SONSTENG PRACTICUM M2 · MATTERS · M13·TORT·FL
FL CONTINGENCY FEE M13

Sofia Reyes v. Bradley Hutchins

Auto-negligence jury trial · State of Florida

Introduction

You are an attorney at Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP representing Sofia Reyes, a full-time rideshare driver who was struck at a signalized intersection in Belmar Springs, Sunhaven County, Florida. Ms. Reyes was driving straight through the intersection when Bradley Hutchins, turning left in a full-size SUV, drove into the passenger side of her sedan. She suffered a torn meniscus that required arthroscopic surgery and kept her off the road — and off her only source of income — for roughly ten weeks. Mr. Hutchins admits he was turning left but contends that Ms. Reyes ran a stale yellow-turning-red light and was distracted, so that fault should be shared. Layered on top of the liability fight is Florida's no-fault, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance system, which shapes when and how an injured driver may pursue the at-fault driver directly. This is the tort capstone: you will build the case from intake through a civil jury trial in the Circuit Court, learning how liability, damages, comparative fault, and the no-fault insurance layer fit together in a real personal-injury matter.

Learning Objectives

By completing this exercise you will practice and be assessed on the following, mapped to the firm's skills-and-tasks taxonomy:

  • Fact gathering and chronology (SK-LP-07; TSK-023, TSK-025). Develop the facts from the client, the independent eyewitness, the crash report, and the medical and economic records, and build a defensible chronology of the collision and its aftermath.
  • Client interviewing and counseling (SK-LP-10; TSK-022, TSK-034). Conduct an empathetic intake of a distressed, financially pressured client; surface both her legal and non-legal concerns; and counsel her on realistic options and risks.
  • Liability and comparative-fault analysis (SK-LP-02; TSK-010). Analyze the elements of a negligence claim, apply them to the disputed signal facts, and assess how comparative fault could reduce recovery.
  • Damages and the no-fault layer (SK-LP-02; TSK-001). Quantify economic and non-economic damages and analyze how Florida's PIP/no-fault framework and its injury threshold affect the path to recovery.
  • Settlement strategy and negotiation (SK-LP-13; TSK-044). Build a strategic settlement and negotiation plan and respond to a low, comparative-fault-based offer.
  • Professional responsibility (SK-LP-16; TSK-060). Recognize that the opposing driver is represented and apply the no-contact rule when the temptation to interview him directly arises.

Activities

This capstone runs the full litigation arc. Over the course of the exercise you will:

  1. Interview the client, Sofia Reyes, in a recorded simulation — establishing rapport, eliciting her account, and drawing out sensitive facts (a prior knee history, a glance at her phone, and her financial pressure) that she will not volunteer without trust.
  2. Investigate and develop the facts from the crash report, the independent eyewitness statement, the medical records, the rideshare earnings, and the PIP correspondence.
  3. Analyze liability and comparative fault and prepare a preliminary case analysis and case theory.
  4. Interview the fact witnesses and plan discovery — interrogatories, requests for production, and the depositions of the drivers and the eyewitness.
  5. Counsel the client on the strength of the case, the comparative-fault risk, the no-fault insurance layer, and the trade-off between a quick resolution and a fuller recovery.
  6. Prepare and evaluate a settlement demand and negotiation plan, and respond to the insurer's low offer.
  7. Build the case toward a civil jury trial in the Circuit Court, including the exhibits, the intersection diagram, and the witness lineup.

A short debrief follows the client interview, scoring both the facts you elicited and the client's felt experience of being heard.

