|  |
What should an injured motorcyclist ask to find the Lawyer most competent to handle his case?
You have a right to inquire as to your prospective lawyer's qualifications and you should do so. Furthermore, any good lawyer should see the logic of your wanting to assure that you are properly represented and should be willing and happy to answer all of the following questions. Mr. Henke affirmatively provides answers following each question below. Mr. Henke's additional qualifications are set forth on other pages of this web site. Click the "Mr. Henke, The Trial Lawyer" button below. Also, you should click the "Ray The Biker" button, where Mr. Henke first asks and then answers the question, "Why you should care whether your attorney is a biker," and then he will explain that it is all about "understanding." Understanding the physics of motorcycling. Understanding what will you tell him in language only a fellow biker can really understand.
QUESTION: Is the lawyer rated by Martindale and Hubble? And if so, what is his "Legal Ability" rating and "General Ethical Standards" rating?
ANSWER: Mr. Henke has now, and has had for all of the past decade, the very highest Martindale & Hubbell "legal ability" rating, "A" [from Very High to Preeminent]; and the very highest "General Ethical Standards" rating, "V" [Very High].
QUESTION: Has the lawyer been recognized by his peers as an established, superior trial lawyer?
ANSWER: Mr. Henke was elected and then reelected again and again Governor of LATLA (The fifth largest trial lawyer association in the country).
Mr. Henke was nominated by the LATLA Board for the most highly coveted "Trial Lawyer of the Year" Award.
Mr. Henke served for years in the prestigious position of the Editor-in-Chief of LATLA's legal journal, "THE ADVOCATE."
QUESTION: Has the attorney served as prosecuting counsel in litigation involving substantial injuries, and then obtained substantial settlements and jury verdicts?
ANSWER: Mr. Henke has served as counsel in many "big" cases over the course of his career and has obtained numerous substantial settlements and jury verdicts, including multi-million dollar settlements and multi-million dollar jury verdicts.
Most Recent Example
Henke's Jury Verdicts and Settlements for June 2002
$2,500,000 Settlement, June 3, 2002
Contested Liability Motorcycle Intersection Accident
Motorcycle, pulled out from between two left turn lanes
Below Knee Amputation, Broken Ribs and Clavicle.
Required Disclaimer. The results obtained in those cases were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts.
QUESTION: Has the Attorney obtained positive recognition in and outside the Legal profession?
ANSWER: Mr. Henke has a national reputation as an effective, successful and determined trial attorney as reflected in scores of newspaper articles about Mr. Henke and his work in legitimate national legal periodicals, legitimate national newspapers, magazines, and national television. Mr. Henke also testified before Congress at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on his legal work in several cases, including his use of claims for punitive damages to set examples of Defendants who consiously disregard the safety, health and rights of others.
QUESTION: Can the lawyer verify that he is an effective Legal Advocate, by citation to important published Appellate victories he has achieved? A lawyer's appellate success matters because it is a good measure of the attorney's vitally important general ability to argue and persuade on legal issues. It is an ability that is not just essential on appeals. It is an ability essential to the trial attorney's effectiveness in meeting all the big and small challenges presented at every stage of litigation, e.g., by pretrial motions, which can seriously affect settlement posture as well as the respective parties' important advantages or disadvantages at trial. Your attorney's willingness to ask the appellate court to immediately reverse a bad pretrial decision that guts the case may also be essential to achieve the quickest and best result. Legal advocacy is also a talent essential during trial, as the trial lawyer must be able to effectively argue legal issues, e.g., the admissibility of the defendant's admission of fault or the inadmissibility of prejudicial medical or character evidence, or the permissibility of expert opinion testimony, etc. Then, if you "hit big" at trial, the defendant is almost certain to appeal, and you may then require superior legal advocacy to hold on to your victory.
ANSWER: Mr. Henke has had extraordinary published and verifiable appellate victories. As one example, on behalf of a single aggrieved client Mr. Henke obtained the reversal of a $120,000,000 Ohio Federal District Court approved settlement purporting to bind 1000 product liability claimants joined in the Ohio Court and all others injured by the product nationwide. On a petition for writ of mandate to the United States Court of Appals for the Sixth Circuit, Mr. Henke also obtained the reversal of the Ohio Federal District Court's certification of a national mandatory product liability class action. Mr. Henke's argument, accepted by the Court of Appeals as requiring both decisions was that Mr. Henke's client was denied his right to counsel of his choice and control over his individual litigation. The appellate decision effected an important and enduring change in the law severely restricting the availability of mandatory, as opposed to voluntary class actions in "mass disaster" litigation.
As another example, when a trial judge applied newly enacted tort reform legislation to deprive Mr. Henke's client of his punitive damage claims, Mr. Henke obtained a stay of the trial and filed in the Court of Appeals an "extraordinary writ" seeking an immediate reversal of the trial court's order. The Court granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to reverse its order and permit Henke's client to pursue his punitive damage claim. It also rendered an important published appellate opinion reinterpreting the repressive tort reform legislation to deprive it of most of its negative force and effect. This decision also has been cited in numerous subsequent appellate decisions, including, to Henke's delight, for the proposition that "legislation must be interpreted to avoid absurd results."
|
| 
|
