I’m representing myself, and I just received some Requests for Admission…what now?

If you just received a set of Requests for Admission, this cannot be said clearly enough: you are holding a ticking time bomb.
Each state’s rules of procedure are different, and this particular article will speak only to Arkansas. Please consult an attorney for advice regarding Requests for Admission in other states. In Arkansas, once the case is on file and pending, service between the parties’ attorneys can be accomplished through a variety of ways. Service in this manner is governed by Rule 5 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Requests for Admission in Arkansas are governed by Rule 36 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. These two rules will provide you with the roadmap for getting this ticking time bomb off your desk and keeping your case intact.
Responses to Requests for Admission:
First, you should know that you have 30 days to formally respond to Requests for Admission. Do not wait until the last day to respond. The quicker you get this off your desk, the better. How do you respond? You have two options: admit or deny. If they cannot be admitted in full, deny them. The only word you have to type in response to the Requests are “Denied” to each and every one of them.
Ensure that your response conforms to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, make sure it is signed, and make sure that you have attached a certificate of service. Verify the responses.
Responses must be filed of record:
Once you have done all this, you are still not out of the woods. After preparing these responses, you must file them of record. It matters not that other lawyers tell you not to file discovery responses. Rule 5 requires that Responses to Requests for Admission be filed of record. Even if the other party did not file their Requests for Admission, file your responses. There is some terrible case law out there that will control what happens to your case if you do not file your responses.
If you do not follow all of this advice, the Requests for Admission will be deemed admitted:
If you do not respond to the Requests for Admission in writing, in conformity with the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, and you do not file the responses of record within 30 days, the Requests for Admission will be deemed admitted as an operation of law. That likely means that you no longer have a pathway to prove each element of your personal injury claim, as all issues of fact will be resolved in favor of the other party. This will entitle the other party to summary judgment, or judgment as a matter of law.
For these reasons, it is imperative to hire an experienced trial lawyer who has been involved in discovery disputes for years.
3 Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case

3 Differences Between a Criminal Case and Civil Case
The justice system in the United States is extremely complex, and thus can be very confusing for those without legal experience. From the copious paperwork, to finding the right DC personal injury lawyer with sound qualifications, our legal system can be quite overwhelming. To help break down our legal system, we categorize it into two basic elements: criminal and civil court. These entities are similar in that they are both run under state and/or federal guidelines. But these two court systems are also very different, serving different functions and having a variety of distinctions. There are three major differences between a criminal case and a civil case:
1) Means of Punishment
There’s a variety of punishments that may occur in criminal cases, such as jail time and government fines or penalties. Guilty parties may also have to follow certain requirements at the risk of facing jail time, or might instead be placed on probation. Charges are classified as felonies or misdemeanors; misdemeanors are less serious, whereas felonies are more severe.
Unlike criminal cases, defendants do not face the risk of jail time in civil cases; instead, they usually pay monetary damages to compensate the victim with financial resources. Also, courts may call for punitive damages if the defendant acted with malice or intent, as these damages require a lot more money from the defendant.
2) Proving Fault
The burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff in the majority of criminal cases. From the court’s perspective, defendants are presumed innocent until the opposing party demonstrates enough evidence – beyond a reasonable doubt – to overturn that assumption. While it may be challenging to determine the threshold for reasonable doubt, the burden is intended to be substantial. However, this heavy burden does have some exceptions, such as claims involving self-defense.
Courts analyze the preponderance of evidence in civil cases. This means that more than half of the plaintiff’s evidence proves or demonstrates that the defendant is at fault.
3) Suits versus Charges
The defendant is brought to court by a government entity, federal or state, in criminal cases. On the other hand, individuals, businesses, or other non-government entities can bring a suit against a defendant in civil cases. Interestingly, an event might be considered to be both civil and criminal. For example, a defendant who murdered someone will face criminal charges, but this defendant might also face a wrongful death suit to compensate the victim’s family for the loss of a loved one.
While criminal charges can only be brought by a government entity, other individuals might play a part in these events. For example, if a victim does not want to press criminal charges, a governmental entity may also decline to press criminal charges, but this victim cannot prevent the government from pressing charges if the government wishes to do so.
If you are faced with a civil or criminal case, it will likely be beneficial to seek legal representation. An experienced attorney can help determine your best course of action, so contact a legal professional today.
Thanks to our friends and contributors at Cohen and Cohen, P.C., for their insight into the difference between civil and criminal defense.
DUI Defense: DeKalb DUI driver in triple fatality crash attempted to flee

