Many individuals come across an overwhelming imbalance of power from their automobile or work insurance companies because of disability that they had from their unfortunate accidents. They even discuss with us they were taken advantage of by their own insurance companies in the course of their own settlement negotiations.
Regulation 664 of the Insurance Act is clear that an insured is allowed to rescind a settlement within two business days after the insured person signs the Final Release and Settlement Disclosure Notice. That is, the person signing this document has two business days to change his/her mind, by notifying the insurance companies that the agreement is to be rescinded.
Besides, s 9.1(8) of the Regulation is clear you are no longer allowed to appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal about your denied accident benefits that were already settled unless your settlement funds were returned to your insurance companies.
Our Ariel Baek Legal Services comes across these issues from various clients and we enter into all negotiations on your behalf with various insurance companies to ensure you get the compensation you deserve.
As we negotiate with various insurance companies frequently in the accident benefit claims context, the practice of negotiating agreement between the criminal defence lawyer and the prosecutor commonly takes place in the criminal contexts as well.
1. Chris Watts & Shanann Watts murder case in Frederick, Colorado
Mr. Watts was convicted of murdering Mrs. Watts (his pregnant wife), along with his two daughters (four-year-old and three-year-old) by smothering them with a blanket over their heads. Death penalty was on the table as part of the sentencing, and on November 6, 2018, the defence lawyer entered into the negotiation with the prosecutor and had his own client(defendant) enter into the guilty plea in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table.
2. Dixiano murder case in Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Dixiano(defendant) was convicted of killing his wife and stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from a mentally disabled man, while he was a psychological counsellor.
The defendant’s defence lawyer entered into a negotiation with the prosecutor and agreed to have his client plead guilty to a second-degree murder and first-degree theft in exchange for a more lenient sentence. This was part of the examples of importance of negotiations with the prosecutor on behalf of the client/defendant in exchange for 20 years of imprisonment for this magnitude of this crime.
3. Criminal case of Andrew Kissel in Greenwich, Connecticut
In the course of the negotiation with the prosecutor, Carlos Trujillo (Kissel’s chauffeur, who was convicted of his murder) entered a guilty plea to the attempted murder charge and was sentenced to only six-year imprisonment following his defence lawyer’s negotiation with the prosecutor. And, Leonard Trujillo(Kissel’s another chauffeur) pleaded guilty to manslaughter and agreed to testify against his own cousin Carlos in exchange for the 20 year prison sentence despite its magnitude of his committed crime.
4. A manslaughter case of a receptionist who fatally poisoned her ex-boyfriend’s mother, Mary Yoder
This is a case about a receptionist (Kaitlyn Conley) who fatally poisoned her ex-boyfriend’s mother, Mary Yoder for whom she had worked for four years. Ms. Conley was sentenced to 23 years in prison in 2015 after being found guilty of first-degree manslaughter.
Ms. Conley’s defence lawyer got into negotiations with the prosecutor and led the case to the lesser sentence with the manslaughter conviction instead of the first degree murder. The defence’s argument was “You have to still prove that she poisoned Yoder, okay? If she didn’t poison her with the intent to kill, where’s the evidence that she poisoned her with the intent to commit serious physical injury?”
5. A Manslaughter or a Premeditated Murder? – Milkshake murder case – Millionaire (Robert Kissel) Killed By Wife (Nancy Kissel)
This well-known case is about a wealthy American banker who was drugged with a strawberry milkshake and then bludgeoned to death by his wife in Hong Kong on November 2, 2003.
The defence lawyer’s argument was it was his client’s self defense after decades of her mental and physical abuse at the hands of her husband and that his client was in a deep depression when she killed him. The defence lawyer had Ms. Kissel plead guilty to the manslaughter (which carries a maximum sentence of 12 years) rather than to a premeditated murder charge (which could sentence his client to the life imprisonment). Eventually, the defendant was sentenced to a life imprisonment with jury’s unilateral decision, but this case reflects how the defendant’s sentences could be heavily impacted by how the negotiations between the defence lawyer and the prosecutor unfold.
