How to Select a Divorce Lawyer

Written by Scott Morgan

Selecting a divorce lawyer to handle your family law case is a very important decision. The following are a few important criteria to help in findingrepparttar right divorce lawyer.

Experience and Focus

Any divorce lawyer you consider should have substantial experience in handling divorce cases in your location. An experienced divorce lawyer will knowrepparttar 119240 tendencies ofrepparttar 119241 various judges in your jurisdiction and should be able to use this knowledge to your advantage. Additionally, that lawyer should practice primarily inrepparttar 119242 field of divorce law. Often people will hire a lawyer who practices primarily in some other area, thinking that any lawyer will do. However, divorce law is a very specialized field that requires particular skills and experience in order to have a likelihood of reaching a successful conclusion.

Past Client Testimonials

Perhapsrepparttar 119243 best way to decide which divorce lawyer to use for your divorce case is to find out what former clients have to say about that lawyer. While divorce is never an enjoyable process, some divorce lawyers have more success at satisfying their clients than others. If you do not know someone who has been a client of that particular divorce lawyer, you should consider askingrepparttar 119244 lawyer for a list of clients that you can contact who can describe their experience withrepparttar 119245 lawyer. While client confidentiality is important, any good experienced divorce lawyer should have at least a few former clients who are willing to vouch for him or her.


When a client becomes dissatisfied with a divorce lawyer, one ofrepparttar 119246 most common complaints is that they were unable to communicate withrepparttar 119247 lawyer. It is very important that your divorce lawyer be accessible and prompt in responding to your phone calls, emails, and requests for meetings. While you can askrepparttar 119248 divorce lawyer about their office policy, this is another area where you can best evaluaterepparttar 119249 divorce lawyer by hearing what former clients have to say.

If a former client ofrepparttar 119250 lawyer tells you that they found it very difficult to contactrepparttar 119251 attorney, or thatrepparttar 119252 lawyer either did not return calls or respond to emails or would take several days to do so, you should definitely avoid that lawyer. Divorce is an unpleasant and frustrating process underrepparttar 119253 best of circumstances. If you are unable to reach your divorce attorney, or at least someone on his or her staff,repparttar 119254 frustration level can increase exponentially.

Timeline of Merck's failure to act on removing Vioxx from the market

Written by Michael Monheit, Esquire, Monheit Law, PC

Based on an article by THE NEW YORK TIMES, by Alex Berenson, Gardiner Harris, Barry Meier and Andrew Pollack, "In May 2000, executives at Merck,repparttar pharmaceutical giant under siege for its handling ofrepparttar 119239 multibillion-dollar drug Vioxx, made a fateful decision." The article showsrepparttar 119240 following timeline of Merck failures to recall Vioxx:

1998: Vioxx put onrepparttar 119241 market amid controversy overrepparttar 119242 safety of Cox-2 drugs. January 1999: A study of 8,100 rheumatoid arthritis patients begun in January 1999. February 2001: FDA members expressed concerns aboutrepparttar 119243 heart risks of Vioxx and doctors on FDA panel argued thatrepparttar 119244 drug's possible harm torepparttar 119245 heart was a real problem. FDA panel felt that more studies should be done. March 2000: Clinical trial suggested heart risk concerns. Inrepparttar 119246 study, called Vigor, patients were treated with either Vioxx or naproxen, an older pain reliever. While Vioxx reducedrepparttar 119247 risk of internal bleeding, it also appeared to raiserepparttar 119248 incidence of heart problems. Five times as many patients taking Vioxx had heart attacks as those taking naproxen. March 2000: Company executives were told aboutrepparttar 119249 preliminary results fromrepparttar 119250 Vigor trials that showed increased cardiovascular risk and were "open torepparttar 119251 possibility that Vioxx was at fault." April 2000: Merck plays downrepparttar 119252 heart risk findings, with no basis that has ever been defined by Merck as to why it ignoredrepparttar 119253 findings. Spring 2000: Merck researchers reviewed safety data from a study of Vioxx and was unable to find that Vioxx posed a risk. "But Merck never ran a clinical trial seeking to scientifically establishrepparttar 119254 heart-protecting properties of naproxen or to quantify how powerful an effect might be. In recent interviews, company officials said they did not believe there was a reason to conduct such tests becauserepparttar 119255 critical issue was not proving naproxen's benefits but determining if Vioxx posed a risk." May 2000: Merck marketing executives considered whether to directly test Vioxx for heart risk. May 2000: Marck's policy-making group met to discuss ways to defend Vioxx against competing drug makers' accusations that it posed cardiac risks. A cardiovascular risk study was considered. May 2000: Merck's marketing executives opposed further cardiac study. June 2000: Merck executives rejected pursuing a study focused on Vioxx's cardiovascular risks. Study would require as many as 50,000 patients. Merck worried that this study would hurt its marketing. Marketing of Vioxx wasrepparttar 119256 primary concern for Merck. Many scientists (fromrepparttar 119257 academic community, not from Merck) repeatedly asked Merck to perform studies ofrepparttar 119258 cardiovascular risks from Vioxx. Forrepparttar 119259 following years, Merck tookrepparttar 119260 position that "Vioxx was safe unless proved otherwise." During this time, "researchers fiercely debated howrepparttar 119261 question should be pursued, and some even now question whetherrepparttar 119262 drug needed to be withdrawn."

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use