How Much Does an Asbestos Attorney Cost?

Posted on May 30, 2014 by Steven Kazan

When you need to sue for asbestos exposure, one of your first questions might be, “How much will a good asbestos attorney cost me?” It’s a reasonable question to ask if you are suffering from mesothelioma and unable to work. Of course you don’t want to get hit with attorney fees while you may be struggling enough to pay your medical bills. The answer is nothing.

Why You Should Only Hire an Attorney Who Will Work on a Contingency Fee

The best professional asbestos attorneys in the country will work for you on a contingency basis. When you retain a top quality asbestos attorney, you should never:

pay a cent up front
get billed
be charged by the hour
pay for preliminary investigation to determine whether you have strong case

Instead, a portion of the money awarded to you will compensate the asbestos attorney and the rest will go to you. And only if a judgment is won or settlements are reached in your case. If the jury decides against you, it should be clear that you would not owe any payment to the attorney for his or her time.

How much is a contingency fee?

Some mesothelioma law firms charge up to one-half of what they recover as a contingency fee. Some, like Kazan Law, charge less. Say the contingency fee is one-third. Then, for each $1,000 in settlements you get $666.67 (two-thirds) and the attorneys who represent you get $333.33 (one-third.)

Many attorneys take their percentage first and then subtract the costs of the lawsuit out of the client’s share. Our law firm subtracts the costs first – before the money is divided – so that our clients therefore get a larger proportion of the money awarded.

What are the additional costs of a lawsuit?

Bringing forward a lawsuit involves many costs. Here are several based on what happens in California:

Complaint filing fee – $320 You pay this to the court just to get started
Depositions – $1,000 – $2,000 per day Most of this goes to pay the fees of the court reporter who takes down the testimony of witnesses interviewed for your case and possibly for a certified videographer to video tape the interviews.
Experts – $200 – $400 per hour Your case may require the testimony of experts with levels of knowledge in certain areas beyond the knowledge of most people. They could include building engineers, medical experts, industrial hygienists, architects, naval engineers, geologists or others with expertise relevant to your asbestos case.

Your Asbestos Settlement and Investing

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Steven Kazan

This is a guest post by Patrick Collins of Schultz Collins Lawson Chambers, Inc., the firm we hired to advise us on how to handle Kazan Law’s pension funds, our charitable foundation’s funds, and that some of our partners hired to advise them on personal money management.

The decision on what lawyer to hire is the most important decision almost every family will ever make because so much potential money is at stake. If litigation goes well, the next decision is what to do with the proceeds so that the money is there and stays there to meet the family’s needs for many years to come. We thought it would be informative to offer information to help you understand what questions to ask, and what factors that go into money management are important.

What does it mean to invest your asbestos settlement?

Although there are a variety of possible answers—e.g., “risk money to make money”— the best answer is that investing means taking money from your asbestos settlement that you do not wish to spend NOW and sending it into the FUTURE so that it is available for you to spend at a later date. Investing is like stepping into a time machine so that you can meet yourself—and your money— in the future.

You could spend all of your money from your asbestos settlement now but that would be foolish because there would be nothing for you and your family tomorrow. So you are faced with a decision: how much to spend today versus how much to send ahead in time for your future use.

Let’s say that you wanted to send your money across a distance—perhaps New York to Los Angeles—instead of across time. You have a variety of shipping choices:

Truck
Railroad
Airplane

A variety of costs and risks confront you as you make your choice. Shipping by truck may be cheap; but, it is slow. There is little risk because if there is a truck accident, chances are that your package will survive intact. At the other extreme, shipping by air is fast but expensive and, if a crash occurs, your package may be obliterated. Maybe you decide to divide your money into three packages and ship each one differently. It’s up to you.

You confront a similar set of options regarding how to send your money across time. Here are some choices:

Bank Account (Certificate of Deposit)
Bonds
Stocks

Bank accounts don’t earn much money but they are relatively safe; stocks gain or lose money relatively quickly but, in the long run, they offer better return expectations. Bonds are the railroads of the financial industry—they are generally riskier than insured CDs but not as risky as stocks.

What is investment risk? What amount of risk do you need to take with the money from your asbestos settlement? In the next several posts we will talk about risk; types of risk; deciding how much risk, if any, you need to take; and, most importantly, the risk of trying to avoid risk.

