David Craig Lee
David Craig Lee, Medical Malpractice Attorney - Knoxville, TN
Posted over 2 years ago.

The more I think about this, the more I think that you may have something. Can you gather all the communication that you've received from all sources, and sit down with me?

David Craig Lee
David Craig Lee, Medical Malpractice Attorney - Knoxville, TN
Posted about 2 years ago.

I have a different perspective on this issue, mainly because I practice tort law primarily and only occasionally (and very rarely) do defense work. When I have done defense work, I've sometimes already sued someone for wrongful arrest, or some such tort.

If you are truly innocent, then YES, you should sue everyone. 'A strong offense is a good defense.'

I would be very surprised if you could find a lawyer to take this case on a contingency. I personally would ask for an affidavit from you (establishing that I have good faith basis to sue) and $5,000 non-refundable fee. (The fee also tells me that you firmly/absolutely believe that you are innocent; and is a polite way for you to say 'no thanks.')

BUT CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TORTS: IT'S ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE INJURY, NOT ONE YEAR FROM THE ACQUITTAL. I cite below a Tennessee Supreme Court decision on point:

Lexis Overview:
"The State argued that the citizens' action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104 and alternatively, that amendments to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(N), which eliminated a cause of action for negligent deprivation of a constitutional right, were to be applied retroactively to bar the citizens' action. The court found that statutes should be applied prospectively unless the legislative history clearly indicated a contrary content and that there was no such intent in this instance. Further, the court explained that remedial or procedural statutes could be applied retroactively, but that § 9-8-403(a)(1)(N) was neither remedial or procedural. The court held that although the citizens' action was based on the deprivation of constitutional rights, it was actually a negligence action and negligence law should govern when the cause of action accrued. The court concluded that the injuries alleged by the citizens occurred more than one year before they filed their complaint, and as a result, their complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. 1995)