What to Do After a Hit-and-Run Accident in Los Angeles County

Our mission is to provide the advocacy you need.

Home
Blog
What to Do After a Hit-and-Run Accident in Los Angeles County

By: KP Law
September 21, 2026

If you were injured in a hit-and-run accident in Los Angeles County, the driver who fled broke the law, but you generally still have options for pursuing compensation, most commonly through the uninsured motorist coverage on your own auto insurance policy. California law imposes strict requirements on hit-and-run uninsured motorist claims, including reporting the accident to police within 24 hours and showing physical contact with the fleeing vehicle, which makes acting quickly essential. Here is what to do after a hit-and-run and how California law treats these cases.

California’s Duty to Stop After an Accident

California law requires every driver involved in an accident to stop and fulfill certain duties, regardless of who caused the crash. Under California Vehicle Code Section 20001, a driver involved in an accident causing injury or death to another person must immediately stop, provide reasonable assistance, and exchange identifying information. A violation is a wobbler, meaning prosecutors can charge it as a misdemeanor or felony depending on the severity of the injury and the circumstances of the case. When an accident causes only property damage, California Vehicle Code Section 20002 applies instead, generally charged as a misdemeanor. Notably, these laws focus on the driver’s conduct after the crash rather than who caused it, meaning a driver who was not at fault can still face hit-and-run charges for fleeing rather than exchanging information.

Steps to Take Immediately After a Hit-and-Run

What you do in the moments and days following a hit-and-run can significantly affect your ability to recover compensation later. Important steps include:

Call 911 to report the accident and request medical attention if needed
Try to note details about the fleeing vehicle, such as make, color, partial license plate, or direction of travel
Look for witnesses and ask for their contact information before they leave the scene
Photograph the accident scene, vehicle damage, and any visible injuries
Check for nearby surveillance or traffic camera footage that may have captured the crash
File a police report as soon as possible, since this creates an official record of the incident
Seek medical attention promptly, even if injuries seem minor at first

Why a Prompt Police Report Matters So Much

Beyond helping identify the fleeing driver, a timely police report is often a legal requirement for pursuing compensation. Under California Insurance Code Section 11580.2, a hit-and-run driver is treated as an uninsured motorist for purposes of an injured person’s own uninsured motorist coverage, but recovering under this provision generally requires reporting the accident to police within 24 hours and filing a claim with the insurer within 30 days. Missing either of these windows can jeopardize an otherwise valid claim, even when the injuries and damages are clear.

Important: California generally requires physical contact between your vehicle and the unidentified vehicle, or an independent witness who can corroborate that another vehicle was involved, before an uninsured motorist claim for a hit-and-run can proceed. A phantom vehicle that cuts you off or forces you off the road without any contact, and with no witness, can create significant challenges in recovering compensation, which makes documenting the scene and locating witnesses especially important.

Pursuing Compensation Through Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Since the driver who caused the crash cannot be identified in many hit-and-run cases, the injured person’s own uninsured motorist coverage often becomes the primary path to compensation. California requires insurers to offer this coverage, and a policyholder must reject it in writing for it to be excluded, which means many drivers have this protection without necessarily realizing it. A successful uninsured motorist claim can generally cover medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering up to the policy’s coverage limits, similar to what could otherwise be recovered from an identified at-fault driver’s insurance.

If the Driver Is Later Identified

Law enforcement investigations, witness leads, or surveillance footage sometimes result in identifying the fleeing driver after the fact. If this happens, a claim can generally be pursued directly against that driver and their insurance policy instead of, or alongside, an uninsured motorist claim. This is another reason why documenting as many details as possible immediately after the crash, and cooperating with the police investigation, can meaningfully affect the options available later in the process.

Deadlines That Can Affect Your Claim

Beyond the 24-hour police report and 30-day insurer notice requirements specific to hit-and-run uninsured motorist claims, California’s general statute of limitations for personal injury claims still applies, generally two years from the date of the accident under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. Because hit-and-run cases involve additional, much shorter deadlines layered on top of this general rule, treating the immediate aftermath of the crash with urgency is especially important in these cases.

