Introduction to the Law Offices of Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson is a boutique law firm with many areas of expertise. The partners, STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON, RALPH BARAT SALTSMAN, STEPHEN ALLEN JAMIESON and RODNEY BRUCE EVANS, have been profiled many times in legal periodicals as well as popular magazines and newspapers. They host a weekly radio show as well as a weekly television show and provide professional commentary in the press. Their experiences have been the subject of numerous newspaper articles. Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson has collective experience in diverse areas of the law, providing unique benefits to its clients.

The information you obtain at this is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Visit our website at http://www.ssjlaw.com

Teenager Injured in Football Game Receives Jury Award of $7.57 Million for Missed Diagnosis by Treating Doctors

Stephen Allen Jamieson won a jury trial in the amount of $7.57 million dollars on behalf of a 19-year-old who had received a medical treatment far below the standard of care including a misdiagnosis of a bleed on his brain. This case was tried in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Southwest District (Torrance) before the Honorable Lois Smaltz.

In September 1995, the then 16-year-old plaintiff was practicing with his high school football team when he sustained several hard hits to the head from another player. In the evening his parents took him to the Urgent Care Center. The doctor failed to properly diagnose the problem as a concussion. There were no radiographic films done, no CT scan done. The doctor misdiagnosed the problem as dehydration and failed to place any definite limitation of the plaintiff’s participation in football over the next few days.

Two days later, the teenager collapsed on the playing field within a few minutes of the start of the football game. He was later diagnosed with a massive brain hemorrhage and was comatose for a month. He was left with brain damage resulting in loss of function in one arm and one leg and cognitive deficiencies.

Solomon, Saltsman and Jamieson filed a lawsuit for negligence against the school district as well as the doctor, the Urgent Care Center for which he worked, and the hospital that sponsored the Urgent Care Center.

The defendants in this action vigorously litigated this matter. There were over thirty depositions taken. Expert witnesses were required in many different fields such as athletic training, accident reconstruction, biomechanics, engineering and sports of psychology. The malpractice issue required the hiring of medical experts such as a neuropsychiatrists and psychologists. After more than two years, Mr. Jamieson and Stephen W. Solomon settled with the school district for $1,800,000.

Four months later Stephen Jamieson took the case against the urgent care doctor and his employers to trial before a superior court in Torrance, California. The medical issues were perceived by the defense to be the weaker portion of the case, particularly considering that Torrance is a relatively conservative jurisdiction, and that there are inherent difficulties associated with a medical malpractice action (i.e., MICRA limitations).

Therefore, the defense offered only $50,000 prior to trial. After three weeks in trial, Mr. Jamieson convinced the jury to return a verdict in the amount of $7,570,000.

Visit us at http://www.ssjlaw.com for more information.

62-year-old Salesperson Fired for having Leukemia is awarded $582,000 by jury

The jury found that the defendant employer acted with malice, oppression and fraud, thus entitling him to punitive damages.

This was an employment discrimination case that also raised issues involving violations of the American Disabilities Act. It was tried by Stephen Allen Jamieson before a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court. The Honorable Ernest Williams presided over this case.

A 62-year-old gentleman was hired by a beverage company to be a route salesperson in the Los Angeles area. Three months after beginning his new job the plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic lymphatic leukemia. At that point in time, he had not yet satisfied his sales quota. He was subsequently fired.

No offer to settle was made prior to the trial. After 1 and ½ days of jury deliberation and after the judge told defendant to settle, the defendants finally made their first offer of $10,000.

The terminated employee rejected the offer. The jury returned with a verdict of $582,000. Based on the unconscionable acts of the employer shown to the jury by Mr. Jamieson throughout the trial, the jury also decided that the employer acted with malice, oppression and fraud, the necessary finding for punitive damages. The case settled the following morning in the courtroom just before the defendant was required to open up its books and records for a determination on the amount of punitive damages. The verdict was paid ten days later.

Visit us at http://www.ssjlaw.com for more information.

2008 ABC Seminar

SSJ Law Conducts Periodic Seminars on topics of interest to Alcohol Beverage Control Licensees and Discretionary Permit Holders at the State and Local levels. Clients and the general public are always welcome. Upcoming and recent seminar is detailed below:

Los Angeles, California - August 21, 2008

2008 ABC Seminar Details
Topics: New Sales To Minors Penalties, New ACB Application Rules And Procedures, "New Director, New Chief Counsel, New ABC?”
1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
Hilton Los Angeles Airport Hotel Map
5711 W. Century Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90045
(310) 410-4000 (hotel information)
(310) 822-9848 (for reservations)

Fraud Found by Jury Against a Real Estate Broker

Our client, a 52 year-old single woman, purchased a home in a beautiful rural area on a lake north of Los Angeles. The home was in a gated community of many houses that share a lake. When the client purchased the home, the Real Estate Broker and Sales Agent assured the client that the home was in good condition and did not need any major maintenance or repairs.

Shortly after close of escrow the client moved in and started to improve the property by installing a new deck from which to view sunsets over the lake with her toddler granddaughter.

