, even the best products break now and again.  That’s why there are repair people, and in the world of computers, tech service workers, a special breed of customer service employees, who are supposed to help resolve your problem.  It is often at this juncture, when the computer customer has a technical issue, that business relationships are cemented, or forever broken.  Unfortunately, Hewlett Packard has not learned this lesson just yet, based on my experience (and that of many others, if you search online).

My HP Mini netbook began not working properly about 6 weeks ago. Among other things, the memory filled up to the point that it slowed internet access, and computer function in general, despite my frequent deleting of unneeded programs and files. Then, I lost the intenet connection entirely.  Among the many clueless folks in India or Pakistan that I spoke with, and barely understood, one instructed me to purchase a media pocket drive to transfer excess files to.  Spent the money, set it up, and it failed to address the problem. The next tech person told me the first one had been wrong, and I spent another 3-4 hours on the phone without solving the problem.  By this point, I had been on the phone for about 10 hours, spread out over a few days, and spent $100.00 for an HP product I never needed, and still had a broken computer.
After more wasted time and frustration, yet another tech person told me that I needed to delete everything from my computer, and re-install everything, with the 3 discs that they’d be sending me in the mail. I waited a few more days, got the discs, did what was suggested, and the computer remained just as broken.
Several hours of frustration on the phone with these incompetents later, I was told I’d have to send the computer to their TX repair facility.  Several days later, I received the FedEx box in which to place it. It went to TX, and came back with a slip saying the hard drive had been replaced.  Can you guess what happened when I tried to use it? That’s right. Still broken.
By this point, I had been without the ability to use the computer I’d purchased for a good 5 weeks, and things were not looking very promising with HP’s “help.”  I asked for either my money back, or a new computer, as I had already wasted untold days of frustration attempting, in good faith, to have my computer–still under warranty–fixed.
Unfortunately, HP’s policy is that my computer has to have been to TX for repair 3 times before they will take such a step.  (Getting the picture here?  Not exactly bending over backwards for the customer.)
As I sit here typing, I am waiting for the second FedEx box to take my computer back to TX, and having fantasies about renting a steamroller and running over my computer, many times, instead, since that will probably be equally useful in terms of the repair process.
Yesterday, after getting nowhere with the “Quality Case Manager” I’d been assigned to, I asked for the phone number to the president of the company, and called it.  When I reached the Executive Suite, and asked to speak with the President, I was literally told (but very sweetly) “that’s not an option.”
And so it goes on.  I will likely abandon any further attempts to fix this product, because it is just not worth the time and effort any longer.

And the bottom line is, I need a computer that works, and a company that will stand behind it when it doesn’t.  HP does not fit the bill.  You have fair warning.

ShareThis

The Appellate Division, First Dept., has issued a decision saying that it’s OK to change experts during the trial, as long as your CPLR 3101(d) exchange put your opponent on fair notice of the substance of the expert’s testimony, and the substituted expert conforms to what was promised when he testifies. In S & W Home Improvement Co. v. La Casita II H.D.F.C., NY Slip Op 07332 (1st Dept. 2009), the Court also relied on the inclusion within the expert exchange of notification that another representative from the same company as the named expert might be called.

This was a mechanic’s lien case, but what the First Dept. did here would obviously apply to any case involving expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(d).  Therefore, medical malpractice and personal injury cases could arguably be affected by this decision, and I think it is a dangerous one.  It is nice that the new expert stayed within the boundaries of the noticed subject matter.  It is also nice that the expert exchange at issue happened to mention that someone else might be called at trial (as many such documents note).  But if you are the lawyer on the receiving end of this last-minute switch, you’ve been placed at a disadvantage.  You do not have time to research the new witness by obtaining prior transcripts or educating yourself about his history as an expert witness.  You are thus deprived of the opportunity to develop key impeachment material that may affect the outcome of the case.  You are, in a word, prejudiced.  And trials are surprising enough when you are prepared to the gills.

ShareThis

What does my memory of 9/11 have to do with medical malpractice?  Believe it or not, there is a connection.  It was in my capacity as a medical malpractice defense lawyer, back in the day, that I was traveling to Staten Island that morning.

