In the early 1980s, it was discovered that the water at Camp Lejeune was contaminated with a number of chemicals, including trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), and benzene. Fast forward to today, and victims of water contamination at Camp Lejeune are still waiting for justice, but things are about to change.

This week’s podcast features Grace and Liel discussing the most recent mass lawsuit to go viral on television, Camp Lejeune. However, because all of this premature advertising is delaying the passage of the bill, they look at why it is crucial for lead generation vendors to stop their campaigns now immediately (!)

Plus, we’ve got highlights from the most recent AAJ Annual meeting in Seattle, details about their upcoming events, and we uncover the one type of content strategy that can make you stand out to position yourself as a law firm for a new or emerging mass tort.

Resources mentioned in our episode:

Send us your questions at ask@incamerapodcast.com

Enjoy the show? Please don’t forget to subscribe, tell your coworkers, and leave us a review!


Transcript

Liel: [00:00:00] On June 16, the Senate passed the Honoring Our Pact Act of 2022 by a vote of 84 to 14. Now, legislation that would provide relief for complete June water contamination victims is headed to President Joe Biden’s desk. I’m Liel Levy, co-founder of Nanato Media and author of Beyond Se Habla EspaƱol How Lawyers Win the Hispanic Market. And This is In-camera podcast where we know that a bill is not passed until it’s passed. Welcome to Legal Market Conversations. Grace Welcome back. How are you today?

Grace: [00:01:02] Good. How are you Liel?

Liel: [00:01:04] Doing great, Grace. And, you know, just as we were talking a moment ago, it was really interesting to hear the feedback that’s coming back from the American Association for Justice Summer Conference, which it’s the annual conference, right? The official name is the annual conference, but we know it as a summer one because there’s one in the winter and then there’s the annual one in the summer. And this one just ended up happening in Seattle and great stuff. Everybody’s happy, right?

Grace: [00:01:31] Yeah, it was definitely a little different for exhibitors than usual, I would say.

Liel: [00:01:36] Well, that’s always great news. It certainly sounds like the setup was just working better than potentially what it was last conference earlier in February in Palm Springs. And you know what I’m glad to hear, because say a couple of things. Number one, it means that a lot of lawyers were able to find and connect with vendors that are going to be hopefully helping them out, improve operations or whatever it is that they were needing. And the second thing is that the American Association of Justice listened to the feedback that vendors have to give and took steps to make sure that everybody was having a better experience this time. So that’s great, and we’re looking forward to the upcoming conferences that they’re going to have because we then it’s like watch, right? Every single year, two conferences, one in February, one in July. So do you have any idea where those happening next year? You know what? I think I can pull out that information here. It’s it’s amazing because they really have it already published. So for 2023, they’re doing it at the Phoenix, Arizona. Nice. Oh, yeah. Phoenix and July, Philadelphia. So, you know, what I really like about AAJ is that thing. They always change city, they always change venue, and you got to hand it to them. It’s a big operation. It would be way easier for them to just kind of like set it in autopilot and do it every single year at the same place. But logistically, it’s a big undertaking to move this conference from one city to another because it’s a big production 100%.

Grace: [00:03:11] Right. I mean, putting together a conference is not easy to begin with, much less changing venues every couple of months, twice a year. It’s not easy at all, and they’re to be commended for it because they’re always really cool locations. They always have really cool events going on wherever they have the opening receptions, always some like really awesome looking place. Like I remember one year in Boston, it was at Fenway. Like, who does that? I mean, it was awesome. They definitely do a fantastic job.

Liel: [00:03:41] Yeah, I agree. I agree. I agree. And the other thing that I will be, you know, just tells you about the level of organization and stuff and work they put into it the locations for 2024. Are they already published as well? So wait for it. Winter Austin, Texas. So welcome home. And then for one. That’s right. And for the one on 2024, it’s going to be Nashville. So they’re taking us for a journey to the south on.

Grace: [00:04:09] 2024, which is about the same Southwest tour.

Liel: [00:04:11] Huh? Yeah, totally. Totally. Which is kind of like a little bit I wouldn’t say rare, but usually you see them kind of like going west coast, east coast, kind of like they never stay in the same geographical location. If you made right at this time, they are really doing them close to each other up to a certain extent. Tennessee and Austin’s still pretty far away. But anyhow, Grace, that was. AAJ Glad to hear that. That’s going well. Another conference out of the calendar and there’s plenty more to come for the rest of this year. But today we’re going to be talking about a mass tort that I don’t think it’s fair to call it new, especially after I looked into the details, the trajectory that it has. But what I do think is fair to acknowledge is that it just exploded over the past couple of weeks. And I really mean it like exploded over the last couple of weeks. So Grace, please do the intro on this one because you’re the expert.

