Questions, answered plainly.

No. The consultation is free, and nothing is owed for the conversation itself. It also does not commit you to hiring us — no attorney-client relationship exists until we both agree to one in writing.

That is the most common reason people call, and it is exactly what a first conversation is for. We would rather tell you plainly that a matter is not worth pursuing than take it on and spend a year of your time finding out.

Anything within reach helps: photographs or video, a report number, the names of anyone who treated you, correspondence from an insurer, and witness details. None of it is required. Gathering the record is our job, not yours.

An attorney. The person who would handle the strategy is the person you speak with, and remains the person you reach afterwards.

The fee is a percentage of what is recovered rather than an hourly rate. There is no retainer and no invoice while the matter is open. If nothing is recovered, no fee is owed.

Costs are separate from the fee: filing fees, records, expert work, depositions, and similar expenses. The firm advances them during the case, and how they are handled at the end is set out in the written agreement before anything is filed.

The fee agreement governs this, and it is explained before you sign rather than after. Our arrangement is that the risk of the work sits with the firm — which is the point of a contingency structure.

Providers, health plans, and in some cases a workers' compensation carrier may assert a right to be repaid from a recovery. Those claims are negotiated before disbursement, and the accounting is walked through line by line so the net figure is the figure you were told.

A personal injury action commonly carries a two-year limitation period, and a wrongful death action generally runs two years from the date of death. Exceptions exist in both directions, so a deadline should be confirmed rather than assumed.

It can be dramatically shorter. Claims against a public entity generally require a written claim to be presented within six months of the incident before a lawsuit is possible. A city bus, a public hospital, or a hazard on public property can all put a matter in this category.

Sooner materially changes what can be proven. Vehicles are repaired, surveillance is overwritten on a cycle measured in days or weeks, scenes are cleaned, and witness memory fades. Preservation requests only work if they arrive before the record is gone.

Yes, and they run in parallel. California's Division of Workers' Compensation warns that failing to report a work injury within thirty days can jeopardise benefits, while any separate civil claim against a non-employer carries its own limitation period.

Speak with a lawyer first. A recorded statement is taken to be used, and questions about how you feel or what you remember are asked while you are still finding out. You are generally under no obligation to provide one to the other side's carrier.

Usually not. An early conversation is something to work with, not a closed door. Tell us what was said and what, if anything, you signed, and we will explain what it means for the claim.

It usually means the claim is being valued before the injury is understood. An offer made before treatment has a shape cannot account for what treatment reveals, which is why early offers are common and rarely serious.

Your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage may respond, and there may be other responsible parties beyond the driver. Those policies have their own notice requirements, so they are worth identifying early.

No. Most matters resolve through a claim rather than a filed lawsuit. Filing is a tool used when the other side will not value a matter seriously, and it is never done without your authority.

It depends on treatment more than on paperwork. A demand should not go out until the medical picture has a shape, because a claim resolved before that is a claim resolved without knowing what it is worth. Many matters run several months to well over a year.

Often not. Even so, a file is built as though a jury may read it, because the difference between a prepared file and a bluffing one is visible to an adjuster and changes what a matter is offered.

You do. Every offer comes with our honest read attached, including when we think it should be refused, but nothing is accepted, filed, or signed without your authority.

Not honestly. Value follows the evidence: the medical picture, the effect on work and daily life, the liability facts, and the available coverage. Anyone quoting a figure before those are known is guessing at your expense.

Generally past and future medical care, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, and non-economic harm such as pain, loss of independence, and the activities an injury takes away. What applies depends on the facts and the evidence supporting each part.

California follows comparative fault, which reduces a recovery in proportion to your share of responsibility rather than eliminating it. Insurers routinely argue for a larger share than the evidence supports, which is one of the things a prepared file answers.

It can, because a gap is the first thing an adjuster points to when arguing an injury was minor. Gaps often have good explanations — cost, work, childcare — and those explanations belong in the record rather than left for the other side to characterise.

California Civil Code section 3342 imposes strict liability on an owner for a bite occurring in a public place or where the person was lawfully present, whether or not the dog had bitten before. Strict liability removes the need to prove the owner was careless; it does not remove the need to prove the other elements.

Potentially. Labor Code section 3852 preserves an injured employee's claim against a person or company other than the employer — a property owner, a contractor, an equipment manufacturer, a delivery driver. The compensation carrier may assert reimbursement rights, so the two should be coordinated.

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 begins with the surviving spouse or domestic partner, children, and the issue of deceased children, and can extend to others who would inherit by intestate succession as well as certain dependents. Eligibility is fact-specific and should be confirmed rather than assumed.

Generally that the owner or occupier controlled the area and knew or should have known about the hazard with enough time to address it. Ortega v. Kmart (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200 addresses how that notice can be shown, including through evidence about inspection practices.