Instructions

Work the matter in the following sequence. First, review the entire case file: the client's statement, the opposing driver's statement, the independent eyewitness statement, the crash report, the medical records, the rideshare earnings, the PIP correspondence, the property-damage estimate, and the demand letter. Second, complete a preliminary case analysis identifying the elements of the negligence claim, the disputed facts, the comparative-fault exposure, and the effect of the no-fault framework. Third, conduct the simulated client interview with Ms. Reyes; aim to establish rapport before probing, use open-ended questions before closed ones, and remember that sensitive facts unlock only when the client feels safe — pressure and flattery will not earn them. Fourth, prepare a discovery plan and a strategic settlement and negotiation plan. Fifth, draft a counseling memo advising Ms. Reyes on her options, the risks, the comparative-fault defense, and the no-fault insurance layer. Do not contact the opposing driver directly; he is represented by counsel. Cite no law in any client-facing document — finding and applying the controlling Florida law is your research task. Submit your written work product for assessment against the rubric.

Case File

The case file contains 9 documents — witness statements and exhibits. Work only from these materials and from what you develop in your interviews.

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT REYES

Witness Statement — Sofia Reyes

Signed statement given to counsel, Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP. Sunhaven County, Florida.

My name is Sofia Reyes. I am thirty-four years old and I live in Belmar Springs. I drive for a rideshare app full time — it is how I pay my bills. On a normal week I do somewhere between fifty and sixty trips. I have been doing it for about three years and I have a clean driving record.

On Thursday, February 6, 2025, I was working the early-evening shift. I had picked up a passenger a few minutes earlier and was heading west on Camino Real Boulevard. It was right around ten of six. The sky was clear but the sun was low and right in my eyes, so I had my visor down and I was driving carefully. I would say I was going about 25, which is under the limit there. I do not speed with a passenger in the car.

As I came up to the light at 22nd Avenue it was green. I remember it being green because I checked, the way I always do at that intersection — it is a busy one. I started through the intersection and the next thing I knew there was a huge SUV turning left right into me. I did not even have time to hit the brakes hard. He hit my passenger side and my car spun around. Both my airbags went off. My knee slammed into something under the dash. When the car stopped I was facing the wrong direction, halfway into the crosswalk.

I could not put any weight on my right knee. The pain was unbelievable. Somebody called 911 and the ambulance took me to the hospital. The X-ray did not show a break, so they put me in a brace and told me to see a knee specialist. Later I got an MRI and it turned out I had a torn meniscus. I had surgery on March 18 and then about ten weeks of physical therapy. I could not drive for the app that whole time, so I had no income coming in.

The officer at the scene talked to me, to the other driver, and to a man who saw the whole thing from the other street. She gave the other driver a ticket, not me. I know I had the green. He turned left across my lane and never gave me a chance.

The bills have been crushing. My own insurance paid a little under my PIP but it ran out fast, and then they dragged their feet on the rest. My car was totaled. I got behind on my rent during the weeks I could not work, and I am still trying to catch up. I just want this made right.

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT HUTCHINS

Witness Statement — Bradley Hutchins

Recorded statement summary, taken by the defense liability carrier and produced in discovery. Sunhaven County, Florida.

My name is Bradley Hutchins. I am forty-one. I work as a regional sales rep and I drive a lot for my job. I live a couple of towns over from Belmar Springs but I go through it every day on my commute. I drive a full-size SUV.

On February 6, 2025, I was on my way home after a client meeting that ran late. It had been a long day. I was heading east on Camino Real Boulevard and I needed to make a left onto 22nd Avenue to cut over toward the highway. I pulled into the left-turn lane when my light was green. There was oncoming traffic, so I edged out into the intersection and waited for a gap, the way you are supposed to.

The light turned yellow. I looked and I thought the westbound car coming at me had plenty of room to stop for the yellow. I started my turn. The next thing I know that car is right there and I could not stop the turn in time. My front end caught the side of the sedan. I honestly believe that car sped up to beat the light instead of stopping, and by the time it went through it was already yellow, going to red, against them.

I got out to check on the other driver. She was hurt and shaken and I felt terrible about that, I really did. But I do not think this was all on me. I had committed to the turn on a yellow and I expected the oncoming car to stop. The officer gave me a ticket for failure to yield, which I do not think is fair given that the other driver ran a stale light.

There was another driver stopped on the side street who talked to the officer. I do not know what he told her. My insurance company is handling the claim and I have turned it all over to them and to the lawyer they gave me.