Grace: [00:05:14] So we’re talking about Camp Lejeune, ladies and gentlemen, at this moment. So Camp Lejeune is about water contamination. So the idea is that it’s an actual location where the Marines experienced potentially. The idea is that it’s alleged to have toxic levels of certain chemicals in the water for a certain number of years. So whoever was stationed at Camp Lejeune, and specifically it’s the military, the Marines, and the reason that that is a great location for the Marines is because it’s nearby a bunch of outlets for water. Right. So obviously Marines have to do with the water, the Navy. So it was a. And it’s been a base for I mean, since 1950s, maybe even further back. Right.

Liel: [00:06:03] So yeah. So just to fill in here exactly as to when or where the contaminants in the water, according to the data that I have, is from 53, 1953 to 1987. This is a huge range of time, right? Almost 40 years.

Grace: [00:06:19] It’s a very huge range of time. And that base has been around a long time. So it’s it’s a little bit complicated in terms of the back and forth that’s been going on. And the reason Liel was saying that this is not new is because it’s not new, this bill. Well, this situation has been since back in 1980. And in 2012, they actually had a motion to dismiss regarding this particular situation because of a variety of reasons, right. Legalese behind it, basically saying that there was no reason for them to be able to sue the government because of there’s there’s about a handful. But I’d say the majority of the reasons that they were claiming that they wanted to dismiss this from the government was because they had no way of knowing or there was also potentially a conflict of interest between them and the city where this water was actually contaminated, according to the dismissal documents that I read through today, which basically means that they’re saying we’re not at fault because there’s no way for us to have been able to tell anybody anything, considering it was the water plant that took care of it. Right. There’s a lot of going back and forth right now. And unfortunately, they are calling mass tort lawyers that have these commercials out there, which we do not because the bill has not passed. But they do have like the Liel said, it’s exploded. I mean, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the Camp Lejeune water bill, if you’ve been contaminated on TV, heard it on radio.

Liel: [00:07:48] So I want to I want us to stop a moment here for a moment, because last week, when we finished recording our podcast, you said, hey, I already know what we should be talking about on the next one. And you said, let’s talk about conclusion. And my my reaction to that was, what is that right? Because I’ve never heard about it before. But then I like like a good podcast host did my research, but before I could actually do my research, Grace. It’s almost like you’ve mentioned conflict and all of the sudden I start seeing it everywhere. And this is not just something that I started seeing in TV in one station. I saw it in TV in one station. I heard it over the radio, I saw it on YouTube. And I then went on to do the research in order to be able to be prepared for this podcast. And it’s saturated with ads online. And so from going to not knowing what it is to them being bombarded with it in just over a period of 3 to 4 days, and it is quite significant. I’ve never experienced this with any other mass tort, any other mass tort, and so it obviously tells you that there is a momentum, that something had happened recently that all from the sudden is sending signals to to everyone who is involved in mass torts get clients around this because cash coming guys coming and the cash out maybe be and that’s at least the way that I read the message now looking at more recent stuff happening and you know, I always chalk these things up.

Liel: [00:09:28] Let’s talk about mid-June. The Senate passed the Honoring Our Pact Act, which includes the Complete Union Act. And when signed into law, it will allow veterans who were exposed to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune to file lawsuit against the US government. And in a statement issued on June 16 by nonetheless President Joe Biden, it actually said that either just the how it urged the House to swiftly pass the bill so he can sign it. So you have now the president of the United States saying that he wants the bill to pass through so that action can be taken. So obviously, that’s very promising. That’s very hopeful. This is the reason why a month ago we nobody knew anything about it. And now over the past few weeks, this has just gone bananas because basically the government just said that they are getting ready to start issuing checks. Did I read this correctly?

Grace: [00:10:28] That’s exactly right. And so that’s actually turned into a potential situation, right? I mean, we all know that mass torts well, at least those of us in mass torts we all understand that when you your first to the market. Right. The first to get the cases, the first to get the clients that have these potential cases, you can always do better in terms of compensation for the clients, for your firm, for the fees, etc., etc.. However, this one is very unusual, right? Because it had to do with a bill specifically that’s being passed. So there was a lot of communication between the attorneys that were involved, including on both sides. Right. And the communication was don’t do this until the bill passes because you could harm the bill. Right. So that’s that would that understanding the law firms know that this is not speed to the case at this time. At this time, it’s making sure that the veterans get the bill passed so that they can, in turn, get the compensation that they deserve for the injuries they had. Yeah. So it still hasn’t passed it.