The posts provided by Schultz Collins Lawson Chambers, Inc. [SCLC] convey information on basic investment concepts. They are intended to facilitate prudent investment decision making. They should not, however, be the sole factor in making investment decisions; and, they are not intended to act as advice or recommendations for any specific investor. SCLC acts as Independent Investment Counsel and is a Registered Investment Advisor. It does not provide legal, accounting or tax advice; and the opinions expressed in the posts are solely those of SCLC. You can find additional information about SCLC, their personnel, and client services at www.schultzcollins.com.

Your Asbestos Settlement and Financial Risk

Who Do You Sue in an Asbestos Lawsuit?

Posted on May 22, 2014 by Steven Kazan

People often ask me, “How do I file an asbestos lawsuit? What should I do first?”

When you are considering going to court to file an asbestos lawsuit, the first thing you need to do is figure out exactly whom you should sue. This may seem like a simple issue, but it can be very complicated.

If you get into a car accident you would sue the person who was driving the car that hit you. But it is not always that simple. For instance, what if the driver of the car does not own the car and was just borrowing it? In that case, you would also want to sue the owner of the car, since the car insurance probably would be in the owner’s name. So, in this example, you would file your lawsuit against two people, the driver and the owner.

Who is at Fault in an Asbestos Lawsuit?

Asbestos cases can be like that. But even more challenging. Unfortunately the symptoms of illness caused by asbestos exposure emerge decades after the exposure has taken place. This can make it more difficult to track down who is responsible for causing you harm. Say you worked for a brake repair shop where you worked with brake pads that contained asbestos. That was 20 or 30 years ago. The shop may be gone now and the owner deceased. Who manufactured the brake pads? Is the company still around? Have they been bought by another company? Have they gone bankrupt and created a trust to settle lawsuits like the one you intend to file?

As you can see, figuring out exactly who to sue is not always straightforward. Once you determine whom to sue, you need to find enough basic information about that person or organization for an asbestos lawsuit to have standing. Options for compensation will include asbestos trust funds, settlements or going to trial and reaching a verdict.

You can find additional general information on the California Courts website. Or you can consult a lawyer who specializes in asbestos lawsuits. We would be honored if you choose to contact us – at no charge to you.

As Abraham Lincoln, who also was a lawyer, wisely said, “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

Landmark Appellate Victory In Favor of Victims of Take Home Asbestos Exposure

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Steven Kazan

In a landmark victory decision that may offer hope for justice to all victims of take home asbestos exposure, a California court of appeal has ruled that a case of take home asbestos exposure that had been dismissed now can be reinstated and move forward to trial.

Kazan Law is pleased to announce that the court of appeal reversed a lower court’s ruling that would have dismissed a take home asbestos case against Pneumo Abex, a manufacturer of asbestos brakes, brought by Johnny Kesner, who was exposed to asbestos dust brought home from the Abex plant by his uncle, an employee there. (Kesner v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (May 15, 2014) First Dist., Div. 3, Nos. A136378 and A136416).

Kazan Law of-counsel attorney Ted W. Pelletier joined trial counsel from the firm Weitz & Luxenberg to successfully argue the case before the Court of Appeal.

The appeal court decision is of special significance because it is the first one to limit a previous court decision that prevented the owner of a piece of property from being held liable for harmful take home asbestos exposures that resulted from the work done on the property.

That decision, Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, was issued in November 2012. It determined that Ford was not responsible for asbestos exposure to family members brought home on the clothes of workers installing asbestos-containing insulation while constructing a new Ford factory on the property. The workers were employed by the contractor hired to build the factory not by Ford itself.

Since then, companies successfully argued that this decision applies to them even though they do not merely own the premises but also actually cause asbestos exposure by manufacturing asbestos products or performing the work that released the asbestos dust. Many trial courts, lacking further guidance, have applied the Campbell decision to these cases, depriving asbestos exposure victims of the right to pursue their claims against those responsible.

Kazan Law just helped change that. We helped convince the court that Pneumo Abex, who both owned the land and used it to manufacture asbestos-containing brake products, knowingly exposed its employee George Kesner, Johnny Kesner’s uncle, to asbestos dust that he regularly brought home on his clothes.

In a significant step, the appeal court will publish this decision thus making it binding throughout the state. This published decision will provide much-needed guidance to the trial courts in cases involving a defendant who actively created the asbestos exposure hazard that caused injury and who also happened to own the premises where it happened.

When Should You File an Asbestos Lawsuit?