Talk to a Los Angeles County Hit-and-Run Attorney

Hit-and-run cases involve strict deadlines and technical insurance requirements, so experienced legal guidance can make a meaningful difference in whether your claim succeeds. KP Law represents injured clients throughout Los Angeles County in a full range of personal injury claims, including hit-and-run accidents. Our attorneys can help identify the fleeing driver where possible, pursue your uninsured motorist coverage, and fight for the compensation you deserve. Contact us or call (866) 973-5691 today for a free consultation, available 24/7.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance tailored to your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

Who Pays When You’re Hit by an Uber or Lyft Driver in California

September 21, 2026

Which insurance policy pays after a crash involving an Uber or Lyft driver in California depends entirely on what the driver’s app status was at the moment of the collision. California divides rideshare driving into distinct periods, from the app being off entirely to a passenger being in the car, and each period carries a different insurance requirement and payer. A significant change took effect on January 1, 2026, when Senate Bill 371 sharply reduced the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage available to passengers, which can meaningfully affect compensation when the at-fault party in a crash has little or no insurance of their own. Here is how liability and insurance coverage actually work in a California rideshare accident.

California’s Rideshare Insurance Periods

California regulates Uber, Lyft, and similar companies as transportation network companies, or TNCs, under a framework set out in California Public Utilities Code Section 5433. Rather than one continuous insurance policy, coverage changes based on what the driver’s app was doing at the time of the crash:

App off: The driver is using the vehicle for personal reasons, and the driver’s own personal auto policy applies, since most personal policies exclude commercial rideshare use once the app is active
Period 1, app on and waiting for a match: The TNC must provide primary liability coverage of at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident for bodily injury, plus $30,000 for property damage, along with at least $200,000 in additional excess coverage
Period 2, a ride has been accepted and the driver is en route to pick up the passenger: The TNC’s higher-limit coverage applies, generally up to $1 million in primary liability coverage
Period 3, a passenger is in the vehicle: The same $1 million primary liability coverage applies until the passenger exits the vehicle

Why the Driver’s App Status Matters So Much

Because coverage shifts significantly between these periods, the exact moment a crash occurred, and what the driver’s app showed at that moment, can dramatically affect how much money is available to compensate an injured person. A crash that happens while a driver is waiting for a ride request carries far lower mandatory coverage than one that happens while a passenger is actually in the car. This is one reason obtaining trip data and app records early in a rideshare accident investigation matters so much.

Important: Effective January 1, 2026, Senate Bill 371 reduced the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that Uber and Lyft must carry for passengers during an active trip from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, a reduction of roughly 94 percent. This change specifically affects claims where the at-fault driver in a crash involving a rideshare passenger has no insurance or insufficient insurance, meaning passengers in these situations now have significantly less protection than they did before 2026.

If You Were a Rideshare Passenger

A passenger injured while riding in an Uber or Lyft during Period 2 or Period 3 generally has access to the TNC’s $1 million primary liability policy if the rideshare driver caused the crash. If a separate, third-party driver caused the crash instead, a claim can generally be pursued against that driver’s own insurance first. If that driver has no insurance or insufficient coverage to fully compensate the injury, the rideshare company’s uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage may apply, subject to the reduced limits now in effect under Senate Bill 371.

If You Were Hit by a Rideshare Driver as a Third Party

A pedestrian, cyclist, or occupant of another vehicle struck by an Uber or Lyft driver is generally treated the same as any other injured third party, with the applicable insurance policy determined by the rideshare driver’s app status at the time of the crash. If the driver’s app was off, the claim proceeds against the driver’s personal auto policy like any other car accident. If the app was on, whether waiting for a match, en route to a pickup, or transporting a passenger, the corresponding TNC insurance coverage described above generally applies instead.

If You Were the Rideshare Driver

A rideshare driver injured by another driver’s negligence can generally pursue a claim against that driver’s insurance the same as anyone else. Complications can arise, however, when a driver’s own personal auto policy denies coverage because the vehicle was being used commercially at the time of the crash. This is why understanding which period applies, and confirming what coverage the TNC provides during that period, matters for drivers as well as passengers and third parties.