Liel: [00:11:49] Basically, they’re turning this into a PR nightmare.

Grace: [00:11:52] Correct. Correct? Mm hmm. So that’s part of the.

Liel: [00:11:56] Yeah, you’re getting a lot of people along the way. And, and and that that leads to objections. Yeah. So that was the part of June 24th, which is the latest update that there is with regards to the bill. And it’s that it’s being placed on hold while, you know, they’re working out on something called or referred to as a blue slip objection. Which basically.

Grace: [00:12:19] I read that.

Liel: [00:12:19] Actually some provisions there are correct to be addressed, but that in other way can also mean hold your horses, your guys are making too much noise.

Grace: [00:12:31] That’s part of it. So the blue slip objection. Actually, I read specifically about that because I wanted to know what was holding up the bill passing because everyone’s so sure. Right. Even President Biden is saying sign that darn bill, people, so that we can get the veterans the help they need. So what’s actually stopped? It was a decision that they added some kind of fund raising involved in the additional provisions within that particular bill. They basically have a rider on it. Right. And if anybody knows anything about bills, when they add a rider, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with the actual bill that’s being passed. It has to do with potentially something else that’s attached to a particular bill. So because of that, one of the when it went to them to be approved, one of them did not unanimously decide that they could take off that rider and then move it through easily. Now they’re going what they call the long way around, having to take it off, rereview it, and then re pass it through and make sure that everybody agrees to it because nobody would take the it’s not a shortcut, but it’s basically, I guess a shortcut where you cut it out and everybody unanimously agrees on it. And if everyone unanimously agrees on cutting something out, they can then pass the bill right away. If even one person does not agree, it has to go back through the same process as normal for a bill.

Liel: [00:13:55] Got it. So. Let’s now put this in simple terms. Is it the time to advertise for Camp Lejeune cases?

Grace: [00:14:05] I would say no. I would say straight up, no. We don’t want to start any advertising or do anything, period, until that bill passes. We want to make sure that the veterans are protected. And I’m not going to, as a law firm in good conscience, like us personally, we cannot do something that could potentially harm the bill.

Liel: [00:14:26] Yeah, first of all, I love it, right. Because it is the right thing to do. You obviously want to look at the greater cost. And the greater cost here is to helping those who ultimately have been impacted by this. Right. So that comes first. And the way that you’ve explained it, that’s on what you’re basing your your strategy here. And kudos on that because obviously it’s the honorable thing to do. Now, why would why does this apply for, for instance, to this mass tort and not to others? Is it particularly because of the bill or is it because it’s a veterans mass tort? What are the factors? Because the reality is the way that I see it. I think whether you’re going after Johnson and Johnson, you’re going against Roundup or whatever, right there is always going to be different powers influencing government around whether things are going to get trial, legislation is going to get passed. That’s going to make it harder for my thoughts to get litigated and be your companies accountable. But you usually don’t hear about this level of consciousness when it comes down around, Hey guys, we’re upsetting too much the big guys or whatever that is, right? I mean, that’s not kind of how it goes on those cases, although you do hear when you go particularly to AAJ, you do hear about the I don’t know really the name of the organization, but it’s basically the AAJ arm that lobbies the government for it to protect the ability of being able to go against big corporations for these type of cases. Right.

Grace: [00:16:12] Right. Mass tort reform is a bad word. Right. That’s we don’t we don’t want mass tort reform. And in order to to avoid that type of behavior is as a as a industry, we need to protect who is supposed to be protected, which are those that are injured. And so with this particular situation, with this mass tort, with Camp Lejeune, it’s twofold why there’s such a hesitancy. One, it’s it’s really it’s the government, right? When you deal with the government directly in terms of a potential lawsuit, there are a lot more factors involved than dealing with a big company. Right. You you have a lot more regulations, a lot more rules. And that’s partly why, like the three m earplugs was such a odd situation initially. And that was because the three earplugs were designed together with three M company and the government. So that was why that one was a little bit weird in between when they were first starting those cases until that situation was resolved, they didn’t really know if the three M earplugs were going to be able to truly become a mass tort and have them assisted. So with this 3m story.

Liel: [00:17:30] The differentiation are also there, i guess. And I ask you your confirmation they were going after three m not the federal government.