Posted on May 14, 2014 by Steven Kazan

As an mesothelioma lawyer, a key question I am often asked is, “When should I file an asbestos lawsuit?” It is a very important question because when it comes to an asbestos lawsuit, timing is everything.

Filing an asbestos lawsuit shouldn’t be done before evidence of harm from asbestos exposure can be verified. Simply being exposed to asbestos is not sufficient grounds to file an asbestos lawsuit on your behalf. And anyone who tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth.

But filing an asbestos lawsuit shouldn’t be done too late either. Certain deadlines (called statutes of limitations) may apply.

At Kazan Law, we believe that a suit should be filed only if a client has mesothelioma or another serious asbestos-related disease – one that prevents him or her from working or interferes in the ability to perform the usual activities of daily living.

If you have been exposed to asbestos, but have not been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, we recommend that you:

monitor your health carefully
tell your doctor that you have been exposed to asbestos
seek medical attention promptly if you feel unwell
find out more about asbestos-related diseases and their symptoms

If you have received a diagnosis of mesothelioma or asbestosis, it is time to call a lawyer. Mesothelioma and asbestosis are not genetic. Nor are they self-caused by risky behavior like smoking. You receive a mesothelioma diagnosis because someone else chose to put you and your family at risk by exposing you to asbestos. Someone else chose to immerse you in toxic asbestos dust that entered your lungs or entered the lungs of your spouse or children when they came into contact with asbestos dust. You are owed compensation, whether that be via a mesothelioma settlement, asbestos trust fund or a favorable verdict.

When you are diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness, it is time to contact an asbestos lawyer. I hope you will call Kazan Law.

American Law Month: Why Democracy Matters For Asbestos Lawsuits

Posted on May 12, 2014 by Steven Kazan

As a lawyer who brings asbestos lawsuits, I am keenly aware of the rights every American citizen has under the laws of the land and how they protect us. If you have been harmed by asbestos exposure, you can seek justice under the law even if powerful business interests are responsible for causing you that harm. How is that possible? Because we live in a democracy where every vote matters.

In many countries around the world, laws do not protect workers. Factories explode, machinery lack safety features, toxic fumes poison the air. Workers die and their families have no recourse. But here in the United States, we vote. Although we may not vote directly ourselves on asbestos regulations and other environmental and occupational safety issues, we vote for men and women we know will safeguard our health and well-being in Congress. We vote for those who will defend our interests against business interests that would seek to exploit us.

“American Democracy and the Rule of Law: Why Every Vote Matters” was the theme for this year’s May 1 American Law Day initiative established by the American Bar Association.

One of the key reasons this theme was chosen for this year is because we are approaching the 50th anniversaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These remain phenomenal achievements in legislation because they strengthen the right of every eligible
American to vote regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender.

Here in Alameda County, California where Kazan Law has practiced asbestos law since 1974, these legislative anniversaries and the ideals they represent are so highly cherished, that the County Board of Supervisors has declared that May will be celebrated as American Law Month.

I believe their spirit is reflected in this statement from the ABA:

One of our most cherished national ideals, expressed eloquently by Abraham Lincoln, is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” It is a principle enshrined in our Nation’s founding documents, from the Declaration of Independence’s assurance that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, to the opening three words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, “We the People.”

Honoring the 2014 Broussard Scholarship Recipients

Posted on May 8, 2014 by Steven Kazan

Steven Kazan with Mrs. Broussard and the three Broussard scholars–Andrew Demirchyan, Christine Wenqi Fan and Wenyue Chrisdo Fan.

One of the ways we give back at Kazan Law is by helping bright deserving young people become the lawyers of tomorrow. This week we were pleased to once again see this goal reach fruition when the recipients of the 2014 Broussard Scholarship were honored at the Law Day Student Luncheon as part of the annual Alameda County Superior Court and the Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Foundation co-sponsored Alameda County Superior Court Law Day.

As Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Allen E. Broussard Law School Scholarship Foundation for over a decade, it is an honor each year to present three or more academically well qualified students from economically deprived backgrounds with a $5,000 scholarship. This award is the largest private scholarship award for law students attending California Bay Area law schools.

Our firm’s foundation is proud to help support the Broussard Scholarship Fund which was established in 1996, to honor the memory of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Allen E. Broussard, and was incorporated in 1999. The goal of the Scholarship Fund is to continue Justice Broussard’s work to assist law students from underrepresented minority backgrounds pursue a career in the legal profession.

