The Legal Notepad Podcast Por Attorneys Rob Mattingly Kevin Burke and John DeCamillis arte de portada

The Legal Notepad

The Legal Notepad

De: Attorneys Rob Mattingly Kevin Burke and John DeCamillis
Escúchala gratis

Acerca de esta escucha

 Attorneys Robert Mattingly, John DeCamillis and Kevin Burke are based in Louisville, Kentucky. Robert and John are highly successful litigators, while Kevin is a highly sought-after appellate attorney. The objective of The Legal Notepad Podcast is to provide valuable information about Kentucky law, Federal law and topics relevant in our community. The episodes will feature interesting interviews as well as technical discussions of the law and how to improve your trial practice. Robert and John are the founders of DeCamillis and Mattingly PLLC. Kevin is a partner in the law firm of Burke Neal PLLC. They have decades of experience practicing law throughout the state of Kentucky.2023 Ciencias Sociales
Episodios
  • Reimagining SCR 3.130(5.4): A Look at Jurisdictional Approaches to Non-Lawyers in Law (Ethics Episode)

    Reimagining SCR 3.130(5.4): A Look at Jurisdictional Approaches to Non-Lawyers in Law (Ethics Episode)
    Jun 10 2025
    Episode 14: Louisville attorneys Rob Mattingly and Kevin C. Burke are happy to provide an opportunity for 1 hour of ethics for Kentucky continuing legal education credit. Rob and Kevin are joined by Lauren Byrn and attorney Nina Couch. Nina teaches professional responsibility at the Brandeis School of Law. She also has a private practice. This is her first time on a podcast! Editor’s Note: If you are an attorney and would like CLE credit for this episode, visit the Kentucky Justice Association website, click the Education and Training tab and look for the podcast. TODAY’S LEGAL QUESTION: Lauren asks, “One of the national, legal listservs had a lot discussion about nonlawyers owning law firms. Does Kentucky have a rule on this?” Kevin comments how this is a fascinating topic and one that will be greatly discussed in the future. Rob asks Nina to provide some brief information about herself and then explain Kentucky’s Rule 5.4. Nina was an accountant before going to law school. She’s taught professional responsibility at UofL’s Brandeis School of Law a couple of times. She was a visiting assistant professor, teaching professional responsibility and property. Now she’s there part-time in current capacity, having also taught mediation. Her private firm is Couch Law Office, PLLC, in Louisville. She focuses primarily on consumer protection and personal injury claims. Nina explains that the ABA model rule Rule 5.4 prohibits nonlawyers from sharing in attorney fees with lawyers. It also precludes nonlawyers from having any ownership interest in a law firm. Kentucky has a similar Rule 5.4, however, in very limited circumstances, such as a lawyer death and the transfer of a law firm. It could also be allowed in the purchase of a law practice, in accordance with Rule 1.17. There’s also a provision for a profit-sharing plan, as long as it’s not tied to a per-case attorney fee. The History of Rule 5.4 It’s to protect the lawyers independence and judgement. It’s also a safeguard to protect the core values of our legal profession. The ABA adopted Rule 5.4 in 1983. Nina points out that it actually goes back to 1908 when the ABA codified its first set of cannons. The law has changed over the years, most recently with the significant advances in technology including AI. There has been conversation focused on modernizing 5.4 and access to justice to underserved, potential clients. Adding nonlawyers might assist in addressing the issues. Law firm capital and innovation are also influencing the conversation. Law firms are prohibited from raising capital from venture capital firms, private equity or nonlawyers. Rob and Kevin comment on how different the practice of law has become, even since they both started practicing. Business and commerce has also changed. Hedge funds and other investors see an opportunity make money, if they were allowed to invest in law firms. The Conversation Has Started Nina notes the ABA has tended to resist changes to Rule 5.4. In 2022, it adopted Resolution 402, noting the inconsistency with core values, were nonlawyers to share in the legal fees or ownership/control of the practice. It cites to the core principles of the practice of law including loyalty, competence and confidentiality. The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, in December of 2024, wrote a letter to the ABA. They advocated from a modernization of Rule 5.4. They view the involvement of nonlawyers as being inevitable, in legal delivery systems, while maintaining regulations protecting consumers. The conversation has definitely started. Arizona entirely eliminated its Rule 5.4. Utah has also looked at this issue. Rob comments on the adage: Those who fail to plan, plan to fail. It seems like the inevitability stated in the December letter, seems quite plausible. Kevin notes leaving the rule as is, is a decision. As technology and other key, societal factors evolve, the legal world is going to change, based only on technology. The decision to update the rule or leave it as is, is a choice that brings consequences. The Current Landscape We’re transitioning into a segment dealing with how various states are proceeding. Lauren also suggests we include a discussion on how AI comes into play. Speaking of AI, we’re joined by ChatGPT. Nina begins by noting the District of Columbia was the first to change Rule 5.4, in 1991. It was a limited change. In 2013, the ABA issued formal opinion 464, Division of Legal Fees With Other Lawyers Who May Lawfully Share Fees With Nonlawyers. It clarified that a lawyer practicing in a model rule state didn’t violate 5.4 if they shared fees with a DC lawyer. In 2020, the landscape changed regarding 5.4. Utah and Arizona both made changes to their Rule 5.4. Arizona eliminate the fee-sharing prohibition and allowed nonlawyers to own law ...
    Más Menos
    1 h y 9 m
  • Direction of PIP Benefits for Medical Expenses