Within a few weeks the toilet started to back up, the sink and shower would not drain and the client called plumbers to fix the problem. At that point, she discovered that this drainage problem had been an issue at the house for many years and no one had disclosed it.

Specifically, the drainage problem was the house did not have a modern sewage system at all. It did not have a sewer. It did not have a septic tank. There was only a dirt pit into which the raw sewage would dump from the drains in the house. When that pit was full, sewage overflowed into the house.

The client then stopped using the toilet and showers while she attempted to find a way to fix it. She did not have any money left to fix it after purchasing the house. For almost a year she communicated with the Real Estate Sales Agent, who assured her that this problem would be fixed. Then, the Real Estate Sales Agent abruptly stopped taking her calls.

During this entire time the client had to go to great lengths to do routine things anyone should be able to do in their home; she either used her neighbor’s bathroom or drove 2.5 miles to the nearest gas station to use their facilities. She showered at the gym each morning.

When her 3 year-old granddaughter visited, she was forced to either use the lawn outside or depend on the neighbor’s good graces for bathroom privileges.

Finally after about a year, the client was able to connect the property up to the municipal sewage system.

Stephen Allen Jamieson and R. Bruce Evans represented the client when she took her case before the Los Angeles Superior Court. At trial, the Real Estate Broker and Sales Agent argued that she did not know about the sewage pit and potential overflow problems. However, the jury disbelieved the Agent.

They found against the Real Estate Broker company and the Sales Agent for professional negligence and in favor of Jamieson’s and Evan’s client for a substantial amount of money. This sum represented the difference in the value of land as sold versus the value of the land as the Agent had represented, along with compensation for the emotional distress our client suffered. The case was thereafter settled for a confidential dollar amount.

Contact us at http://www.ssjlaw.com

Dealing With Your Securities Broker When Things Go Wrong - Your Legal Rights and Remedies

AN OUTLINE

Representing Aggrieved Investors Nationwide

If you have any questions or a possible case; do not hesitate in contacting us:

A. FINDING A SECURITIES BROKER

It's your money. Do you have reason to trust him/her and the company he/she works for?

1. What you should learn about a securities broker:

(a) What is his education?

(b) What professional licenses does he have? Is he a licensed "registered representative" whose activities are regulated by the SEC, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD") and your state's Blue Sky Commissioner?

(c) What is his experience in the business?

(d) How does he get paid? If it is sales commissions, he doesn't get paid if he doesn't make the sale. (Most brokers are paid by commission. This creates a conflict of interest as the broker gets paid on every transaction that he does for you, whether or not the transaction is in your best interest.)

(e) Financial Consultant, Financial Adviser, and the like have no legal meaning. (Almost everyone is a Vice President.)

(f) What is a Financial Planner, Certified Financial, or Chartered Financial Planner? (Certified Financial Planner and Chartered Financial Planner require additional tests of competency over and above the regular securities exams [Series 7 and maybe a Series 63] required to be a stockbroker.)

2. Who does he work for?

(a) Is his company a licensed securities broker regulated by the SEC, the NASD, and your state's Blue Sky Commission? Is the company a member of a securities exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange? Do you care? (Most investors feel more comfortable buying investments from larger firms.)

3. Establish your investment objectives.

(a) Bear in mind there is a risk in every investment. The higher the potential return, the higher the risk. Things that sound too good to be true generally are.

(b) Do you want income, long term growth, liquidity? (Make sure your broker understands.)

(c) Are you willing to speculate? (Make sure your broker understands.)

4. Lean about the specific securities in which you invest. The key is: Do you understand what you are buying? (If you do not understand it - don't buy it.)

(a) Does the security fit your goals? (Short term trading does not meet the goals of the long term investor.)

(b) What is the relationship between the broker and/or the company he works for and the company that issued the security you are investing in? (This may create a conflict of interest - watch out!)

(c) Is the security a bond, debenture, preferred stock, option, mutual fund or limited partnership? Is it a derivative or hybrid? ("Sophisticated" and "speculative" are dangerous words.)

(d) Is the investment registered with the SEC? Is it legally tradeable? How long after the purchase can you sell it? As a practical matter, will there be a real market for it? What market?

5.Look up your broker's complaint history at the NASD site (www.nasdr.com).

B. Your Broker's Responsibility to You

In most states, when a securities broker "hangs out his shingle" he undertakes a fiduciary duty to his customers. In all states, he represents that he will deal fairly and in accordance with the standards of his profession.

1. A broker has an obligation to "know his customer." He must learn your financial circumstances so that he can properly recommend securities.

2. He must account for your money. He does this through periodic statements and confirmation slips of each transaction. Read them. Get an explanation if you don't understand them. If your broker's explanation is unsatisfactory, talk to his manager.

3. No half-truths. He must not make any untrue statement of a material fact, and must not omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made not misleading in light of the circumstances under which they are made.

C. Your Responsibility in the Securities Transaction

1. You must act as a reasonably prudent investor. Don't check your brains at the door. Ask all the questions you want and feel comfortable that you understand what you are doing.