The 2014 Broussard Scholarship Award Recipients

Andrew Demirchyan is starting his second year as a student at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. His goal is to support marginalized communities by working in land use and employment law. He comes from a family of Armenian immigrants and put himself through UCLA by working two jobs and graduated magna cum laude.

Christine Wenqi Fan emigrated from China at age 9 not knowing English yet excelled in her American education and graduated from UC Irvine. After graduation, Christine plans on dedicating herself to international legal advocacy, counseling clients both in the U.S. and across international borders. Ms. Fan happens to be the twin sister of our next Broussard Scholar.

Wenyue Chrisdo Fan graduated from UC Davis and worked for the Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services as a liaison to vulnerable families in need of public services. She also moved to the Los Angeles area from China and is dedicated to advocating for underrepresented and economically disadvantaged communities. Both sisters will attend Hastings starting this fall.

Sadly Saying Farewell to Judge Henry Ramsey Jr.

Posted on May 6, 2014 by Steven Kazan

Judge Henry Ramsey Jr.

As an asbestos attorney with years of experience, I’ve gotten to know a lot of judges. Some good; some great. Recently we lost a great one. Judge Henry Ramsey Jr. He was 80 years old and retired. But he continued to actively work with the nonprofits that meant so much to him – those that helped minority kids from poor backgrounds get on the right track. Because he had once been one of those kids, too.

I went to his memorial service Saturday in Wheeler Auditorium on the University of California’s majestic Berkeley campus. That was fitting because he went to law school at Berkeley’s School o f Law. And now a scholarship is being created there to honor his memory.

Hard to believe that this distinguished jurist was once a poor African American high school dropout, born in the segregated deep South of the 1930s. But Judge Ramsey never forgot. Nor did he forget those that took an interest in him and convinced him he could go to college when he was a young enlisted man in the Air Force. He went to Howard University in Washington D.C. where years later he returned as the Dean of their law school.

But it was in the Air Force where he learned this bit of motivational wisdom he always shared: “When the enemy comes, you are either ready or you are not.” It reminds me of Yoda’s “Do or do not. There is no try.” I continue to pass it along to our young attorneys here at Kazan Law.

I knew of his wonderful reputation when he was first appointed to the bench. When he inherited the job of Presiding Judge, there was a tremendous backlog of asbestos cases. I was the plaintiffs’ liaison counsel for all asbestos cases in Alameda County. They were mostly our cases anyway. He made it a priority to set up a program to bring these cases forward and to deliver justice to victims of asbestos exposure. I worked closely with him to get these cases going.

After he left the bench to become law dean at Howard, we were doing a class action settlement and had formed a class action trust. I nominated him to be one of three trustees. Sometimes we’d have our meetings in his office at Howard.

Every year our firm’s foundation would donate in his honor to some of the excellent local organizations he fostered. We will continue to do so.

He was a distinguished man – a judge, an attorney, a professor, a law school dean and community leader. He was a devoted husband, father and grandfather. A good man. I will miss him.

Kazan Law Referenced In Asbestos Research Article

Posted on May 5, 2014 by Steven Kazan

As experienced asbestos lawyers, Kazan Law wins cases for our clients not only because we intricately know the laws involving asbestos litigation, but because we also know and understand the science of asbestos exposure. We know both the legal and scientific history that connects asbestos exposure to the development of fatal lung diseases – primarily malignant mesothelioma. This informed background gives us the working knowledge good asbestos lawyers should have to fully represent their clients’ interest.

But sometimes, we happily discover that our knowledgeable careful asbestos litigation work has, in addition to helping our clients, also helped advance scientific knowledge in the understanding of asbestos. Talk about a win-win!

So we are very proud to report that a new scientific article published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health references Kazan Law and work we did on one of our asbestos cases. The article is aptly titled, “Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law” – a topic we certainly know more than a little about.

The objective of this article researched and written by Dr. David Egilman of Brown University and colleagues is, in their own words:

To understand the ongoing corporate influence on the science and politics of asbestos and silica exposure, including litigation defense strategies related to historical manipulation of science.

For their exploration of this topic, they examined previously secret corporate documents, depositions and trial testimony produced in litigation – that’s where we come in; as well as published literature. They cited an admission we obtained from a corporate witness to prove that a supposedly scientific article was paid for even though the author denied it.