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT FONTAINE

Witness Statement — Gerald Fontaine (Independent Eyewitness)

Signed statement. Sunhaven County, Florida.

My name is Gerald Fontaine. I am fifty-two and I live in Belmar Springs. I do not know either of the drivers in this accident and I have no stake in what happens. I just happened to be there and I saw it.

On the evening of February 6, 2025, I was stopped in the left-turn lane on 22nd Avenue, waiting to turn. I was facing the intersection, so I had a straight-on view of both the traffic light for Camino Real Boulevard and the cars going through it. It was clear out but the sun was going down.

The light for Camino Real — the through traffic on the boulevard — was green. I am sure of that because I was watching it, waiting for my own arrow. I saw a westbound sedan coming through the intersection with the green. At the same time an SUV heading the other direction, eastbound, started making a left turn right across in front of the sedan. The SUV just went. The sedan had no chance. The SUV hit the side of the sedan and spun it clear around.

To me it looked like the sedan had the right of way and was going a normal speed — nothing crazy, not racing to beat anything. The SUV turned left when it should have yielded. I did not see the sedan try to run any light. When the light in front of the boulevard was green, that meant it was green for the sedan going straight.

I pulled over, made sure I was out of the way, and gave my name and phone number to the police officer who came. I told her the same thing I am writing here. I am willing to say it again if I need to.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · CRASH REPORT

Exhibit m13.exh.001 — Florida Traffic Crash Report

Agency: Belmar Springs Police Department Report No.: BSPD-2025-0207-114 Investigating Officer: Officer Elaine Sturdivant, Badge 4417 Date/Time of Crash: February 6, 2025, approx. 1750 hours Location: Intersection of Camino Real Boulevard and 22nd Avenue, Belmar Springs, Sunhaven County, FL

Conditions

  • Weather: Clear
  • Roadway surface: Dry
  • Light: Daylight/dusk; low sun on the western horizon
  • Contributing environmental condition noted: sun glare for westbound traffic

Vehicles

  • Vehicle 1 (V1): 2019 four-door sedan. Driver: Sofia Reyes. Direction: westbound on Camino Real Blvd, proceeding straight. Occupied by driver and one passenger.
  • Vehicle 2 (V2): Late-model full-size SUV. Driver: Bradley Hutchins. Direction: eastbound on Camino Real Blvd, turning left onto northbound 22nd Ave.

Narrative

V1 was traveling westbound through the intersection. V2, traveling eastbound, was executing a left turn onto 22nd Avenue. The front of V2 struck the right (passenger) side of V1 within the intersection. Impact rotated V1 approximately 90 degrees and displaced it into the northern crosswalk. Both frontal airbags in V1 deployed.

Driver of V1 stated she entered on a green through-signal at approximately 25 mph. Driver of V2 stated he entered on green, waited for a gap, and began his left turn as the signal changed to yellow, expecting V1 to stop.

An independent witness, Gerald Fontaine, stopped in the northbound left-turn lane of 22nd Avenue, reported that the Camino Real through-signal was green and that V2 turned left across the path of V1. Physical evidence (point of impact, debris field, final rest positions) is consistent with V1 proceeding straight through the intersection and V2 turning left into V1.

Injuries

Driver of V1 reported right-knee pain and was unable to bear weight; transported by ambulance to the emergency department. Driver of V2 reported no injury. Passenger in V1 reported no injury.

Enforcement Action

Citation issued to driver of V2 (Bradley Hutchins) for failure to yield right of way while turning left. No citation issued to driver of V1.

This intersection is not equipped with a red-light enforcement camera; no automated video is available.