he alleged drunk driver accused of causing a triple fatal crash Sunday morning attempted to leave the scene in a Good Samaritan’s vehicle, DeKalb police said.
DeKalb County police spokesman Capt. S.R. Fore said Monday that 27-year-old Marvin Lynch had been arrested in connection with the wreck at the intersection of Marbut Road and Lithonia Industrial Boulevard. Lynch, a Marietta resident, was being held at the DeKalb County jail on three counts of vehicular homicide and individual charges of DUI, hit and run and failure to obey a traffic device.
According to Fore, Lynch was driving a Mercedes SUV along Marbut Road at about 7 a.m. Sunday when he ran the red light at Lithonia Industrial Boulevard. He collided with a Nissan Maxima, killing all three occupants.
Those occupants were identified Monday as Cora Rhodes Lyles, 65, of Stone Mountain, and Willie Mae and Vernon Webster Hatley, 65 and 67, respectively, of Raleigh, N.C.
Raleigh TV station WRAL reported that the trio was on the way to church.
After the crash, Lynch allegedly attempted to leave the scene by “getting in the driver’s seat of a vehicle belonging to (a) passerby that stopped to render aid.”
“He was subdued by others on scene until officers arrived,” Fore said.
Speed and alcohol contributed to the crash, Fore said.
Decatur Mayor Pro Tem pleads guilty to drunk driving, sentenced in city court
Decatur Mayor Pro Tem Kecia Cunningham pleaded guilty to charges of driving under the influence and was sentenced on July 8.
Cunningham appeared in Decatur City Court before a DeKalb County Magistrate Judge, Matt McCoyd. The judge was filling in for the city judges, who are appointed by the City Commission.
McCoyd accepted the plea and sentenced Cunningham to 12 months probation, a $750 fine and 40 hours of community service. As part of her sentence, she must undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation. She is also supposed to serve one day in jail, but the judge gave Cunningham credit for the time she served after she was arrested on June 11.
He advised Cunningham that she still had the right to a trial on the charges. Cunningham’s attorney said she understood but wanted to put the episode behind her.
“She has taken full responsibility and is prepared to accept the sentence of the court,” her attorney said.
Under the terms of the plea deal, Cunningham will have a limited driving permit because this is her first DUI offense.
Cunningham has served on the City Commission since 1999, was arrested by a Decatur Police Officer shortly after midnight on June 11.
The officer was travelling eastbound on East College near the intersection with Sams Crossing. He noticed a 2002 Lexus traveling south on Sams Crossing. The officer said the Lexus, “Made an improper right turn onto East College Avenue and failed to maintain its lane.”
“I observed the Lexus make a wide right turn, enter into the center lane of travel, straddling the dotted white line and jerk back into the curb lane headed westbound,” the officer wrote.
The officer made a U-turn and caught up with the Lexus to observe the behavior of the driver. He saw the Lexus begin to “drift heavily within its lane.” The Lexus moved over into the center lane without using a turn signal.
“While traveling the center lane, the Lexus crossed over the double solid yellow line, began straddling the yellow line with the center of the vehicle with both driver side tires in the opposite lane of travel,” the officer wrote. “After traveling several feet, the Lexus drifted back into its own lane of travel.”
The officer turned on his lights and the Lexus pulled into the rear parking lot behind Trackside Tavern. The Lexus is a convertible and its top was down during the stop, the officer noted. He said he immediately noticed a strong odor of alcohol when he began talking to Cunningham. When the officer asked her why she didn’t maintain her lane, she explained that “Something happened near my feet.” Cunningham was not wearing any shoes at the time.
Cunningham told officers she was coming from her office on Johnson Ferry Road. The officer asked if she made any stops on the way home, and Cunningham said she’d been to the Capital City Cigar Club, 19 miles outside the Decatur City Limits. She told the officer she’d had a cigar and a glass of wine 45 minutes before the stop.
During the field sobriety test Cunningham was unsteady on her feet. She had trouble taking the walk and turn test, and at one point had to stop walking to regain her balance. Her blood alcohol level was .147. The legal limit in Georgia is .08.
Cunningham later admitted to the officer she had a vodka and cranberry in addition to a glass of wine. The officer found a bottle opener inside the Lexus and a wine cork inside the trunk.
When Decaturish first reported the arrest, Cunningham expressed regret for her actions.
“I accept responsibility and intend to accept the consequences,” she said. “I anticipate this will be handled as any other matter, and I am embarrassed. It’s a personal matter that I’m embarrassed by.”
Dekalb County Criminal Courts: Two Dekalb Judges Appointed by Governor Deal
Gov. Nathan Deal appointed two DeKalb County judges today: state Rep. Mike Jacobs, R-Brookhaven, and Jean-Paul “JP” Boulee, a partner with the law firm of Jones Day who previously served as a captain in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps.
Rep. Mike Jacobs will be taking Judge Eleanor Ross’s State Court position. Jean-Paul Boulee will be taking Superior Court Judge Becker’s position.
Telecommunications Firm Accused of Defrauding Customers on Inmate Calls