Grace: [00:17:37] Correct. Correct. And that’s when three M said, hey, you guys, meaning federal government. You guys are the ones that worked with us to design this. So they were trying to throw it onto the federal government. And so obviously in that whole who’s that? Who’s at fault, who’s responsible situation, once they figured that out, then it went back on three M Right. As the designers of a defective product in this case, since it is directly to the federal government and it bill has to actually be passed for this to work. Meaning for the veterans as veterans getting money from the government, they have a they need a bill. There has to be an actual act passed for them and for their loved ones who were also on the base with them. Yeah, that’s the other situation. So there’s, there’s, there’s, those are the two factors that I see with this one being so different. It’s that it’s Camp Lejeune, government related Marines. It’s military, it is government directly. And then secondary to that. It’s the age. I mean, if you look at things from 1953 to 1987, any of us in legal knows how hard it is really to get a hold of medical records for people past ten years. The VA, for the most part, has all of the medical records for people that were active military if they went through the VA for their medical right. So but so when it comes to this one, that we have to be very careful that we don’t. Mess up the bill for the veterans because it’s for them. This is not for the lawyers. This is not for anybody. This is for the veterans. And so that’s why this one is so special. We can mess up tort reform. You can mess the bill up. You can I mean, there’s too many potential pitfalls to advertising pre bill passing.

Liel: [00:19:34] Yeah. And you know what? Grace That’s why I think transparency and advertising is so important. So, so important because at the end of the day, what what I said is, is it’s true. It’s happening. You watch any of the news broadcasts, broadcasters, and there is and it’s full of Camp Lejeune TV ads. And some of them may be from law firms, but some of them are lead generation. Right. And so this is when when when marketeers and lead generation companies that are part of the industry need to play fair as well and make sure that they are watching over the interests of A) the partners, which are their law firms, which just like you, most of them, I would think they want to be able to get passed and for things to be able to find their path to to the resolution that everybody is hoping here for the people that’s been affected for. Right. There will be time then to advertise. There will be time there to be able to connect with the the people who’ve been injured. I mean, it’s a big community here that we were thinking that potentially could have gotten harmed because of these. I’m just looking at some information, but first, I’ll finish up my thought here and they should pull off those ads and they should stop the YouTube campaigns and they should really not make noise that it’s barring the progress of this.

Grace: [00:21:00] You know, I think it’s partly what you were saying. You know, I think that they’re used to the trajectory of get as many people as we can to help as many people as we can. So I don’t think it’s necessarily that they’re thinking that they’re going to harm the passing of the bill. Most people believe that. And it’s almost a for sure. Right. But nothing is ever certain in this life. But death and taxes is what I like to say. So and that’s kind of the tactic we take. It’s not for certain until it actually happens. Yeah. So I do feel like it’s not that they’re trying to harm the bill passing. They just believe that it’s the same trajectory potentially. You know, you’re right.

Liel: [00:21:38] But the same principles that apply here for, you know, making sure that you are buying, you know, produce and supplies and clothes from yes. From organizations that have put in place fair trade regulations that are making efforts to. Benefit the communities where they are operating and so forth and so on. The same principles should apply for mass tort lead vendors. Right. And you should. You should have some ethical practices in place that should, you know, make it clear when mass tort leaves are being served by practices that can be considered unethical. And in this case, you know, putting up such aggressive campaigns when you’re saying that it’s it’s not in the interest of the of the victims, it’s actually a bad practice. It’s unethical. And so, again, as you were saying, this may not be done with malice, but it is still the responsibility of the law firms that are working with these vendors to make sure that the message goes through and at the same time of the vendors that they receive the message and that they they take corrective action as as they should. So I would agree with the fact that it doesn’t necessarily need to be something that started with the intention of doing harm to anyone. But if it’s known and if this has been talked about, then why are these ads still up? Right? Why are these ads still up? And as you very well said, there are other things that you can do without necessarily making so much noise. You can actually be writing about these. You can actually be creating video content about this in YouTube. It’s actually shocking Grace how little video content exists about mass torts, especially at this stages, right when they’re starting to get some attention, but they’re not necessarily quite yet at the peak of them.