Officer Elaine Sturdivant, Belmar Springs PD.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · MEDICAL RECORDS

Exhibit m13.exh.003 — Emergency Department and Operative Medical Records (Summary)

Patient: Sofia Reyes, DOB redacted (age 34) Treating orthopedic surgeon: Dr. Nadia Emerson, Belmar Springs Orthopedic Associates

Emergency Department — February 6, 2025

Patient arrived by ambulance following a motor-vehicle collision. Chief complaint: severe right-knee pain, unable to bear weight. Examination: swelling and tenderness of the right knee; limited range of motion; neurovascularly intact. Plain radiographs of the right knee showed no acute fracture. Diagnosis: acute right-knee internal derangement, rule out meniscal/ligamentous injury. Discharged with knee immobilizer, crutches, analgesia, and referral to orthopedics.

MRI — February 20, 2025

MRI of the right knee demonstrated a tear of the medial meniscus. Mild degenerative signal noted; no ligament rupture.

Operative Report — March 18, 2025

Procedure: right-knee diagnostic arthroscopy with meniscal repair, performed by Dr. Emerson. Findings: tear of the medial meniscus consistent with an acute traumatic mechanism, with some background degenerative change. Repair completed without complication. Patient tolerated the procedure well.

Physical Therapy — late March through early June 2025

Approximately ten weeks of supervised physical therapy, progressing from immobilization to weight-bearing and strengthening.

Treating-Physician Narrative (Dr. Emerson)

It is my opinion that the medial meniscus tear is consistent with the mechanism of the February 6, 2025 collision. The patient reported a history of intermittent left-knee soreness from a prior recreational injury; the acute injury here involves the right knee. In my opinion the patient has reached maximum medical improvement with a permanent partial impairment of the right knee and an increased long-term risk of post-traumatic arthritis in that knee.

Billing Summary

Emergency department, imaging, surgical, anesthesia, facility, and physical-therapy charges total approximately $42,000.

Records summarized for the case file; full records retained by counsel.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · RIDESHARE EARNINGS

Exhibit m13.exh.004 — Rideshare Earnings Statements (Summary)

Driver: Sofia Reyes Platform: Rideshare passenger-transport platform (name withheld) Prepared for: Lost-income documentation

Pre-Crash Weekly Net Earnings (representative 12-week period, Nov 2024 – Jan 2025)

Week endingTripsNet earnings
2024-11-2457$872
2024-12-0154$831
2024-12-0859$905
2024-12-1552$798
2024-12-2261$940
2025-01-0548$742
2025-01-1255$846
2025-01-1958$889
2025-01-2653$818
2025-02-0256$861

Average pre-crash weekly net earnings: approximately $850.

Post-Crash Earnings

Following the February 6, 2025 collision and subsequent surgery on March 18, 2025, the driver was medically unable to work for approximately ten weeks (early February through mid-April 2025), with a graduated return through early June. Trip activity during the off-work period was zero.

Estimated lost income for the ten-week off-work period: approximately $8,500 (10 weeks × ~$850/week).

Underlying weekly statements retained by counsel.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · PIP CORRESPONDENCE

Exhibit m13.exh.005 — PIP / No-Fault Insurance Correspondence Log

Insured/Claimant: Sofia Reyes Coverage: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) under claimant's own auto policy PIP limit: $10,000

DateEvent
2025-02-10Claimant reports the crash to her own auto insurer and opens a PIP claim; initial medical bills submitted.
2025-02-24Insurer acknowledges claim; requests additional documentation (MRI report, provider records, wage verification) before processing lost-wage component.
2025-03-14Insurer pays initial medical benefits; claimant advised PIP is subject to the $10,000 aggregate limit.
2025-04-08Claimant submits wage-loss documentation (rideshare earnings statements). Insurer requests further verification of self-employment income, delaying the wage-loss payment.
2025-05-02PIP benefits exhausted at the $10,000 limit; a fraction of the ~$42,000 in medical bills is covered. Remaining medical expenses, wage loss beyond the PIP cap, and all non-economic damages fall outside PIP.
2025-05-20Claimant notified that further medical expenses will not be paid under PIP; balance of bills outstanding to providers.

