Why Your Lawyer Choice Could Make or Break Your Case

August 3, 2025| David Matheny| 0 Comment | 3:34 pm

Categories:

Blog

Choosing a Securities Attorney: Why Your Lawyer Choice Could Make or Break Your Case

Selecting the right attorney for your investment fraud case might be the most important decision you make in the entire process. The difference between an experienced securities lawyer and a general practitioner could literally be hundreds of thousands of dollars in your pocket.

Let me tell you what to look for and what red flags to avoid when choosing legal representation.

Why Securities Law Is Different

Securities law is incredibly specialized. It involves:
– Complex federal and state regulations
– Industry-specific rules and procedures
– Specialized forums like FINRA arbitration
– Unique damage calculation methods
– Technical investment concepts

A lawyer who handles divorces and car accidents might be great at what they do, but they’re probably not the right choice for your investment fraud case.

Essential Qualifications to Look For

Securities law experience – Look for attorneys who focus primarily on securities cases, not general litigation.

FINRA arbitration experience – Most investment disputes go through arbitration, which has its own rules and procedures.

Track record of success – Ask about recent case results and client recoveries.

Industry knowledge – Your attorney should understand investment products, market practices, and industry standards.

Resources – Securities cases often require expert witnesses and extensive document review.

Questions to Ask Potential Attorneys

How many securities cases have you handled? – You want someone with substantial experience, not someone learning on your case.

What’s your success rate in FINRA arbitration? – Look for attorneys who win more often than they lose.

Can you provide references from recent clients? – Good attorneys should be able to provide references (with client permission).

How do you calculate damages in cases like mine? – They should be able to explain their approach clearly.

What experts do you typically use? – Securities cases often require economic and industry experts.

How long do cases like mine typically take? – You should have realistic expectations about timing.

Red Flags to Avoid

Guarantees of specific outcomes – No honest attorney can guarantee results in litigation.

Pressure to sign immediately – Good attorneys will give you time to make an informed decision.

Lack of securities experience – Don’t let a general practitioner learn securities law on your case.

Unwillingness to explain their approach – You should understand how they plan to handle your case.

Poor communication – If they’re hard to reach during the consultation, it won’t get better.

Understanding Fee Arrangements

Most securities attorneys work on contingency, meaning they only get paid if you recover money. Typical arrangements include:

Contingency percentages – Usually 33-40% of any recovery, depending on the complexity and stage of resolution.

Expense arrangements – Who pays for expert witnesses, document production, and other costs? Some attorneys advance these costs, others require clients to pay as they’re incurred.

Fee shifting – In some cases, you might be able to recover attorney fees from the other side.

Make sure you understand all fee arrangements before signing any agreement.

The Importance of Resources

Securities cases can be expensive to prosecute properly. Your attorney should have:
– Access to qualified expert witnesses
– Resources to handle extensive document discovery
– Technology for managing large document productions
– Support staff to handle case administration

Small firms or solo practitioners might not have these resources.

Geographic Considerations

FINRA arbitration can be conducted anywhere, so you’re not limited to local attorneys. Sometimes the best securities attorneys are in major financial centers like New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago.

However, local attorneys might have advantages like:
– Lower travel costs
– Familiarity with local arbitrators
– Easier face-to-face meetings

The Initial Consultation

Most securities attorneys offer free initial consultations. Use this time to:
– Explain your situation clearly
– Ask about their experience with similar cases
– Understand their assessment of your case
– Evaluate their communication style
– Discuss fee arrangements

Don’t be afraid to consult with multiple attorneys before making a decision.

Checking Credentials

Before hiring any attorney, verify:
– Bar admission – Make sure they’re licensed to practice law
– Disciplinary history – Check with the state bar for any disciplinary actions
– Professional memberships – Look for membership in securities law organizations
– Publications and speaking – Evidence of expertise in securities law

The Team Approach

Many successful securities cases involve teams of professionals:
– Lead attorney with securities expertise
– Support attorneys for research and document review
– Paralegals for case administration
– Expert witnesses for technical testimony
– Economists for damage calculations

Make sure your attorney has access to qualified team members.

Communication Expectations

Establish clear expectations about:
– How often you’ll receive updates
– How quickly they’ll respond to your calls or emails
– What decisions require your input
– How they’ll keep you informed of developments

Good communication is essential for a successful attorney-client relationship.

Trust Your Instincts

Beyond credentials and experience, you need to feel comfortable with your attorney. Ask yourself:
– Do they listen to your concerns?
– Do they explain things in terms you can understand?
– Do they seem genuinely interested in your case?
– Do you trust their judgment and advice?

If something doesn’t feel right, keep looking.

The Cost of Choosing Wrong

Hiring the wrong attorney can be devastating:
– Missed deadlines due to inexperience
– Poor case preparation leading to bad results
– Inadequate damage calculations reducing your recovery
– Lack of industry knowledge hurting your credibility

The difference between a good securities attorney and a mediocre one can be enormous.

Making Your Decision

After consulting with potential attorneys, consider:
– Their experience and track record
– Your comfort level with their approach
– The resources they can bring to your case
– Their fee arrangement and costs
– Your gut feeling about working with them

The Bottom Line

Your choice of attorney is crucial to the success of your investment fraud case. Don’t make this decision based solely on cost or convenience. Look for experienced securities attorneys who have the knowledge, resources, and track record to maximize your chances of recovery.

An experienced securities attorney like Attorney Robert Wayne Pearce brings the specialized knowledge and proven track record you need to navigate the complex world of investment fraud litigation.

Remember: this might be your only chance to recover your losses. Make sure you have the right legal team fighting for you.