The results of this investigative study, quoted below, came as no surprise to experienced asbestos attorneys like us:

Our analysis indicates that companies that used and produced asbestos have continued and intensified their efforts to alter the asbestos-cancer literature and utilize dust-exposure standards to avoid liability and regulation.

The researchers discuss how this is an ongoing problem; not an artifact of the twentieth century. And they note how manipulating data and regulations allows asbestos companies to continue to mine and sell asbestos in developing countries. Clearly, these companies are taking unscrupulous advantage of the poverty, lack of education and weaker regulations in these nations.

These are situations that are constantly monitored by people like Kathleen Ruff in Canada and Laurie Kazan-Allen, my sister, in England. We frequently report on their findings here in this blog.

We are proud to be part of both this current academic article and the bigger picture of seeking justice for those exposed to asbestos due to corporate malfeasance.

Landmark Case That Changed Asbestos Law

Posted on May 1, 2014 by Steven Kazan

From San Francisco Chronicle July 4, 1980

Today as an asbestos victim, you can count on being able to sue those responsible. If you are the survivor of a family member who died because of asbestos exposure, you also can count on being able to file a wrongful death suit. The pioneering practice of asbestos law at Kazan Law helped make this possible. We not only practice under existing asbestos litigation rules, we help create those rules.

When I first started my career as a personal injury attorney, asbestos law as we know it today did not exist. To commemorate Kazan Law’s 40^th anniversary, we’ll take a look at one of my first cases against the Johns-Manville Company. It was a landmark victory that changed asbestos law forever.

Reba Rudkin, the plaintiff in the case, had been dead for several months by the time the state Supreme Court made its landmark decision. Mr. Rudkin’s death was attributed to “lung cancer” at the time, caused by on-the-job asbestos exposure which also caused his asbestosis .

Mr. Rudkin had worked for 29 years at a now closed Johns-Manville plant in Pittsburg, CA where industrial products like asbestos cement boards and panels were made.

A San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article, aptly published on July 4 1980, a day after the court decision, notes:

According to Rudkin’s attorney, Steven Kazan, yesterday’s ruling was the first time a California court has permitted a worker to sue his employer for injury since 1917, except for minor cases of physical assault.

Yes, that ruling was a game changer.

In a 5 – 2 decision, the court said the alleged misconduct by Johns-Manville was flagrant enough to provide an exception to a state worker’s compensation law that had prevented workers from suing employers for work related diseases or injuries

Employers were immune then from injury lawsuits under the 1917 Worker’s Compensation Act because it said workers could only seek compensation through the labor department, not through injury lawsuits in the courts.

Using an approach that is now standard, we filed a civil lawsuit against Johns-Manville in 1974 (Rudkin v Johns Manville et al), arguing that the Worker’s Compensation Act should not shield the company and its executives from fraud and conspiracy charges. With Mr. Rudkin suffering from the lung disease that would soon kill him, we sued Johns-Manville for fraud and conspiracy in inducing him to work in an environment they knew was dangerous.

In a deposition for the case, Johns-Manville’s former plant manager had testified that there was in fact a “hush hush” policy to suppress information about the health hazards of asbestos.

Justice Stanley Mosk, in the majority decision, ruled that a worker or his family could sue “for aggravation of the disease because of the employer’s fraudulent concealment.”

This established an exception to the workers compensation exclusive remedy rule, later codified in Section 3602(b)(2) of the California Labor Code. It also opened a pathway for hundreds of other sick and dying former employees to seek justice from Johns-Manville and other big companies.

This case also determined that the family of a plaintiff who died during a pending court case had the right to continue the suit. This also was a very important ruling that has helped many families achieve justice and compensation from companies responsible for the death of their loved one.

Posts by: Steven Kazan

How Much Does an Asbestos Attorney Cost?

Your Asbestos Settlement and Investing

Who Do You Sue in an Asbestos Lawsuit?

Who is at Fault in an Asbestos Lawsuit?

Landmark Appellate Victory In Favor of Victims of Take Home Asbestos Exposure

When Should You File an Asbestos Lawsuit?

American Law Month: Why Democracy Matters For Asbestos Lawsuits

Honoring the 2014 Broussard Scholarship Recipients

Sadly Saying Farewell to Judge Henry Ramsey Jr.

Kazan Law Referenced In Asbestos Research Article

Landmark Case That Changed Asbestos Law

Our Recent Verdicts

Latest News

Recent Blog Posts

Search Our Site

Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

Mesothelioma Lawyers