Establishing Fault in a Rideshare Accident

Beyond identifying which insurance policy applies, a rideshare accident claim still requires establishing fault under ordinary negligence principles. California follows a pure comparative negligence rule, meaning an injured person can recover compensation even if they share some fault for the accident, with their recovery reduced by their own percentage of responsibility.

Evidence commonly used in these cases includes the police report, the rideshare app’s trip data and timestamps, witness statements, and vehicle damage documentation. Because rideshare companies and their insurers often have significant resources dedicated to minimizing claims, gathering this evidence promptly can be especially important.

Deadlines That Can Affect Your Claim

In California, a personal injury claim generally must be filed within two years of the date of the accident under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1, while a property-damage-only claim generally must be filed within three years under Section 338. Because rideshare accident claims can involve multiple potential defendants and insurance policies, identifying every applicable deadline early in the process is particularly important.

Talk to a Pasadena Car Accident Attorney at KP Law

Rideshare accident claims involve layered insurance policies and, following recent changes to California law, reduced protection in some situations, so experienced legal guidance can make a meaningful difference. KP Law represents injured clients throughout the Los Angeles area in a full range of personal injury claims, including car accidents. Our attorneys can help identify which insurance policy applies to your crash and fight for the compensation you deserve. Contact us or call (866) 973-5691 today for a free consultation, available 24/7.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance tailored to your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

View Article

What to Do After a Hit-and-Run Accident in Los Angeles County

September 21, 2026

View Article

How Medical Records Affect Your Pasadena Injury Case

August 20, 2026

Medical records are the evidence that carries the most weight in a California personal injury claim. They are what connect an accident to an injury, and they are what turn a claim of pain and financial loss into something that can be measured. Understanding how these records are obtained, how insurers use them, and what privacy protections apply can help clarify what to expect after an injury in Pasadena.

Why Medical Records Matter So Much in a Personal Injury Claim

A California personal injury claim generally requires proof of four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Medical records are the primary evidence for the last two:

They show that an injury actually occurred
They help connect that injury to a specific accident rather than some other cause
They document the financial and physical impact of that injury over time

Insurance adjusters, defense attorneys, and juries all rely heavily on what the medical file actually says, rather than on a person’s own description of how they feel.

Your Right to Access Your Own Medical Records

California law gives patients a direct right to their own medical information. Under California Health and Safety Code Section 123110, a healthcare provider must allow a patient to inspect their records within five working days of a written request and must provide copies within 15 days, subject to a reasonable per-page copying fee.

This state law works alongside the federal HIPAA Privacy Rule and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which impose additional restrictions on how and to whom medical information can be disclosed.

In practice, an attorney representing an injured client typically requests records directly from each treating provider using a signed authorization. Because that authorization controls what a provider can release, it can often be narrowed to specific providers, dates, or types of treatment, rather than turning over an entire lifetime medical history.

How Records Help Establish Causation

One of the most common arguments an insurance company raises is that an injury was not actually caused by the accident in question, or that it was less serious than claimed.

Prompt and consistent medical treatment after an accident, starting with an emergency room or urgent care visit when appropriate, creates a documented timeline that links the injury to the incident. Gaps in treatment, inconsistent descriptions of how an injury happened, or a long delay before the first medical visit are the kinds of details that defense attorneys and adjusters look for when questioning causation.

Diagnostic imaging such as X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs, along with specialist evaluations, often provide the clearest and most objective evidence connecting a physical finding to the accident.

How Records Are Used to Support Damages

Medical records also do the work of quantifying both economic and non-economic damages:

Economic damages — past medical bills, the cost of physical therapy, and anticipated future treatment, generally supported through billing records and provider notes
Non-economic damages — pain and suffering or the impact of an injury on daily life, often supported by a provider’s own descriptions of a patient’s reported symptoms and limitations over the course of treatment

One important nuance in California law involves exactly how much of a medical bill can be recovered. Under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., a 2011 decision from the California Supreme Court, a plaintiff’s recovery for past medical expenses is generally limited to the amount actually paid or owed after any negotiated insurance discount, rather than the full amount originally billed. The full billed amount can still be introduced as evidence relevant to the reasonable value of the services, but it is not automatically the recoverable damages figure.