I was in the middle of New York Harbor, on the Staten Island Ferry, on my way to a court appearance at a facility called “The Home Port.”  The Home Port was once a Navy base, but had been turned into an outpost of Richmond County Supreme Court.  About halfway into the trip, passengers began talking, and then shouting, about a passenger plane that had hit one of the World Trade Center’s towers.  Some gathered on the deck, myself included, to look back toward the towers, to see if we could observe anything.  As I was turning to look, I saw a flash out of the corner of my eye, and heard the people around me start to scream.  The second plane had just hit, and suddenly the idea of a wayward private plane accidentally hitting the towers morphed into a base fear that we were under attack.  And we felt particularly vulnerable being out on a large, lumbering, orange ferry boat in the middle of the harbor. 

 The level of instant panic was such that the ferry began to list to one side—the side where all the passengers had gathered to watch for the next event.  The ship’s captain ordered the passengers to disperse evenly within the boat, and assured everyone that we were headed to shore as quickly as possible.  Upon arriving at the dock in Staten Island, ferry service was stopped, and we were instructed by various emergency personnel to gather on the plaza above the ferry terminal.  By this point, we’d had further and more accurate news about the coordinated attacks.  Unfortunately, this news was mixed with rumors and exaggerations, such that I feared for my toddler and my pregnant wife, who were in the downtown Brooklyn area, where I had heard that bombs were slated to go off.

The irony that all this was happening on a picture-perfect fall day was not lost on me.  Some more time passed on the plaza, and suddenly, the first tower began to crumble.  People near me cried out in disbelief.  But when the second tower fell a short time later, many more were affected, including myself.  Some were crying hysterically.  Some, like me, were mute with shock and sorrow.  It felt as if the world had changed, and, of course, it had.  Communication was out, and access to and from Staten Island was shut down.  I got the last room at a flea-bitten truck stop of a motel somewhere on Hylan Blvd., and stayed up all night watching television news of the attack.  In the morning, I caught a city bus over the Verrazano Bridge back to Brooklyn.  You could see the enormous, gaping, smoking hole where the towers had stood as we rode across the bridge.  I went home and found my family.

ShareThis

Bronx Senator Pedro Espada is in the news again today. The City Room blog (NY Times) reported that he came under fire for failing to disclose election-related filings, as he was obligated to do.  But here’s the thing that burns me up.  I am no longer surprised to see Senator Espada in the news, where he continually finds himself on the defensive after getting caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

In mid April of this year, it became clear that Espada was trying to deceive the public about where he lives.  Between Streetsblog, and CBS reporter Marcia Kramer,  we learned that Espada owns a co-op apartment in his Bronx district, but actually lives in Westchester County’s Mamaroneck.  Pedro, let me just say that I sympathize.  It must be so tiresome to live among the hoi polloi that elected you, and provided you with the platform from which you have continually enriched yourself.

And there’s a history to this.  In May, 2005, the NY Times reported that three employees of a Bronx health clinic run by then former Senator Espada cheated the clinic’s impoverished patients out of funds so that they could be used to satisfy Espada’s political ambitions.  Now that he is a senator again, his ties to the same Bronx clinic are under investigation, according to the Daily News.  Even though it is illegal for a publicly funded entity such as the Soundview Health Clinic to promote a political candidate, the News has found that somehow, Soundview has managed to do just that for Espada.  In fact, Soundview used to pay Espada a salary of up to $379,000.

The only good news associated with Espada is that today, the Bronx District Attoney opened an investigation into whether or not he resides in the Bronx, as reported by Marcia Kramer at WCBSTV.com.

Senator Espada is a disgrace who has abused the public’s trust.  His actions show that he has no use or respect for the law.  This may be common among politicians, but we cannot let ourselves become numb to it.  Pedro, as a resident of Mamaroneck, as someone who occasionally works in the Bronx, and as a lawyer, here is some advice.  Resign your post, move out of Mamaroneck, and pursue your life’s passion by finding a job in which you can openly lie, cheat and steal.  You might enjoy becoming a house burglar, for example.  Just stay out of Westchester and the Bronx.  We’ve really had enough.

ShareThis

Today’s Gothamist features a story on the “relationship” between a doctor and a nurse at NYC’s Flushing Hospital.  Apparently, instead of ordering the nurse to “pass the scalpel,” Dr. Matthew Miller tended to order her to lift up her dress, but did so using body language, such as groping the nurse below the waist.  The nurse sued for sexual harassment, and won.

ShareThis

CNN.com reports that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejoined her colleagues on the Supreme Court Bench this morning, without fanfare.  This marks her return to work after undergoing surgery for cancer of the pancreas.

ShareThis