Liability For DefamationLiability For Defamation

February 20, 2018| David Matheny| 0 Comment| 6:22 am

To create liability for defamation there must be:

(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another;

(b) an unprivileged publication to a third party;

(d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm, or the existence of special harm caused by the publication . . .

A statement is defamatory when it would tend to lower the subject in the estimation of the community, excite derogatory opinions about the subject, and hold the subject up to contempt. In reviewing an allegedly defamatory statement, the words must be reviewed in their entirety and in context to determine whether they are susceptible of a defamatory meaning. Whether a statement is defamatory is generally a question of law; however, where a statement is susceptible of different constructions, one of which is defamatory, resolution of the ambiguity is a question of fact for the jury.

Negligent Infliction Of Emotional DistressNegligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress

March 15, 2018| David Matheny| 0 Comment| 6:21 am

This case is governed by State v. Eaton, 101 Nev. 705, 710 P.2d 1370 (1985). Eaton requires that HN1a bystander plaintiff be closely related to the victim of an accident, be located near the scene of the accident, and suffer a shock resulting from direct emotional impact stemming from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident. Id. at 716, 710 P.2d at 1377-78. The majority of the cases on negligent infliction of emotional distress have involved automobile accidents, including Eaton. Thus, some of the language of these cases cannot appropriately be applied to the negligence of a pharmacist dispensing drugs. In addition to debating whether a plaintiff is a bystander or what the plaintiff actually observed, we should to look to the basic principles underlying the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In Eaton, this court discussed some of the history of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress due to injury to another. This court embraced the ruling in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. Rptr. 72 (Cal. 1968) by saying:

The [Dillon] court held that liability could be circumscribed in these cases, as in all tort cases, by the application of the general principles of negligence. 441 P.2d at 924. The trial courts could determine whether the accident and the harm to the bystander was reasonably foreseeable and “thus mark out areas of liability, excluding the remote and unexpected.” 441 P.2d at 921. We agree with the reasoning of the California court. We “see no good reason why the general rules of tort law, including the concepts of negligence, proximate cause, and foreseeability, long applied to all other types of injury, should not govern the case before us.” 441 P.2d at 924 . . . See also II Harper and James Sec. 18.4, p. 1039 (“mechanical rules of thumb which are at variance with these [general] principles [of tort law] do more harm than good.”)

Eaton, 101 Nev. at 713, 710 P.2d at 1376.

Under this reasoning, it is not the precise position of plaintiff or what the plaintiff saw that must be examined. The overall circumstances must be examined to determine whether the harm to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability is the cornerstone of this court’s test for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 715.

In this case, a daughter purchased prescription medication for her mother. The daughter then initiated and continued administration until her mother was rendered comatose. In effect, because of the pharmacist’s negligence, the daughter poisoned her mother. Under these facts, it was entirely foreseeable that the drug would significantly harm the actual patient and that a close relative would continue administration until the ultimate catastrophic effect was realized.

Of course, the plaintiff still faces the burden of proving her damages and proving that they were the proximate cause of the pharmacist’s negligence. The jury should be allowed to make the determination of whether [the]’ claim is meritorious.

Intoxication And The “Intentional Acts” Exclusion ClauseIntoxication And The “Intentional Acts” Exclusion Clause

October 16, 2018| David Matheny| 0 Comment| 6:23 am

Regardless of the insured’s intoxicated state, the act of striking another is intentional, that such an act is not a covered occurrence under the policy in question here, and that such incidents are subject to a properly drafted “intentional acts” exclusion clause. Consequently, we hold that the liability insurer in this instance is under no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in connection with an action seeking damages stemming from the insured’s intentional infliction of bodily injury, even when the insured was intoxicated or believed he acted in self-defense.

The insurance agreement in this case obligates State Farm to defend and indemnify the defendant in connection with actions brought against him for damages caused by an “occurrence.” The policy defines the term “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury. Although the policy does not define the term “accident,” a common definition of the term is “a happening that is not expected, foreseen, or intended.” In addition, the policy contains exclusionary language precluding coverage for bodily injury or property damage “(1) which is either expected or intended by the insured; or (2) which is the result of willful and malicious acts of the insured.”

This court dealt with a similarly worded insurance policy. This court observed that “‘intent’ or ‘intention’ denotes a design or desire to cause the consequences of one’s acts and a belief that given consequences are substantially certain to result from the acts.” Applying this definition of intent, we concluded that a homeowner’s liability insurance policy did not cover the insured’s actions of fatally shooting his wife and two of her friends, despite a claim that the insured did not intend his actions because he acted in a psychotic fit of rage. We also noted that the insured’s “supposed inability to control his acts [was] not the same as an inability to intend his acts.”

We take this opportunity to extend our holding and reject appellants’ argument that the dependant was unable to act intentionally as a result of his voluntary intoxication. Whether he thought he was God or his evil master is of no matter because he admittedly struck the victim in the eye with the desire of getting away from him. This is a non-accidental intentional act even if he did not intend to harm him. Thus, we conclude that his act of striking the victim is not an occurrence under the insurance policy and is excluded from coverage under the policy language concerning intentional misconduct. In this, we recognize his claims that the intentional-acts exclusion does not apply because, given his advanced state of intoxication, he did not intend to injure the victim and that, because he believed he acted in self-defense, his conduct was not malicious. We reject this line of argument because the exclusion properly dovetails with the reasonable construction of the policy that an occurrence requires an accidental event. Accordingly, State Farm is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant with respect to any judgment obtained against him by the victim.

Applying this court’s holding, we conclude that . . . notwithstanding the claim that he was too intoxicated to intend the acts and resulting injuries to [the victim], the intentional-act exclusionary clause applies to negate coverage.