Privacy Protections and What Insurers Can and Cannot See

Filing a personal injury claim does not mean an entire medical history becomes available to the other side. Under California Evidence Code Section 994, the physician-patient privilege is only waived for conditions that a person has placed at issue in the litigation, such as a knee injury from a car accident.

Unrelated medical history, including matters like mental health treatment unconnected to the claim, generally remains protected. This is one reason an attorney will often review and limit a proposed medical authorization before it is signed, rather than accepting a broad release drafted by an insurance company.

The Defense’s Right to an Independent Medical Examination

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2032.220 allows a defendant to request an independent medical examination once a lawsuit has been filed and a plaintiff’s physical condition is at issue. Despite the name, this examination is arranged and paid for by the defense, and the resulting report becomes part of the medical evidence in the case, alongside records from the treating providers who cared for the patient from the beginning.

Practical Steps for Protecting Medical Evidence After an Accident

Seek medical evaluation promptly, even if symptoms seem minor at first
Attend all recommended follow-up appointments and therapy sessions
Describe symptoms consistently and accurately to every provider
Keep copies of bills, imaging reports, and after-visit summaries as they are received
Avoid signing broad medical authorization forms sent directly by an insurance company without review

Getting Help With the Medical Evidence in Your Case

Medical records can be one of the most persuasive parts of a personal injury claim, but only when they are complete, consistent, and properly organized. Reviewing the medical documentation in a specific case with someone familiar with how California insurers and courts evaluate this evidence can help identify any gaps early, while there is still time to address them.

Talk to a Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney

Collecting, organizing, and presenting medical evidence is one of the most important parts of building a personal injury claim. KP Law represents injured clients throughout Pasadena and the surrounding area in personal injury matters, including car accidents, premises liability, and catastrophic injury claims. Reach out through our contact page or call (866) 973-5691 to discuss your situation.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance tailored to your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

View Article

Common Defenses in Premises Liability Cases and How We Counter Them

July 23, 2026

Property owners and their insurers rarely deny that an accident happened. Instead, they reach for one of a handful of recurring defenses designed to shift blame or shrink the value of a claim. Understanding these arguments in advance, and how each one is typically countered under California law, helps injured visitors see why an early denial is often just the opening move rather than the final word.

“We Didn’t Know About the Hazard”

A property owner is not automatically responsible every time someone is hurt on their premises. Under California law, liability generally requires showing that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, meaning they either knew about it or should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. This notice requirement comes from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, which held that a hazard left unaddressed long enough to have been found through ordinary care can support liability even without proof the owner actually saw it.

This defense is countered by building a record of how long the hazard existed and how the property was supposed to be maintained, which can include:

Maintenance and inspection logs, or the absence of them
Surveillance footage showing how long a hazard was present before the accident
Employee schedules and testimony about cleaning or inspection routines
Prior complaints or incident reports involving the same condition

The “Open and Obvious” Doctrine

Defendants frequently argue that a hazard was so visible that the injured person should have seen and avoided it. California courts apply this concept through CACI No. 1003, the open and obvious danger jury instruction, and cases such as Johnson v. The Raytheon Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 617, which describe it as a recharacterization of older assumption of risk principles. The doctrine can excuse a failure to warn, but it does not automatically excuse a failure to fix a known hazard, particularly when the danger was still foreseeable despite being visible.

This defense is countered by separating the duty to warn from the duty to repair, and by showing that:

The condition remained dangerous and foreseeably harmful even after being noticed
Circumstances, such as poor lighting, crowding, or distraction, made the hazard less obvious than the defense claims
The owner had a separate, ongoing duty to correct a known hazard rather than simply point it out

The Trivial Defect Doctrine

Originating in cases against public entities and later extended to private property owners, the trivial defect doctrine argues that a height or size difference, such as a small crack or uneven walkway, was too minor to be legally considered dangerous. This defense traces to cases like Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394.