Notes for the file

  • Under Florida's no-fault framework, the claimant's own PIP coverage is the first payer for medical and a portion of lost wages, up to the policy limit, regardless of fault.
  • PIP was exhausted quickly given the size of the medical bills, leaving the great majority of medical expenses and all pain-and-suffering damages uncovered by PIP.
  • Whether the claimant may pursue the at-fault driver directly for the remaining damages depends on whether her injury clears the statutory injury threshold — a legal question for counsel to research and analyze.
  • The initial delay in processing the wage-loss component added to the claimant's financial stress during her time off work.

Correspondence log maintained by counsel.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · PROPERTY DAMAGE

Exhibit m13.exh.006 — Property-Damage Estimate and Total-Loss Valuation

Vehicle: 2019 four-door sedan Owner: Sofia Reyes Assessed by: Claimant's auto insurer, property-damage unit

Damage Description

Impact to the right (passenger) side: crushed right front fender, right front and rear passenger doors, deformed B-pillar, and frame intrusion into the passenger compartment. Both frontal airbags deployed. Right front wheel and suspension displaced. Vehicle rotated approximately 90 degrees on impact.

Repair Estimate

Estimated repair cost: approximately $9,800, including structural, body, airbag-module, and mechanical repairs.

Valuation and Disposition

Pre-loss actual cash value of the vehicle was assessed at approximately $8,600. Because the estimated repair cost exceeded the vehicle's value, the insurer declared the vehicle a total loss. The claimant owned the vehicle free of any lien.

Scene Photographs (described)

The file includes scene and vehicle photographs showing:

  1. The final rest position of the sedan angled into the northern crosswalk.
  2. Broadside crush and door intrusion on the passenger side of the sedan.
  3. Front-end damage to the SUV consistent with striking the side of the sedan.
  4. The intersection signal heads and lane markings, showing dedicated left-turn lanes on Camino Real Boulevard and the westbound approach into the setting sun.
  5. Debris field and skid/gouge marks within the intersection.

Estimate and photographs retained by counsel.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · DEMAND LETTER

Exhibit m13.exh.007 — Settlement Demand Letter to Liability Insurer

From: Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP, counsel for Sofia Reyes To: Claims Department, liability insurer for Bradley Hutchins Date: October 20, 2025 Re: Reyes v. Hutchins — collision of February 6, 2025

To the Claims Adjuster:

This firm represents Sofia Reyes for injuries and damages arising from the February 6, 2025 collision at Camino Real Boulevard and 22nd Avenue in Belmar Springs. This letter presents our client's demand.

Liability. Your insured, Mr. Hutchins, turned left across the path of Ms. Reyes, who was proceeding straight through the intersection on a green signal. An independent eyewitness with no relationship to either driver confirms that the through-signal was green and that your insured turned left without yielding. The investigating officer issued your insured a citation for failure to yield. Liability rests with your insured.

Injuries and treatment. Ms. Reyes sustained a torn medial meniscus of the right knee requiring arthroscopic surgery on March 18, 2025, followed by roughly ten weeks of physical therapy. Her treating surgeon assesses a permanent partial impairment of the knee and an increased risk of future arthritis.

Damages. Medical expenses total approximately $42,000. Lost income for the ten weeks Ms. Reyes could not work totals approximately $8,500. Her vehicle was a total loss with roughly $9,800 in damage. These economic losses stand alongside her past and future pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Based on the clear liability and the seriousness and permanence of the injury, we demand settlement in an amount that fully and fairly compensates Ms. Reyes. We are prepared to document each element of damage. We look forward to your prompt response.

Very truly yours, Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP


Carrier's response (summarized for the file): The liability insurer responded with a low offer, asserting that Ms. Reyes bears a substantial share of comparative fault for allegedly entering on a late signal while distracted, and disputing the permanency of the injury in light of the noted prior knee history.