2. Don't misrepresent your financial circumstances and don't allow the broker to fill out anything stating a false financial history. Read and understand what you sign. Don't sign blank forms.

D. Common Scenarios of Stockbroker Misconduct

1. Unsuitable Recommendations. Because stockbrokers serve in a fiduciary capacity, they are obligated to recommend to their customers only those transactions which are "suitable" for the given customer's financial situation and needs. Simply put, the stockbroker must act in the best interests of the customer and not induce them to make trades in a manner that is inconsistent with their investment goals and the risk they want or can afford to take. Be alert for recommendations to make a dramatic change in your investment strategy, such as moving from low risk investments to speculative securities, or concentrating investments exclusively in a single product.

2. Trading to Earn Commissions. The broker must recommend a security on its own merit, not principally on the ground that his employer is the sponsor (makes a market) of the security and he (the broker) will get a higher percentage of the commission by selling you a house-sponsored security.

3. Churning. Churning, a common offense, is when a stockbroker induces his client to enter into excessive or frequent trading so that the stockbroker will receive greater commissions. An excessive number of transactions in your account generates more commissions for your broker, but may provide no better investment opportunities for you. Also, unless there is a legitimate investment purpose for switching your investment in a mutual fund to a different fund with the same or similar investment objectives, a switch recommended by your sales representative may simply be an attempt to generate additional commissions for the broker.

4. Misleading Statements of Material Facts (FRAUD). It is unlawful for a broker to make any untrue statement of a material fact or fail to disclose a material fact which would mislead the client. You should be alert for recommendations from your sales representative that are based on so called "inside" or "confidential information," an "upcoming favorable research report," a "prospective merger or acquisition", or "I have a friend at the company", as well as the announcement of a "dynamic new product". Also beware of representations that your investment will "double" within a short period of time or of any "guarantees" that you will not lose money.

5. Manipulation. This is when the broker uses your money (and the money of others) in transactions intended to influence the price of a security on the public market so that it is not a reflection of the true purchases and sales.

6. Unauthorized and Improperly Executed Transactions. An unauthorized transaction occurs when the stockbroker executes a transaction without obtaining the customer's prior consent. An improperly executed transaction arises when the broker fails to follow the customer's directions. For example, a broker buys when instructed to sell or a trade that was made in the wrong security or at the wrong quantity or price. Sometimes the broker might say that he tried calling you, but this was such a good opportunity, you had to have it in your account. Be suspicious of any excuses from your broker that such problems are simply due to a computer or clerical error.

7. Failure to Supervise. A brokerage house has the obligation to supervise its brokers to make sure they are not violating the rules of professional conduct and make sure that none of the conduct described here has occurred. Failure to closely supervise makes the brokerage house liable to the same extent as the broker.

8. Conversion. Occasionally brokers outright misappropriate funds or securities entrusted to them by their customers (stealing). This is also illegal.

9. Excessive Mark-Ups. When the broker acts as a principal and/or market maker and sells a security to you, he cannot charge you a mark-up which is excessive given a fair market. When he purchases a security from you, he cannot purchase at a discount which is excessive given a fair market

E. Other Things You Should Know

1. Statutes of Limitations. Don't delay. A statute of limitations is the time period in which you must bring a claim, or the claim is forever barred. The statute of limitations depends on the state in which you live as well as your particular circumstances. In short, get help right away to make sure that your claim is not barred.

2. Forum. Most modern account opening agreements with brokerage houses require that customer disputes be arbitrated in arbitration proceedings administered by the NASD or a stock exchange. You still have the right to an attorney. Arbitration awards are enforceable.

3. The Chances of Success. As most disputes are heard in arbitration instead of court proceedings, there are no statistics on success in these types of cases. In arbitration, recent statistics show that most of the customer cases are settled before hearing with smaller cases settled more frequently. If you don't settle, statistics show that about 60% of the cases end up with some type of recovery to the customer. Even though there can never be a guarantee that you will recover anything, statistically, cases in which the customer retains legal counsel produce better results.

Our Attorney Profiles: Julia H. Sullivan

Current Employment Position: Associate Areas Of Practice: Land Use Planning – Liquor Law Administrative/Governmental Relations Appellate Law Constitutional Law Civil Litigation

Litigation Percentage:

100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation Matters

Bar Admissions:

California, 2005

Education:

Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, California, 2005

Honors:
Staff Member, Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the
Americas, 2003 – 2004
Board of Governors, Moot Court Honors Program, 2004 – 2005; Member, 2003 – 2005

Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin, 1997, B.A.

Major: Anthropology

Professional Associations and Memberships:

Los Angeles County Bar Association

American Bar Association

Member, Women in the Profession Committee

Other Activities

Judge, Southwestern University School of Law, Intramural Moot Court Competition

Contact Information:

426 Culver Blvd.
Playa del Rey, CA 90293

Phone
(310)822-9848
(800)405-4222

Fax:
(310)822-3512