California courts have repeatedly rejected a simple “tape measure” approach that looks only at the size of a defect. Countering this defense generally involves presenting the full context surrounding the condition, including:

Lighting conditions at the time of the incident
Whether the defect was concealed by shadow, debris, or foot traffic patterns
The frequency of foot traffic over the defect
Any history of prior falls or complaints at the same location

Shifting Blame to the Injured Person

Property owners often argue that the injured person contributed to their own accident, whether through distraction, inappropriate footwear, or ignoring a posted warning. California follows a pure comparative negligence rule, meaning a percentage of fault assigned to the injured person reduces, but does not automatically eliminate, their compensation. This defense is countered by presenting a clear account of how the visitor was using the property as intended, and by highlighting evidence that the property owner’s own conduct, not the visitor’s, created the dangerous condition in the first place.

Disputing Who Actually Controlled the Property

In cases involving leased commercial space, shared common areas, or third-party maintenance contractors, a defendant may argue that they did not own, lease, or control the area where the injury occurred. Premises liability in California is generally rooted in California Civil Code Section 1714, which extends responsibility to those who manage or control property, not solely to titleholders. Addressing this defense typically involves identifying every entity with a degree of control over the area, which can include a landlord, tenant, property management company, and maintenance contractor, since more than one party may share responsibility for the same hazard.

Talk to a Pasadena Premises Liability Attorney

If a property owner’s insurer is leaning on one of these defenses to minimize your claim, KP Law can review what happened and explain your options under California law. Our Pasadena personal injury attorneys handle premises liability claims throughout the greater Los Angeles area. Reach out through our contact page or call (866) 973-5691 to schedule a free consultation, available 24/7.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance tailored to your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

View Article

Multi-Vehicle Car Accidents in Los Angeles: Who Is Liable?

June 16, 2026

When a crash involves three or more vehicles on an LA freeway, liability rarely falls on one driver alone. California’s pure comparative negligence law assigns each party a percentage of fault, and every percentage point directly affects how much compensation you can recover. Understanding this system is the first step toward protecting your rights.

Why Multi-Vehicle Accidents Are Different

Los Angeles roads are among the most congested in the United States. Freeways such as the I-405, I-10, and I-5 regularly see chain-reaction collisions where a single misjudgment triggers a sequence of impacts involving four, six, or even dozens of vehicles. Unlike a standard two-car crash where fault typically points to one driver, a pileup distributes blame across multiple parties, each contributing in a different way to the overall event.

The legal questions in these cases are more layered. Each driver has their own account. Each insurance company conducts its own investigation. And each party has a financial incentive to push blame toward others. The injured person caught in the middle often faces a coordinated effort to reduce or deny their claim.

California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Standard

California operates under a pure comparative negligence system, codified in California Civil Code Section 1714. This law allows an injured person to recover compensation even if they were partially at fault for the accident. Recovery is simply reduced in proportion to the injured party’s share of responsibility.

In practical terms, if a court finds that a plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages but was 20 percent responsible for the collision, that plaintiff recovers $80,000. Unlike many other states that cut off recovery when a plaintiff reaches 50 or 51 percent fault, California imposes no such cutoff. A party who is 90 percent at fault can still, in theory, recover 10 percent of their damages.

This standard is favorable for injury victims, but it also creates a predictable defense strategy. Insurance companies and defense attorneys routinely try to inflate the plaintiff’s percentage of fault to reduce the payout. In a multi-vehicle collision, this tactic multiplies because several parties can all point fingers at each other and at the injured driver simultaneously.

How Fault Is Assigned Across Multiple Drivers

In a chain-reaction crash, fault is rarely all-or-nothing. The party who triggered the initial impact bears primary responsibility, but subsequent drivers may carry secondary responsibility if they were following too closely, driving distracted, or traveling above a safe speed for conditions. California Vehicle Code Section 22350, known as the Basic Speed Law, prohibits driving at a speed greater than is reasonable given weather, visibility, and traffic conditions. A driver traveling at the posted limit during a heavy fog event, for instance, may still be found negligent under this standard.