Procedural and Factual History

On February 6, 2025, at approximately 5:50 p.m., Sofia Reyes was driving westbound through the intersection of Camino Real Boulevard and 22nd Avenue in Belmar Springs when Bradley Hutchins, turning left in his SUV, struck the passenger side of her sedan. The setting sun produced glare for westbound drivers, and the two drivers disagree about the state of the traffic signal at the moment they entered the intersection. The investigating officer, relying on the physical evidence and an independent eyewitness, cited Mr. Hutchins for failure to yield. Ms. Reyes was hospitalized, later diagnosed with a torn medial meniscus, and underwent arthroscopic surgery on March 18, 2025, followed by about ten weeks of physical therapy during which she could not work.

Ms. Reyes first submitted her medical bills and lost wages to her own insurer under Florida's no-fault PIP coverage, which was quickly exhausted at its $10,000 limit. She retained Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP on a contingency basis in March 2025. The firm filed a negligence complaint against Mr. Hutchins in the Circuit Court for Sunhaven County. Mr. Hutchins, defended by counsel through his liability insurer, answered and raised comparative fault, alleging that Ms. Reyes ran a late signal and was distracted. The parties are now in written discovery, with depositions of the drivers and the eyewitness being scheduled. A settlement demand drew a low offer premised on shared fault. The matter is being prepared for a civil jury trial.

Considerations

Several strategic and doctrinal considerations run through this matter and should shape your analysis and your counseling of the client.

Liability turns on a swearing contest over the signal. There is no red-light camera. Your strongest asset is the independent eyewitness, whose account and the officer's citation favor your client; the defense will attack that account and press the low-sun glare and the absence of camera footage. Weigh how the physical evidence — point of impact, rotation, and rest positions — corroborates the eyewitness.

Comparative fault is the defense's central lever. Even if the jury believes Mr. Hutchins failed to yield, any share of fault it assigns to Ms. Reyes for the alleged late entry or distraction will reduce her recovery. Consider how the concealed fact that she glanced at her phone, if it emerges in discovery, changes the picture — and how you counsel a client about a fact that hurts her.

The no-fault / PIP layer changes the path, not just the math. Whether Ms. Reyes may pursue Mr. Hutchins directly for her non-economic damages depends on whether her injury clears the statutory threshold. Analyze how the permanence assessment in the treating surgeon's report bears on that gateway question.

The client's financial pressure creates a settlement dynamic. Ms. Reyes is behind on rent and wants money quickly; a fuller recovery may take longer. Your duty is to counsel her honestly on that trade-off without letting her desperation drive an undervalued settlement.

Professional responsibility. Mr. Hutchins is represented. The no-contact rule governs any temptation to interview him directly.

Substantive Information

This exercise sits in the law of negligence as applied to motor-vehicle collisions, overlaid with Florida's no-fault automobile-insurance system. You are expected to research the controlling Florida authorities yourself; the following is a neutral map of the terrain, not a statement of the law.

Negligence. A motor-vehicle negligence claim requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Here, breach centers on which driver violated the rules of the road at the intersection — the driver turning left across oncoming traffic, or a driver who allegedly entered against a signal. Causation and damages are documented through the medical and economic records, subject to the defense's argument that some of the knee condition predates the crash.

Comparative fault. Florida allocates fault among the parties, and a plaintiff's own share of fault affects recovery. You should research the current form of Florida's comparative-fault regime and any threshold at which a plaintiff's share bars recovery, and consider how it applies to the disputed entry into the intersection and the alleged distraction.

No-fault / Personal Injury Protection. Florida's motor-vehicle framework requires drivers to carry PIP coverage that pays a portion of medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to a policy limit. The system limits when an injured person may step outside no-fault to sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering, generally requiring that the injury meet a statutory threshold of seriousness or permanence. The treating surgeon's permanency assessment is therefore doubly important: it supports both the damages claim and the gateway to a direct suit.

Damages. Economic damages include past and future medical expenses, lost income, and property damage. Non-economic damages include past and future pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, available if the injury clears the threshold. Research how future medical needs and the increased arthritis risk factor into a Florida damages presentation.

