One Should Send Scouts to Prepare to Meet
Low Down Dirty Bushwhackers

One million dollars- That is the cited amount that we are accused of causing a local home improvement business to have lost in income since July of this year. By our actions we, along with those of another person in a nearby town and a local television station, are the defendants in a lawsuit to recoup this loss.

Without giving potentially sensitive details about the recent deposition of the plaintiff by the defendants' attorneys, I would like to give a short critique. It appears that the plaintiff's attorney concentrated on the 'deep pockets' television station aspect of this case and didn't prepare properly for our attorney's history and talent.

This case involves disputes between homeowners and a contractor that performed home improvement work and the television station that aired the interviews with the disgruntled homeowners.

I have little knowledge about the qualifications of the other defendants' attorneys, but here is what can easily be found on the internet concerning ours:

[Ours] is chair of the Construction Law and Litigation Section. His practice focuses on representing businesses and individuals in business formation and related business and litigation matters. The largest segment of his business practice relates to construction matters including assisting design professionals, contractors, developers, and owners in facilitating their projects and solving their legal disputes.

He is a member and the Chairman-Elect of the Board of Directors of the Construction Law Section of the State Bar.

He lectures regularly to lawyer and trade groups on construction practices. He is featured in the December 2006 issue of The Wisconsin Law Journal as one of the Top Construction Lawyers in Wisconsin.

In September of 2007, he argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a case which involves a construction dispute where the contractor violated an administrative code and was negligent. The Court addressed whether there should be double damages for negligence damage and code violations, the application of the Economic Loss Doctrine and statutory attorneys fee award.

One would think that the plainiff's attorney would have scouted the adversary and prepared more thoroughly for the deposition. I believe he was blindsided by his lack of preparation.

Things are looking up.