Liel: [00:23:56] There is so much opportunity there. Like just think about the people who watched the TV or heard the radio commercial or watch the YouTube Ad, and then all of a sudden they’re thinking about, Yeah, you know what? I did that thing, keep thinking about it, and I want to learn a little bit more about it. Right? And they go online and a lot of people, they don’t want to read long articles about these things. They just want to watch a three or four minute long video that tells them everything they need to know about it. And right now, Grace, there is really not nothing from a law firm that tells you about Camp Lejeune. So huge opportunity there and that’s the low hanging fruit. Go for that. Create a content. Start looking at a way that you can rank ranking the organic way for information that has to do with this. Now, Grace, let’s talk before we wrap up this conversation about what’s the criteria? Because the criteria is really what what blows my mind here. It’s very, very at least at least from what I have here, I don’t know if this is correct or you’ll you’ll tell us what’s the criteria as for what you know. But what I’m seeing here is very generous. First of all, it is it is estimated that about a million people have been impacted by what went on on completion during the 35, 40 years that water was contaminated in there now. Who can claim anything about this. My understanding, Grace, is that any person. That was stationed, living or working at Camp Lejeune for 30 days or more, 30 days or more between 1953 and 1987. That’s very, very, very. Basic. It’s not a very difficult qualifier.

Grace: [00:25:56] It’s very, very broad.

Liel: [00:25:58] Very broad. It is. But then. But then. They the evidence that would be required to prove this, then it becomes a little bit more specific. So, A, the residents, like any document that can provide evidence that you leave their military service records, of course, and then medical records, medical bills, travel records, health care information, and then records of disability and benefits from VA. So it’s not that all of them, like whatever out of that you have, that could help. And here is the other thing. The list of potential. I know health effects that you could have had. Yes, injuries that you could have had is also very, very extensive. It’s not like, you know, one specific type of cancer. I see here bladder cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, esophageal cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, stomach cancer. Multiple myeloma, adult leukemia. Aplastic anemia, Parkinson’s, renal toxicity, birth defects, miscarriage, neurobehavioral effects. So it’s very, very, very broad. And I guess that’s one of the reasons why, hey, you know, you’ve had health problems and you live in this place for more than 30 days. Come here. So it sounds like that’s probably one of the other reasons people went just like, yeah. We want. We want.

Grace: [00:27:39] It’s the Marines and their families. So or civilian contractors that worked on the base for a month or more. So it’s a lot a lot of potentially affected people. It’s it’s in a especially that many years, 40 years. It’s going to be a pretty big mass tort. And so. The other factor, like you said, that this is going to be to be hard. It’s not going to be an easy one.

Liel: [00:28:04] I mean, there is there is I was reading, you know, a family who lived in Camp Lejeune and then they had a daughter. And about ten years ago, she died of leukemia at the age of nine. Right. And or yeah, I think it was looking at the age of nine. And she obviously she was born outside of this range. Yet her disease is a result of the time that the parents were there or one of the parents was there. So, I mean, obviously, it’s a very it’s a very serious mass tort that has had a very significant impact in in the lives and the amount of time that’s that that it actually went for. I mean, 40 years, 35 years, 40 years when you usually don’t hear from mass torts that’s gone on for such long periods of time. And this is one of them.

Grace: [00:28:59] No, normally you don’t, particularly with water contamination. I mean, we do have another water contamination, one that’s out there. It’s been out there for a little bit. And that’s the fast, which is water. It’s basically contamination from chemicals and runoff in it’s specific locations that this one has to do with. Same like Camp Lejeune, right. It’s the water in that location that is potentially contaminating them. I don’t know if we talked about this one before, but it’s very similar to the Benton Harbor, Michigan situation with lead poisoning. And that’s the well water that was poisoned with lead that was distributed to the people that live there. And so it’s it’s very specific to location. And this one is in North Carolina. And there’s actually a couple of very interesting situations that are going on with the mass tort and North Carolina attorneys. So there’s I need to learn a little more about it before I can really give anybody on here something about what I’m talking about. But there is going to be a a situation where if you do not have a North Carolina attorney and you’re trying to litigate and or get cases for this North Carolina very specific location, there could be a problem. So because you need a North Carolina attorney, this is even though it’s a mass tort, that’s it’s it’s not really it’s a location specific situation. So you will need a North Carolina attorney.