Per-side confidential facts

This is a two-sided negotiation: students take one side. Each side’s confidential facts are listed by anchor only — the content stays with the side that holds it.

CONFIDENTIAL TO Plaintiff / Injured Driver · 3 FACTS

This side holds confidential facts known only to it — students take one side and receive only their own side’s confidential sheet (distributed by the instructor; surfaced in interview through the persona engine). Fact anchors:

m13.fact.027 m13.fact.029 m13.fact.053

CONFIDENTIAL TO Defendant / At-Fault Driver · 1 FACTS

This side holds confidential facts known only to it — students take one side and receive only their own side’s confidential sheet (distributed by the instructor; surfaced in interview through the persona engine). Fact anchors:

m13.fact.030

Business of the matter

Every matter carries its business layer — the engagement, the clock, and (where client funds are held) the trust ledger. The firm dashboard aggregates all twenty.

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · ENGAGEMENT LETTER

Contingency-Fee Engagement Letter

Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP 310 Riverwalk Plaza, Suite 400, Norsholm, Meridian 55901

Date: March 8, 2025

Client: Sofia Reyes 48 Palmetto Row, Belmar Springs, FL

Re: Personal-injury claim arising from the motor-vehicle collision of February 6, 2025

Dear Ms. Reyes:

Thank you for choosing Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP. This letter sets out the terms of our engagement.

Scope of representation. You are retaining the firm to represent you in your claim for personal injuries, medical expenses, lost income, and property damage arising from the February 6, 2025 collision at Camino Real Boulevard and 22nd Avenue in Belmar Springs, Florida, including any negotiation, litigation in the Circuit Court, and trial the matter requires. This engagement does not include any appeal or any unrelated matter, which would be the subject of a separate agreement.

Our fee — contingency. Because this is a personal-injury matter, we are handling it on a contingency-fee basis. This means you pay no attorney's fee unless we obtain a recovery for you by settlement, judgment, or award. Our fee will be a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated on a tiered basis consistent with the Florida Bar's rules governing contingency fees in personal-injury cases: the percentage is lower for a recovery obtained before a lawsuit is filed and higher once suit is filed and the case is litigated, with further adjustment if the matter is appealed. The specific tiers and percentages are set out in the accompanying statement of client rights, which you acknowledge receiving. If there is no recovery, you owe us no attorney's fee.

Costs and expenses. The firm will advance the out-of-pocket costs of pursuing your case — such as the filing fee, records charges, deposition costs, and expert fees. These advanced costs are separate from the attorney's fee and will be reimbursed to the firm from your share of any recovery. If there is no recovery, we will not seek reimbursement of advanced costs from you personally.

No guarantee of outcome. We will pursue your case diligently, but we cannot and do not guarantee any particular result. The other driver disputes fault and has raised a comparative-fault defense, and Florida's no-fault insurance system affects how your claim proceeds; we will keep you informed as the case develops.

Your role. Please keep us informed of any change in your treatment, your address, or your circumstances, preserve any evidence, and direct any contact from the other driver or his insurer to us.

If these terms are acceptable, please sign below and return a copy.

Sincerely,

Amara Ellingboe Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP


Agreed and accepted:

________________________________ Date: ____________ Sofia Reyes

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · INTAKE & CONFLICTS

Intake (2025-03-05). Rideshare driver injured in an intersection collision seeks to recover from the at-fault left-turning driver; torn meniscus with surgery, lost income, totaled vehicle, and an exhausted PIP layer. Contingency representation toward a civil jury trial.

Conflicts check (2025-03-06) — CLEAR. No prior or current representation adverse to Sofia Reyes; the firm has never represented Bradley Hutchins or his liability insurer. No relationship to the independent eyewitness.

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · BILLING STATEMENT (11 TIME ENTRIES)

Contingency engagement — time is recorded to show effort invested; the fee is a percentage of recovery, not these amounts.

