Ambulance Chasing RICO Claim Dismissed: What It Means for Injury Law in Georgia

In the high-stakes world of personal injury law, the term “ambulance chasing” evokes images of unethical lawyers preying on vulnerable accident victims. While Georgia law firmly prohibits such practices, a recent case highlights the complexities of pursuing legal action against alleged ambulance chasers, specifically under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Understanding the nuances of this dismissal is crucial for anyone involved in or affected by personal injury law in Georgia.

What is Ambulance Chasing?

“Ambulance chasing” refers to the unethical and often illegal practice of lawyers or their agents aggressively soliciting clients after accidents or injuries. These “runners” or “cappers” may contact victims directly at accident scenes, hospitals, or through the use of illegally obtained accident data. Such tactics undermine the integrity of the legal profession and exploit individuals during their most vulnerable moments. In Georgia, ambulance chasing is illegal, with penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies for repeat offenders.

The RICO Act: A Tool Against Organized Crime

The RICO Act, initially designed to combat organized crime, provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. In Georgia, both the federal RICO statute and the Georgia RICO statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4) allow plaintiffs to bring civil racketeering claims. To pursue a Georgia civil RICO claim, the underlying “acts of racketeering activity” must be among the crimes listed in O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3. A creative attorney can turn almost any case into a civil RICO claim, either under the Georgia racketeering statute or federal RICO.

The Georgia RICO Act is broader than its federal counterpart, removing the federal requirements of continuity and the existence of an enterprise. This means that plaintiffs can bring Georgia RICO Act claims against individuals acting alone and for schemes operating for only a short time.

The Case: Lazenby vs. Cambre & Associates

In Cambre vs. Lazenby, a Georgia lawyer, Shane Lazenby, filed suit against an Atlanta injury law firm, Cambre & Associates, alleging illegal ambulance chasing. Lazenby claimed that Cambre & Associates obtained information about auto accident victims before it was publicly available and then sent “runners” to solicit these victims as clients, often using high-pressure tactics. Lazenby argued that these practices gave Cambre & Associates an unfair business advantage and constituted racketeering in violation of Georgia’s RICO Act.

The trial court initially refused to dismiss the lawsuit, but the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that Lazenby’s RICO claim was too “attenuated and speculative” to establish a direct link between the alleged ambulance chasing and any financial losses Lazenby or others similarly situated may have incurred. In other words, the court determined that Lazenby had not sufficiently demonstrated how Cambre & Associates’ actions directly caused him financial harm.

Implications for Personal Injury Law in Georgia

The dismissal of the RICO claim in Lazenby vs. Cambre & Associates has several important implications for personal injury law in Georgia:

High Bar for RICO Claims: The ruling reinforces the high bar for bringing a successful RICO claim in cases involving ambulance chasing. Plaintiffs must demonstrate a direct and proximate cause between the alleged racketeering activity and their financial losses. Speculative or attenuated connections are insufficient.
Focus on Direct Harm: The decision emphasizes the need to prove direct harm to the plaintiff’s business or property. While ambulance chasing is unethical and illegal, it does not automatically translate into a successful RICO claim unless the plaintiff can show concrete financial damages resulting from the activity.
Continued Prohibition of Ambulance Chasing: Despite the dismissal of the RICO claim, ambulance chasing remains illegal in Georgia. Attorneys and their agents who engage in such practices may still face criminal penalties, disciplinary action from the State Bar of Georgia, and other legal consequences.
Impact of Tort Reform: Recent tort reform legislation in Georgia, including Senate Bill 68 (SB 68), introduces changes to personal injury rules that could influence litigation strategies in cases related to unethical solicitation. SB 68 revises statutes concerning liability, comparative negligence, and compensation limits. It also allows parties to separate fault and damages into different trial phases and restricts the use of arguments for high-dollar “anchoring” pain and suffering damages. These changes may affect the value of personal injury claims and the way they are presented in court.

The Broader Legal Landscape

It’s important to note that while the Lazenby vs. Cambre & Associates case focused on a RICO claim, other legal avenues may be available to address unethical or illegal attorney solicitation practices. These include:

State Bar Complaints: Individuals can file complaints with the State Bar of Georgia against attorneys who engage in ambulance chasing or other unethical conduct. The State Bar has the authority to investigate these complaints and impose disciplinary sanctions, such as suspension or disbarment.
Criminal Charges: As ambulance chasing is illegal in Georgia, individuals who engage in such practices may face criminal charges, including fines and imprisonment.
Civil Lawsuits: Attorneys who have been harmed by unfair competition or other tortious conduct may be able to bring civil lawsuits against those who engage in ambulance chasing.

Recent Changes to Georgia Law

Several recent changes to Georgia law could impact personal injury cases and the strategies employed by attorneys:

Senate Bill 68 (SB 68): Signed into law in April 2025, SB 68 introduces significant changes to personal injury rules in Georgia. These changes affect how trials are conducted, how medical expenses are proven, and what juries can consider. Key provisions of SB 68 include:
- Allowing personal injury trials to be split into phases, with the jury first deciding who is at fault and then determining damages.
- Changing how juries see medical bills, allowing them to see the full bill and what was actually paid.
- Allowing insurance companies to argue that an injured person was partially or completely at fault if they were not wearing a seatbelt.
- Requiring lawyers to wait until the close of evidence to talk about the value of non-economic damages like pain and suffering.
Senate Bill 69 (SB 69): SB 69 regulates third-party litigation funding by requiring registration, limiting funders’ involvement in legal strategy, and making funding agreements subject to discovery.
Modified Comparative Negligence Rule: SB 68 revises Georgia’s comparative negligence rule. Under the new rule, if an injured party is found to be 50% or more at fault, they cannot recover any damages. If they are less than 50% at fault, their compensation will be reduced by their percentage of fault.

Advice for Individuals Involved in Personal Injury Cases

If you have been involved in an accident or have suffered a personal injury in Georgia, it is essential to protect yourself from unethical solicitation practices and to understand your legal rights. Here is some advice:

Be Wary of Unsolicited Contact: Be cautious of anyone who contacts you unsolicited, especially if they pressure you to sign legal documents or make promises of quick compensation.
Do Your Research: Take the time to research and choose an attorney who is reputable, experienced, and ethical. Look for attorneys who are members of professional organizations and who have a proven track record of success.
Report Unethical Conduct: If you believe that you have been approached by an ambulance chaser or have been the victim of unethical solicitation practices, report the conduct to the State Bar of Georgia and, if appropriate, to law enforcement authorities.
Consult with an Attorney: If you have been injured in an accident, consult with a qualified personal injury attorney to discuss your legal options and protect your rights. An attorney can help you navigate the complexities of Georgia law and ensure that you receive fair compensation for your injuries.

Conclusion

The dismissal of the RICO claim in Lazenby vs. Cambre & Associates serves as a reminder of the challenges involved in pursuing legal action against alleged ambulance chasers. While Georgia law prohibits such practices, proving a RICO violation requires a high level of evidence and a direct link between the alleged racketeering activity and financial harm. By understanding the nuances of this case and the broader legal landscape, individuals can protect themselves from unethical solicitation practices and ensure that they receive fair and just treatment under the law.