appellate courts Tag Archives - Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog

Personal Injury Litigation is Not a Game

February 14, 2025 | Robin Frazer Clark

Like you, I am fed up with the constant lawyer advertising on TV. It has gotten completely out of hand. The worst TV ads for lawyers are the ones that portray personal injury litigation as a “game.” One such ad even has a person who is presumably someone who has been injured and in need of a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer playing a carnival rubber ducky game against the crooked carnival guy who is presumably the insurance carrier. It depicts having a personal injury claim is like picking the right rubber ducky at the carnival. It is so wrong, so insulting and so demeaning. As is another Lawyer TV Advertiser who depicts the value of a personal injury game like asking for more sprinkles on ice cream, and simply by demand “more, more, more” and hiring this TV advertiser, you’ll get “more” in a personal injury settlement. So offensive and so outrageously wrong and naive. As a personal injury trial lawyer who has devoted my life to the Rule of Law and to obtaining Justice for loved ones who have been injured or killed, as a Past President of the State Bar of Georgia and as a Past President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, I’m sick of it.

Personal injury litigation is NOT A GAME!

And trials are not rigged.

“Isn’t That a Jury Question?” U. S. Supreme Court Bores Down to the Heart of the Matter in United States v. Tsarnaev

October 13, 2021 | Robin Frazer Clark

“Isn’t that a jury question?” As a trial lawyer who has tried 75 jury trials in Georgia, that is my default position, i.e., a jury should decide each issue of fact. Not a trial judge and certainly not an appellate court. Juries perform this task of finding facts every day, in every courtroom in the United States. It’s what juries do…and it’s the very foundation our system of Justice is built upon.

Yet, too often, we see trial judges, and then even appellate judges, invade the province of the jury and decide the case for herself/himself. This, plain and simply, is not allowed. The Standard of Review of a denial of a motion for summary judgment, for example, requires [an appellate] Court to “view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. And at the summary-judgment stage, we do not resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted to a jury for resolution.” Orr v. SSC Atlanta Operating Co., 860 S.E.2d 217, 222 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021), reconsideration denied (July 14, 2021). It really can’t be any plainer than that.

The United States Supreme Court, the highest appellate Court in the country, rarely, if ever, even discusses issues of fact, much less decides them. You can imagine my surprise, then, when in today’s oral argument in United States v. Tsarnaev I heard Justice Sotomayor ask exactly that question: “Isn’t that for a jury to decide?” Whoa! Wait a minute! What just happened?! A Supreme Court Justice never asks a question like that, does she? And yet I heard it with my own two ears! Interesting.

Cameras In Court Add Obvious Transparency in These Critical Times

February 15, 2017 | Robin Frazer Clark

As I work in my office, I often have livestreaming a trial or appellate arguments occurring in the Georgia Court of Appeals or the Georgia Supreme Court. I have previously blogged about the meaning of open courts and the value in being able to watch our judicial branch at work. It is your government in action and every citizen has the right to watch it and should be able to watch it. I firmly believe in it. Today I am glad to see others get on my bandwagon. CNN published an article today online that essentially agrees with my position. Given the current state of affairs with the attempted ban on Muslims by Executive Order and given the President’s attempt to “blame” the Courts for simply upholding the United States Constitution, there has never been a more important time in our Country’s history than for the people to have total access to the courts through livestreaming or video. Interestingly, oral arguments Washington v. Trump were broadcast on youtube.com although there was no video portion to watch, just audio. When our own President is attacking the independence of the judiciary, livestreaming oral arguments would be the very proof needed to show he simply does not know what he is talking about. Livestreaming oral arguments dealing with unconstitutional executive orders would dispel any absurd suggestion that courts or judges are political and are making decisions based on political pressures. It is ridiculous that our President would even suggest such a thing, when it is absolutely not true, but for any American who might for a minute believe it, they could simply watch for themselves and realize that our judges are making their decisions based on the facts, the law and the Constitution. Increased transparency promotes public participation, open government, access to information, efficiency, higher quality decision- making, and accountability. Further, transparency reduces the opportunity for corruption.

Robin Frazer Clark pursues justice for those who have personal injury claims as a result of being injured in motor vehicle wrecks, trucking wrecks, defective products, defective maintenance of roads, premises safety, medical malpractice and other incidents caused by the negligence of others. Ms. Clark is the 50^th President of the State Bar of Georgia and a Past President of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and has practiced law in Georgia for 26 years. Mrs. Clark is listed as one of the Top 50 Women Trial Lawyers in Georgia and is a Georgia Super Lawyer. Robin Frazer Clark~Dedicated to the Constitution’s Promise of Justice for All.