Powered by iPetitions - start your online petition now

 

Signatures | Total: 274

 

# NameGeorgia Bar NumberCityUS StateComments
51 Ralph Perales571967AtlantaGA
52 Raymond T. Brooks, Jr.085420DuluthGA
53 Sara Simmons153059TuckerGAWe try to settle and avoid burdening the courts with every case. Often this is a struggle, and it will increase the difficulty exponentially if we add the burden of an all-encompasing responsibilitiy to protect the claimed interests of third parties, without any distinction as to whether those interests are actually valid or legally enforceable. "Facially valid" does not reflect the considerable linguistic precision our profession is readily capable of, and use of such broad imprecise terms will needlessly create problems and stir up disputes. If Connecticut's bar association can utilize precise language, our Georgia Bar is at least equally talented, and should do no less.
54 Samuel J. Crowe198485ConyersGA
55 Terrence Lee Croft197100AtlantaGA
56 H. Daniel Hayes, Jr.339912ThomasvilleGA
57 eugene p chambersjr118800atlantaGAeugene pl chambers
58 Lloyd Hoffspiegel359830AtlantaGA
59 Caroline W. Herrington153008MaconGA
60 Wendy Boston691734MaconGA
61 david s. allen009945rossvilleGA
62 Matthew C. Flournoy265570MariettaGAAny Bum who alleges to have "an interest"or "a claim " in the PI recovery is not the equivalent of a Judgment Holder. The Bum has not proven the merits of his claim in a court of law where due process is required. Only a Judgment Holder can use the garnishment powers of the court because he has obtained a valid Judgment in a court of law. This opinion would transform the Plaintiff's Lawyer into a garnishment/collections lawyer for any Bum who makes a claim against his client's PI recovery.
63 Joshua W. Branch142280AthensGA
64 Edward E. Strain III686500
65 David H. Burns096359TallahasseeFL
66 steven l beard044475mariettaGA
67 George W. Fryhofer III279110AtlantaGA
68 Clark H. McGehee491800
69 David Rayfield596706ColumbusGA
70 Andrea Bennett051625
71 Henry A. Hibbert350510GA
72 Erik S. Heninger346783
73 Truitt A. Mallory467775
74 Linda G. Bass041248AtlantaGA
75 Harold Whiteman755750AtlantaGA
76 Troy Marsh471440StatesboroGA
77 Jonathan Sexton636486StockbridgeGABad advisory opinion. Do not adopt it. It creates conflicts between clients and their attorneys
78 Richard Alembik008770DecaturGA
79 H. Garold Jordan404550AtlantaGARule 1.15(1)(b) would impose a conflict between the attorney, the client and the creditor. Our duty is to our clients, not to creditors. If the client disputes the debt or if the client has a valid defense to the claim, where does this rule place the attorney? Are we to determine if the claim is valid? What steps would we take to do that? This Rule would make the attorney a debt collector for a clients creditors. This would be devistating to the plaintiff's bar.
80 Steven Barnett039256MariettaGAThis proposed rule is also trying to make decisions for a non-lawyer, i.e. the client, by deciding for them which creditors to pay from their funds. Likewise, attorneys cannot avoid the inherent conflict, created by this propose rule, of having obligations to two adverse parties (clients and creditors) at the same time.
81 Thomas A. Nash, Jr.535150SavannahGAI have been asked by a representative of Blue Cross Blue Shield if I had considered adverse bar action as recently as this month during negotiations over an alleged medical reimbursement lien. BCBS earlier had offered a 20% fee if I would represent them along with my client, which I declined based on a potential conflict of interest.
82 Jeff Renz601010SnellvilleGA
83 Michael G. Schlosberg629375MariettaGA
84 dan b. simon III646920rockmartGA
85 B. Chan Caudell116950CorneliaGA
86 Michael O. Horgan366767WashingtonGAI strongly agree with the comments and recommendations in this petition. The proposed FAO is dangerously close to making the attorney-client relationship adversarial, may violate attorney-client privilege, and certainly appears to make attorneys unpaid debt collectors for insurance companies and medical service providers. Signed, Michael Horgan
87 Joseph Guy Sharpe, Jr.637962MariettaGAThe fact that the state bar trying to get involved in the business of third parties who have adverse relationships and taking sides with one at the risk of the disbarment of its own members is evidence of the power of insurance companies over the rights of the individual and that is not right. Lawyers are supposed to protect the rights of their clients not insurance companies.
88 EDTORA T. JONES399923AtlantaGA
89 Faye Dara Levine448450atlantaGA
90 Robert P. Killian417575BrunswickGA
91 Allan Galbraith282537AtlantaGAIn addition to the above reasons that I believe Proposed Formal Advisory Opinion Request No. 05-R6 to be ill-advised, it also my opinion that the opinion places attorneys in a position of having potential liability to their clients, particularly with respect to claims which may be asserted by self funded ERISA plans against the proceeds of third party liability claims in which a recovery has been made by the attorney. The right of those plans to recover is problematic at best and the clients interests in defeating a recovery claim is undoubtedly harmed by the attorney's compliance with what the Formal Advisory Opinion's requirements.
92 James Kytle430736RoswellGA
93 michael w. mcelroy490637fayettevilleGA
94 Douglas F. Aholt005740AtlantaGA
95 william t. payne568275decaturGAI agree that this FAO No. 05-R6 would put lawyers in an untenable position, and would immediately create conflict between lawyres and their clients. It does not have to be this way!!!!!
96 Jon L. Schwartz631038AtlantaGA
97 C. Andrew Childers124398DecaturGA
98 Kevin Ford268110AtlantaGA
99 Arthur S. Archibald021210AthensGAThis advisory opinion, if adopted, would more often than not create a conflict of interest between the attorney handling the funds and the client. Do not adopt this opinion as written.
100 Jody A . Miller507180AtlantaGA

 

Signatures | Total: 274