Liel: [00:30:27] To approve it. Yeah. Like you need for single event things that happen in your in a particular state. Yeah. I mean it’s not, it’s not a crazy but the reasoning out of it, but it’s rare to hear about it when it comes down mass tort. Grace here, you know, you’ve said just to add a little bit more here to the scale of this, this one, like in most of water contamination cases, you usually can kind of like list, right? What are the contaminants that were found or the toxic substances in this particular one? There is more than 70 toxic substances that have been found and they range from everything from dry cleaning solvents to the greasers all the way down to benzene. So pretty, pretty serious. And the sources from where these contaminants came from ranged and that that was the other thing like as you were saying, yes, the federal government. But it seems like there is also a path here for also getting some benefits from from businesses that were contributing to to the water contamination. So it’s yeah, there is multiple layers here of where we’re money can end up coming from. But Grace, I think we’ve covered enough and thank you so much for giving us such a human perspective on this particular mass tort, because sometimes that’s what lacks is perspective and understanding really what’s what’s what’s the best path to an actual resolution. So, Grace, what are going to be our takeaways?

Grace: [00:32:06] I think for me, the first takeaway is since we talked about AAJ, I guess we could I can make that the first takeaway. You know, AAJ conferences, I would say if if you’re going to go to one go to the annual I’m always about going to the conferences that mean and make the most sense for your company, your firm, your business, whatever, whoever’s listening. So it’s if you’re thinking about going to a conference for AAJ one or the other, go to the annual conference. Obviously they’re, they, they put a lot of time and effort into their annual conferences and other conferences really, and they’re always great to make networking and things like that.

Liel: [00:32:42] So yeah, we have, they have great speakers from, from the legal space. They have people in government, they have senators, House representatives, of course, lawyers, judges. It’s just oh yeah.

Grace: [00:32:54] It’s just really and we always support them because like you said, the PAC, that’s actually a political action committee. So they’re always going through the rights and the justice for. All right. That is their their motto. And they are always going for justice, which is why we will always support the AAJ and the American Association of Justice just because of them. So with that being said, my number two would be when you look at these mass torts and you know, as a marketer, as a law firm, as really as a marketer, I’d say because the law firms understand the requirements. Right? They they have a license. They understand what they have to do to get a case or not get a case when they’re supposed to and when they’re not supposed to. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m never here to tell a lawyer what to do or how to behave. But I can tell marketing people if you don’t understand something and it can potentially affect a bill or something that could harm the people that deserve that compensation. Think about it ethically and consciously. It’s just because it’s not illegal doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. So, you know, go with good conscience and understand what you’re doing when you are marketing for people that are injured. These are people that got hurt because of something, whether it was negligence on the part of a company, a government, anything. These people are in pain and they deserve the compensation way before you do so. As a marketer, as much as I love marketing and I think it’s wonderful, it does have and can have bad side to it without ethics, without conscience. And obviously we don’t speak to people like that in our podcast, but if it could help one more marketing person that did it by mistake, please. I hope it does, because this is this is legal and in law, you need to be ethically conscious and really any marketing you do, you need to be ethically conscious.

Liel: [00:34:50] Yeah. And is this sentiment, Grace, about a holding of advertising efforts? And so is this something that is shared, would you say, amongst the leading law firms that are in the space?

Grace: [00:35:02] Yep. Because even on the women and mass list, you know, I’m part of the the list. I’m part of the National Society of Women, Trial Lawyers, Communications, all of them, every single one of them said. Do not do not harm this bill by advertising. Do not do not harm these people by advertising. It was very clear across the board that it was everyone is on the same page. Do not harm these people. This is something that’s for them, not for you or for us or for anybody. So, yes, it is a sentiment shared across those who understand how this works and are in the know. And so any lawyer I’ve come across has said the same thing. I’ve never had one lawyer so far say the opposite.

Liel: [00:35:46] Yeah. And I would just wrap up this. The third takeaway with if there’s something that you’re passionate about and if there’s something that you care. Go and record a video about it and explain what’s happening, what’s the situation, why or from the sudden your community may be seeing so many advertising’s about Camp Lejeune or what what does this mean why you’re not currently advertising about it in a way that it won’t necessarily harm the bill but at the same time answer some of the questions that the community where you live maybe having right, especially if you are in in an area where military families are leaving and this whole situation feels a little bit more close to heart. So I think whether that’s the case or not for you or for this particular mass tort, I just consistently see that there is a lack of video content at these stages when a mass tort is starting to get traction and attention and it’s a great opportunity to talk about it and become an authority on it.

Grace: [00:36:53] So educate and inform.

Liel: [00:36:56] Absolutely. Yeah. Grace, thank you so much for a great conversation. And we’ll be back next week.

Grace: [00:37:03] Thank you, Liel. Next week it is.

Liel: [00:37:09] And if you like our show, make sure you subscribe. Tell your coworkers. Leave us a review and send us your questions at: ask@incamerapodcast.com. We’ll see you next week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.