Courts and juries assign fault percentages to each involved driver after reviewing all available evidence. The process is guided by the California Judicial Council’s CACI jury instructions, particularly CACI No. 405 and 406, which address comparative fault and apportionment of responsibility. The eventual percentage assigned to each driver determines exactly how much of the total damages that driver, or their insurer, must pay.

Economic vs. Non-Economic Damages: A Critical Distinction

One of the most consequential rules in California multi-vehicle accident litigation is the distinction between economic and non-economic damages under California Civil Code Section 1431.2, commonly known as Proposition 51.

Economic damages, which include medical bills, lost wages, and future care costs, remain subject to joint and several liability. This means any defendant who is found at fault can be held responsible for the full amount of economic damages, regardless of their individual percentage of fault. If one defendant is judgment-proof or uninsured, the others may still be required to cover the full economic loss.

Non-economic damages, meaning compensation for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, work differently. Under Proposition 51, each defendant pays only their proportional share. A defendant found 25 percent at fault pays exactly 25 percent of the non-economic award, no more. This distinction matters enormously when some defendants are underinsured, because an injured person may not be able to collect the full value of their non-economic losses even after winning at trial.

Evidence That Determines Who Pays

Establishing fault percentages requires a thorough reconstruction of the accident. Law enforcement reports are a starting point, but they are not the final word on civil liability. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration notes that multi-vehicle crashes involve a higher degree of evidentiary complexity than single-impact collisions, and effective representation typically requires assembling several categories of evidence working in combination.

Key evidence may include:

Surveillance and dashcam footage showing vehicle positions and driver actions immediately before the collision.
Event data recorders (black boxes) that capture information such as speed, braking activity, and steering inputs in the moments leading up to the crash.
Witness statements from individuals who observed the accident from outside the vehicles.
Accident reconstruction analysis that combines available evidence to determine how the pileup occurred, vehicle speeds, and whether drivers had time to avoid the collision.
Vehicle damage patterns that help identify the sequence and severity of impacts.
Skid marks and roadway evidence indicating braking efforts, vehicle movement, and points of impact.
Debris fields that provide clues about where collisions occurred and how vehicles interacted.
Final resting positions of vehicles that help investigators understand the direction and force of each impact.

Gathering and preserving evidence as quickly as possible is critical. Surveillance footage may be overwritten, and physical evidence can disappear once the scene is cleared, making early investigation essential.

What Insurance Companies Do in These Cases

Watch Out for This Tactic

When multiple insurers are involved, each company investigates independently and with its own interests in mind. Their shared goal is to minimize individual payouts, not to find the objective truth. Expect fault percentages to be disputed across multiple claims, often for months.

Each insurer will review the same accident from the perspective of minimizing their client’s liability. Adjusters may contact injured parties early in the process, often before the full extent of injuries is known, and offer settlements that seem reasonable but fail to account for future medical costs or lasting disability. Accepting an early offer typically means releasing all future claims, regardless of how your condition develops.

An injured person dealing with multiple insurers simultaneously, while also recovering from injuries, is at a significant disadvantage. Legal representation levels the playing field by ensuring that fault allocations are challenged with evidence, that medical documentation is complete, and that settlement offers are evaluated against the full scope of available damages.

Injured in a Multi-Car Accident in Pasadena? Call KP Law.

At KP Law, our personal injury attorneys have recovered over sixty million dollars for clients injured in the Pasadena area. We understand how California’s comparative negligence rules and Proposition 51’s damage distinction interact in real car accident claims, and we build cases designed to challenge inflated fault percentages and recover the full value of your losses.

If you or someone you love was injured in a multi-vehicle crash, do not wait. Evidence disappears, and early missteps with insurers can compromise your claim. Contact our office or call (866) 973-5691 for a free consultation. We handle cases on contingency, which means you pay nothing unless we win.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance tailored to your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

View Article