The Lynch Law Group sues inmate collect call provider Global Tel Link in Federal Court. Andrew has applied for class action status for all effected consumers.
Congratulations Brian Sumrall, Awarded Super Lawyer Status in Worker’s Compensation Claims
Andrew would like to congratulate Brian H. Sumrall, workers’ compensation attorney, for his selection as a Super Lawyer Rising Star for the fourth straight year. Andrew recommends Brian Sumrall for any Georgia workers who are injured on the job. Mr. Sumrall will fight for his clients to ensure that workers’ comp carriers meet their obligations under the law and maximizes settlement value on all of his cases. Call Brian at (404)924-4595 if you would like to discuss your case, or visit his website.
Talking on phone just as dangerous as drunk driving

Expert:Talking on phone just as dangerous as driving drunk.
Georgia the 15th state to enact a 911 medical amnesty law

Seeking Justice: Unlikely Partnership
Yields New Law to Save Lives
Because they were high, his friends didn’t stop at any of the three hospitals they passed while Zack was still alive, either.
Elliott tells her son’s story with the hope that no other parent has to experience what she did. When she told his story to a judiciary committee this spring, she hoped it would help save lives.
Justin Leef (J.D. ’17) hoped Elliott’s story, and those of the other mothers he brought together, would help the Georgia General Assembly pass HB 965.
Justice for Zack
Leef grew up with Elliott’s son and vividly remembers receiving the call that Zack had died — a week before he took the LSAT. He couldn’t believe the circumstances in which his friend died. A year later, Elliott asked Leef if he would help introduce a policy change in Georgia to prevent deaths like Zack’s.
After Zack’s death, his mom joined a support group of parents who lost their children to overdoses. They began discussing medical amnesty laws in various states that grant limited immunity for people who contact officials during an overdose emergency—even if in possession of or under the influence of a controlled substance or alcohol.
“In the beginning, we were just a bunch of sad moms who wanted to do something in memory of our children, but we also wanted to do something to prevent others from having to go through what we did,” Elliott says. “We didn’t know where to start and didn’t want to lose an opportunity because of our inexperience. I knew Justin was in law school, so I called to see if he could help.”
At the time, Leef was interning with state Rep. Amy Carter (R-Valdosta) and Rep. Sharon Cooper (R-Marietta).
“I knew that I had to help, so I introduced the idea to Sharon Cooper, began researching and talking to anyone and everyone who would listen,” Leef says.
With the help of Cooper and others, Leef helped draft two house bills. HB 965 (Georgia 911 Medical Amnesty Law) would grant amnesty to accidental overdose victims of illicit drugs as well those who call for emergency medical help if the person stays with the victim until first responders arrive. HB 966 would allow first responders access to naloxone, a drug proven to reverse the effects of opioids in overdoses.
Leef approached lobbyists, staffers and administrative assistants—even janitors – knew about the bill and understood why it was needed. The first-year student was undeterred by lobbyists saying he’d need at least $10,000 to get this type of bill introduced in the House. He began assembling supporters he knew could help get the bills passed.
“Everyone knew my passion, and they knew I wasn’t going to go away,” Leef says.
Rep. Cooper was on board. However, Leef knew he needed support from both sides of the aisle so he approached Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur). Having interned with Rep. Tom Weldon (R-Ringgold), Leef asked for his support then recruited Rep. Ben Watson (R-Savannah), a medical doctor, and Rep. Bruce Broadrick (R-Dalton), a pharmacist. Both could speak to how easily people become dependent on opiates, the growing crisis of overdoses and how naloxone can counter the effects of opioids.
Leef knew that to gain the full support from the House, he would need more parents, like Elliott, to tell the story of how they lost a child to an overdose.
HB 965 Goes to Committee
Holly Springs police lieutenant Tanya Smith was one of those parents.
“I read the bill, and it told my daughter’s story,” Smith says. “Taylor was dumped in a yard and left to die because the people with her were high and too afraid to call 911. I couldn’t comprehend how someone could make a decision to let someone die to avoid consequences. Until it happened to my daughter, I never knew this world existed. It was an easy decision to endorse the bill.”
Leef found several other mothers and prepared them, along with Elliott and Smith, to visit the state Capitol.
“I trained them to be lobbyists,” Leef says. “I taught them how to talk to senators; how to read their body language; how to capture their attention; and how to make the most out of any conversation.”
He also prepared the mothers to tell their story—their child’s story—many more times and eventually in front of the judiciary committee.
“What worried me the most was that the bill wouldn’t make it through the committee, and the moms would have to come back to tell the story again next year,” Leef says.
“Telling our story was never easy, but we’d rip off the scab, tell it, go home, cry and get ready to tell it again,” Elliott says. “When we went in front of the committee, I told them that if we had to come back next year, there would be more of us.”
Signing into Law
On April 24, the mothers and Leef walked into Gov. Nathan Deal’s office to watch him sign HB 965 into law; the language from HB 966 had been folded into HB 965 to make the final steps of the legislative process easier. It passed 144-23 on March 18 after sailing through committees and floor votes.
The combined bill makes Georgia the 15th state to enact a 911 medical amnesty law and the 19th state to extend legal protections to people who administer naloxone to someone experiencing a drug overdose.
In June, a Holly Springs, Georgia, a police sergeant administered the drug to save the life of an overdosing young woman. During the first week of August, the officer saved another life.
Cooper told The Huffington Post, “I’m proud of these bills and of our young people who are helping to spread the word about it.”
Leef says justice was served for Zack, the moms and the countless lives the bills will help save. “It was very rewarding for the bills to pass this session,” he says. “We had an urgency to get it done. It was time-consuming, but it was all worth it.”
The hundreds of hours that Leef put into gaining support for the bills is something Elliott and Smith will never forget.
“Justin invested so much of his heart and his head in this effort. It was unbelievable what he did,” Elliott says. “He knew his way around the capitol. He knew what to do or asked how. He made sure we approached the General Assembly in the right ways —with bipartisan sponsors and a clear, respectful presentation of our cause. If it wasn’t for Justin, we’d probably still be a bunch of sad moms, sitting in a restaurant.”
When asked how she feels about Leef and all he’s done get the bill passed into law, Smith responded quickly. “That’s easy,” she says. “Justin is a hero.”
When Leef applied to Georgia State Law he wrote in his personal statement that he had come to a point where he realized that his contributions to making Georgia a better place would be limited if he failed to first invest in himself through education. Law school gives him access to the tools and resources needed to improve, he says.
The Lynch Law Group Receives Peer Review Rating for The Lynch Law Group from LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®

LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell has recognized Attorney The Lynch Law Group with a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating™. The Lynch Law Group was given an “AV” rating from his peers, which means that he was deemed to have very high professional ethics and preeminent legal ability. Only lawyers with the highest ethical standards and professional ability receive a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating. The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings evaluates lawyers in the United States and Canada based on the anonymous opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary, including both those who are rated and those who are not. The first review to establish a lawyer’s rating usually occurs three years after his/her first admission to the Bar. LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell conducts secure online Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings surveys of lawyers across multiple jurisdictions and geographic locations, in similar areas of practice as the lawyer being rated. Reviewers are instructed to assess their colleagues’ general ethical standards and legal ability in a specific area of practice. The confidentiality, objectivity and complete independence of the ratings process are what have made the program a unique and credible evaluation tool for members of the legal profession. The legal community values the accuracy of lawyer peer review ratings because they are determined by their peers – the people who are best suited to assess the legal ability and professional ethics of their colleagues. “Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings were created in 1887 as an objective tool that would attest to a lawyer ability and professional ethics, based on the confidential opinions of other lawyers and judges who have worked with the lawyers they are evaluating,” said Mike Walsh, President and CEO, U.S. Legal Markets at LexisNexis. “The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings have remained the most prestigious and widely respected lawyer rating system in the world for over a hundred years.” In this highly competitive environment for legal services, the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating is often one of the only means to differentiate lawyers who are otherwise very comparable in their credentials. This is important on a variety of levels – from the in-house counsel trying to determine which one of his outside law firms should be assigned a new matter to the private practice lawyer seeking to refer a case to another lawyer with the appropriate expertise in a specific area of practice. Indeed, a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating can be one of the most important criteria that lawyers and clients use to evaluate a lawyer when retaining a lawyer, or simply researching the background of co-counsel or opposing counsel. When referring matters to colleagues with specific expertise or looking for counsel in another jurisdiction, lawyers want to have confidence in the individual lawyer under consideration. By reviewing the ratings, they can be guided to a lawyer with very high ethics as well as the appropriate level of professional experience. The Lynch Law Group is proud to have received this recognition from his fellow attorneys in the State of Georgia.