    Direction of PIP Benefits for Medical Expenses
    Jun 4 2025
    Episode 13: Louisville attorneys Rob Mattingly and Kevin C. Burke discuss a recent case involving the direction of PIP benefits for medical expenses. Rob and Kevin are joined by Lauren Byrn and for the second time, attorney Adam Redden. Editor’s Note: If you are an attorney and would like CLE credit for this episode, visit the Kentucky Justice Association website, click the Education and Training tab and look for the podcast. TODAY’S LEGAL QUESTION: Lauren asks, “What is the current state of an insured’s ability to direct no-fault benefits?” In Kentucky, many of the PIP carriers traditionally paid the invoice, as they were submitted. The option of directing specific invoices to be paid, instead of others, could be challenging. Most carriers wanted to pay on a first-in, first-paid basis. That has now changed, based on Erie Insurance Exchange v. Johnson (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2024-SC-0018). In our previous episode, we discussed the liability of an adult when their minor uses their car and causes a wreck (Episode 12). PIP Direction (not the boy band) Kevin clarifies that PIP Direction is not a new boy band. This prompts the team to explore Lauren’s Justin Timberlake crush. The statue involved in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Johnson is KRS 304.39-241, in the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act. It allows an insured seeking no-fault benefits to direct the payment of those benefits “among the different elements of loss.” Rob points out that the Court specifically mentions the term basic reparations benefits can be used interchangeably with PIP benefits. The case involves a motor vehicle accident. Two individuals sought various medical treatments. Generally PIP benefits cover $10,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, etc. Kevin advises non-lawyers to consult with and attorney to reserve the PIP benefits. The carrier is interest in paying the benefits as quickly as possible, but that may not be in the insured’s best interest. In the Erie case, the plaintiff’s attorney notified Erie to reserve the PIP benefits and expressed the desire that the chiropractor be paid from the benefits, rather than the hospital bill. Erie responded claiming the plaintiff could not direct the payments, beyond at the category-level. As a result, Erie filed suit. Ultimately, the circuit court agreed with the claimants (e.g. the insureds). In the court’s decision, it noted that the decision potentially affects millions of Kentuckians. Interestingly, this is a case of first impression. The court found that the claimants could direct the medical expenses. The case went to the court of appeals. The court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. The case was accepted on discretionary review by the KY Supreme Court. When the case made it to the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2022, the Court had to throw it out, due to a lack of jurisdiction. There Was No Magic Language The circuit court’s opinion did not fully and finally resolve all issues in the case. The direction of benefits issue wasn’t resolved. Additionally, there was a claim for accrued interest and a claim for attorney fees. Thus, the Supreme Court found that the case was not appealable. It didn’t contain the magic language: “Final and appealable with no just reason for delay.” Rob and Kevin discuss how attorneys can avoid this situation. Kevin explains that if there are still unresolved claims, under CR5402, the opinion must say, “Final and appealable with no just reason for delay.” If that specific language is not included, it’s going to get kicked back down to the lower court. Kevin explains this is non-waivable, even if the issue isn’t raised by the parties. The court has a duty to raise it on its own. In this particular case, the court of appeals overlooked the defect. Once the case goes back down, a new order is entered, addressing the direction issue, interest, attorney fees and adds the magic language. It goes back to the court of appeals, which affirms the circuit court’s ruling in favor of the claimants. Once again, the KY Supreme Court takes the case for discretionary review. Eventually, it results in the 2025 opinion. Standard for Review on a Legal Issue This will be a de novo review. The court doesn’t pay deference to the court of appeal’s opinion or that of the circuit court. The Court is evaluating it, anew, based on what the statute says regarding the circumstances of the case. The issue involving the direction of benefits received a de novo review. The other issues were reviewed using a different standard, because there was an abuse of discretion. Interpreting “The Element of Loss” Language The Court has various mechanisms for interpreting language. In this case, they went through statutory interpretation. Adam notes a few things in the opinion. Page 9 – “…Carry out the intent of the Legislature.” ...
    Más Menos
    49 m
  • Liability for Letting a Minor Drive a Vehicle (KRS186.590)