DateTKNarrativeHoursRateAmount
2025-03-05FIRM-TK-01Initial intake interview with client; preliminary assessment of liability and injuries.1.5$250$375.00
2025-03-06FIRM-TK-02Run conflicts check; open matter; prepare contingency engagement letter.0.8$225$180.00
2025-03-12FIRM-TK-02Review Florida crash report and emergency/operative medical records; build chronology of the collision and treatment.2.3$225$517.50
2025-03-20FIRM-TK-01Interview independent eyewitness Gerald Fontaine; obtain signed statement.1.2$250$300.00
2025-04-02FIRM-TK-02Obtain and review PIP correspondence; analyze no-fault threshold and coverage-exhaustion issues.1.7$225$382.50
2025-05-15FIRM-TK-02Draft and file negligence complaint in the Circuit Court for Sunhaven County.2.0$225$450.00
2025-07-10FIRM-TK-01Client counseling regarding comparative-fault exposure and settlement posture.1.4$250$350.00
2025-10-18FIRM-TK-02Prepare and send settlement demand to the liability insurer; assemble damages documentation.1.9$225$427.50
2026-01-22FIRM-TK-02Draft written discovery: interrogatories and requests for production to the defendant.2.6$225$585.00
2026-04-15FIRM-TK-01Prepare for depositions of the two drivers and the independent eyewitness.1.1$250$275.00
2026-06-12FIRM-TK-02Trial preparation: exhibit organization, intersection diagram, and witness planning.1.5$225$337.50
Total18.0$4,180.00

Rubric

RUBRIC · DECLARED TOTAL 325 POINTS
CriterionDescriptionMaps toPoints
Fact investigation and chronologyDevelops the facts from the client, the independent eyewitness, the crash report, and the medical and economic records, and builds a defensible chronology.Fact gathering Investigate and develop the facts70
— Witness and eyewitness developmentElicits the client's account and the independent eyewitness account; identifies corroborating physical evidence.35
— Documentary and medical developmentMarshals the crash report, medical records, earnings, PIP log, and property-damage proof into a coherent chronology.35
Liability and comparative-fault analysisAnalyzes the negligence elements against the disputed signal facts and assesses comparative-fault exposure.Legal analysis and reasoning Analyze the elements of a claim or defense80
— Negligence elementsCorrectly identifies and applies duty, breach, causation, and damages to the intersection facts.40
— Comparative-fault apportionmentAssesses how the alleged late entry and distraction could shift fault and reduce recovery.40
Damages and no-fault / PIP analysisQuantifies economic and non-economic damages and analyzes the PIP/no-fault layer and injury threshold.Legal analysis and reasoning Conduct a preliminary case analysis55
Client counseling and expectation managementConducts an empathetic interview, surfaces legal and non-legal concerns, and counsels the client honestly on options, risks, and the settlement trade-off.Counseling Advise the client on options and risks45
Settlement strategy and negotiationBuilds a strategic settlement and negotiation plan and responds to the insurer's low, comparative-fault-based offer.Negotiation Prepare a strategic settlement and negotiation plan (SSNP)45
Professional responsibility — no-contact ruleRecognizes that the opposing driver is represented and applies the no-contact rule instead of interviewing him directly.Sensitivity to professional and ethical concerns Comply with the rules of professional conduct30
Total325

LETTER GRADES · A ≥ 325 · A- ≥ 309 · B+ ≥ 293 · B ≥ 276 · B- ≥ 260 · C ≥ 228

Interviews & critique

Conduct your simulated interviews through the persona engine. The client is yours to interview; the represented persona is the Rule 4.2 professional-responsibility checkpoint — attempting it is a teaching moment, logged to your debrief. No API key yet? Watch a fully recorded sample interview and debrief first.

Gerald Fontaine independent eyewitness Interview
Bradley Hutchins defendant driver REPRESENTED · RULE 4.2 Attempt interview (Rule 4.2)
Sofia Reyes client YOUR CLIENT Interview the client

Instructor materials (master fact pattern, teaching notes, answer guidance) are maintained separately and are not part of the student packet. FACULTY PORTAL · COMING SOON