Rich Miller points out something interesting about Sen. Matt Murphy, a presumptive Republican candidate for Governor. This one gets to me because of my interest in civil justice reform - Murphy's law firm describes itself as:
The firm always confines it’s practice to representing plaintiffs and injured persons. We have never represented insurance companies, employers or other defendants.
Is there something wrong with representing employers?
(Disclosure: I am helping Kirk Dillard's campaign for Governor.)
Here is what the website says about Senator Murphy:
Matthew J. Murphy
(312) 346-8210
Fax: (312) 346-8565
MMurphy@mcmanuslawfirm.com
Position In Firm: Associate Attorney
Bar/Court Admission: Illinois, 1996; Northern District of Illinois, 2002
Preparatory Education: University of Iowa - B.A.
Legal Education: John Marshall Law School - Juris Doctorate, 1996
Public Office: Elected Illinois State Senate - November 2006
Memberships: Northwest Suburban Bar Association
Counsel For: Mr. Murphy currently represents plaintiff's in personal injury cases and petitioners in workers' compensation cases. In doing so, he draws on his years of prior experience representing defendants in civil actions. This diversity of experience allows him to better understand his opponents thus produces superior results for his clients.
He hasn't made Partner yet...
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
It helps your credibility if you aren't trying to take State Farm for $1,000,000 one week, and defending them the next. Someone might think you won't give your best effort if you might be getting some work from the guy at the other table in the future.
I don't think there's anything wrong with representing employers, but I suspect that message was intended for the Democratic base? I really don't know.
But my complaint with Murphy is that he co-sponsored HB0664 in the 95th General Assembly (2007). The affect of this bill is that it drove up my property taxes in 2008 a whopping 45%; from $4,000 to $5,800+. How's that for a Republican?
And although I continue to call him and email him, he avoids me like the plague. He just doesn't want to discuss this with me. I can't say I blame him, but forgive me if I'm not all that forgiving when I could barely afford my taxes before he got involved...?
They use the wrong form of "its". They can't be all that smart.
Amen, Mr. Peek, amen!!
RSW has just defended trial attorneys, and by implication, the art of the ambulance chase.
Someone mark this date.
Moëtry in the Potion
RSW has just defended trial attorneys, and by implication, the art of the ambulance chase.
I was just pointing out the logic of only working one side of the aisle. I was actually a little confused at the initial post - I thought personal injury lawyers ran as Democrats :-)
"I was just pointing out the logic of only working one side of the aisle. I was actually a little confused at the initial post - I thought personal injury lawyers ran as Democrats :-)"
It's not just that, but I wonder how Murphy, if he wins the GOP nomination, is going to raise enough money in the business community to be competitive in November?
Too bad you think that way, IP. It seems, by your statement, that one must curry the favor of business to get the money to get elected. Then, I suppose, the "business community" will have some expectations about, say, their agenda? Maybe not getting their little darlings in the U of I, but more along the lines of legislation to assist their industry?
I know that being a populist, whether R or D is out of favor, the people don't elect candidates, special interests do, but the upfront suggestion about raising money, and the logical followup of the concomitant repayment, is disheartening.
Well, at least I get it now, Kirk Dillard must be a fat-cat tied to business, because that's where his money will be coming from.
Good job, campaign worker! Now I have to choose a different candidate. Not Murphy, but not Dillard, either.
"Too bad you think that way, IP. It seems, by your statement, that one must curry the favor of business to get the money to get elected."
Not at all. But it helps to have a relationship on a more positive basis than implying they're not worthy of being represented legally. Or do you think that the Illinois Trial Lawyers will raise money for Murphy if he wins the GOP nomination and is facing Dan Hynes or Pat Quinn?
09:56 AM, Anonymous:
Successful campaigns require money. You are certainly entitled to scrutinize the sources of that money and vote based on your findings, but until (or unless) legislation controls campaign contributions in a meaningful way, I will always bet on the candidate with the most money. Doesn't mean I'll vote that way, however.
The firm always confines it’s practice to representing plaintiffs and injured persons. We have never represented insurance companies, employers or other defendants.
"implying they're not worthy of being represented legally"
No, it implies that the law firm represents injured people. It implies that injured people cannot get companies to pay for the damages the company has caused so they need a lawyer's help.
Companies sue people when? When they don't pay their bills, not when they spill blood on the sidewalk after having a 2x4 fall from a construction site onto their heads. Not when some idiot doctor removes the wrong leg, when some patient is so brazen as to actually bring the wrong leg into the operating room. Not when the UPS truck jumps the curb and hits somebody, when the somebody dented the UPS truck with his teeth.
Ask your boss, TVJ, a former PI trial attorney. He represented pi clients, not big business. His former law firm, now Frederick and Hagle, has huge yellow pages ads.
.
Does anyone else find it humorous to hire a lawyer from, "Murphy's Law Firm". :-)
Murphy's Law? Get it?
IP, I think you're reading too much into that statement. As others have suggested, I don't think he is stating that employers are not worthy of being represented, but rather I think he is just defining the types of clients his practice represents and is providing the information to illustrate that by limiting who he represents he avoids any conflict of interest.
In other words he is being tranparent, which is a good thing.
They use the wrong form of "its". They can't be all that smart.
In the sentence above the period should be placed inside the quotes. Actually, in every case the period should be placed inside the quotes.
Criticizing others for poor grammar is a very dangerous door to open. But writing without thinking is certainly in vogue these days.
Anonymous 9:34 am,
You must have meant punctuation, not grammar.
Is that Matt "Guitar" Murphy of Murph and the Magictones??