    Liability for Letting a Minor Drive a Vehicle (KRS186.590)
    May 26 2025
    Episode 12: Louisville attorneys Rob Mattingly and Kevin C. Burke explore parental liability, now that 15 year olds are able to get a drivers license. Parents should be aware of their responsibilities related to this new issue. Rob and Kevin are joined by Lauren Byrn and for the first time, attorney Adam Redden. Editor’s Note: If you are an attorney and would like CLE credit for this episode, visit the Kentucky Justice Association website, click the Education and Training tab and look for the podcast. TODAY’S LEGAL QUESTION: Lauren asks, “Now that Kentucky has a new law allowing 15 year olds to get their drivers licenses, what are the liability for parents?” The Statute for Parental Liability for Minors Driving an Automobile KRS186.590 is the relevant law for this issue. This law has been in place for decades. Rob addresses non-lawyers by explaining how a parent can be held liable for a collision caused by your minor child. There are 2 broad scenarios outlined by this statute. The first scenario (Section 1) assumes you signed the application allowing the minor to get his/her license. Therefore, you are deemed responsible for anything the minor does in the car, because you signed the application. However, there is an exception. If you’ve made sure the vehicle they are driving has insurance, you are not liable. The second scenario (Section 2) is much broader. Regardless of whether you personally signed the application, and regardless of the insurance, if you own the vehicle or allow the minor to drive the vehicle, you are liable. Under Section 3, Rob notes the person who owns or furnishes the vehicle may not have been the one who signed the application for the minor to get his/her license. By the way, if you were to allow a minor who is not your child, to drive your vehicle, you are liable for what may happen. Kevin explains the two scenarios are there to ensure there is a source of recovery for someone who might be involved in a collision with a negligent, minor driver. To illustrate how all of this works, Lauren will pose a few questions and Adam will provide the answers. Example #1: Mom takes her 16 year old to get his/her licenses. She signs the application. However, she does not get insurance on the vehicle. Is she liable? Yes, under Part 1 of the statue, the mother would be liable because she signed the application. Kentucky requires vehicles to be insured. The fact that the vehicle wasn’t insured at the time of the accident isn’t the primary issue. However, she should have made sure the vehicle was insured. Insured or not, the mother would be held liable. Example #2: Mom signs the application and gets the car insured. However, dad has a different vehicle. He gives the child permission to drive his car. If the minor driver causes an accident, who is liable? Adam explains that the mother would not be held liable. Although she signed and insured the first vehicle, the statue specifically notes that if you furnish a vehicle to a minor, that person is liable. Therefore, the dad would be held liable for the minor’s negligence. In reality, assuming the car is family asset, dad would still be liable. The above example would be relevant if the parents were divorced. Example #3: An adult, who is not the parent and didn’t sign the application, agrees to let a minor borrow a car. Would the adult be held liable? In this example, according to Section 3, the adult is liable because he/she furnished the vehicle to a minor driver. The adult assumed the liability. Example #4: Mom signs the application and gets insurance on the car. Unfortunately, dad allows the policy to lapse. Who would be liable? Mom would be liable, however dad could potentially also be held liable if he had control of the vehicle and allows the minor to drive it, Section 3 would apply. Example #5: Assume adult #1 borrows a car from adult #2 (with permission). Then, adult #1 allows a minor to drive the car. The minor causes an accident. Who is liable? Kevin explains that this is a Section 3 issue. Anyone who causes or knowingly permits a minor to drive a vehicle assumes liability. It could also be said that adult #1 furnished the vehicle. Adam clarifies that adult #2 could also be liable. He/she permitted adult #1 to use the car, even though it was adult #1 who permitted the minor to drive it. Rob suggests that adult #2 should have explicitly told adult #1 that the minor was not allowed to drive the car. At the end of the day, this isn’t a situation you want to find yourself in, so be advised. Practical Pointers You Can Take to Protect Yourself If you are the parent, make sure you keep insurance on the car your minor is driving. You should also decide how much insurance you can buy. While insurance premiums are expensive, you need to consider the value of the assets you need to protect (i.e...
    Más Menos
    1 h y 13 m
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_webcro805_stickypopup
Todavía no hay opiniones