bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Making Collaboration Tools Work in 2012
People are collaborating more than ever before. There are more collaboration tools and technologies than ever before. Yet, the actual adoption of collaboration tools seems to lag behind the wish to use collaboration tools. In this episode, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss the gap between tools and people in collaboration, the common challenges faced when implementing collaboration tools, especially ones used by lawyers, and their best recommendations for improving the adoption of collaboration tools and technologies in 2012. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennis’ co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.
SU Discoverlaw.org PLUS
Suffolk University Law School Dean Camille Nelson and Keren Zuniga McDowell, director of the Office of Academic Affairs at Suffolk University, discuss the SU Discoverlaw.org PLUS program. Learn more about SU Discoverlaw.org PLUS at http://bit.ly/yZhpOL.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/03/suplus/
The Craigslist Killer: A Case Study in Digital Forensics
The case of the Craiglist Killer has lived on through digital forensics. The Boston Police released their case files in the Craigslist Killer case to the Boston Phoenix which then published a remarkable story about the investigation in April of 2012. Digital Detectives co-hosts, Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, explore the intricacies of this captivating case including: evidence from surveillance cameras and privacy implications, getting social media evidence and poaching wireless networks.
litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney
Legal Talk Network Live at LegalTechNY 2012-Onit’s Eric Elman Spotlights Onit Apps
Eric Elfman spotlights "Onit Apps" for the legal marketplace which solve very specific problems for legal departments. Be sure to watch the interview, hosted by Legal Talk Network producer, Kate Kenney.
getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law
Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana
Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana.
Full decision: BNSF Railway v. Feit (Montana 07/06/2012)
Feit got a ruling from the Montana Department of Labor that BNSF Railway discriminated against him by refusing to hire him because BNSF regarded him as being disabled due to his obesity.
BNSF then went to federal court to get a review of whether it violated the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) by refusing to hire Feit because of his obesity.
The federal court then asked the Supreme Court of Montana to decide how to rule, asking this question: Is obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological condition a "physical or mental impairment" as it is used in Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a)?
The Montana Supreme Court answered with a qualified yes. The court answered: Obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological disorder or condition may constitute a "physical or mental impairment" within the meaning of Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a) if the individual's weight is outside the "normal range" and affects "one or more body systems" as defined in 29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)(2011).
The federal court laid out these facts:
1. BNSF offered Eric Feit a conditional offer of employment as a conductor trainee. The employment was conditioned upon successful completion of a physical examination, drug screening, background investigation, proof of employment eligibility, and BNSF’s Medical History Questionnaire.2. On February 6, 2008, BNSF informed Feit he was not qualified for his “safety sensitive” position because of the “significant health and safety risks associated with extreme obesity.”
3. BNSF told Feit he would not be considered for the job unless he either lost 10% of his body weight, or successfully completed additional physical examinations at his own expense. Regardless of the test results, BNSF did not guarantee Feit a job.
4. With the exception of a sleep study test, Feit successfully completed the additional physical exams BNSF requested. The sleep test cost at least $1,800, and Feit could not afford the test.
5. Because BNSF informed Feit that it would not consider him for the conductor trainee position unless he completed the sleep study, Feit set out to lose 10% of his weight.
6. A genuine dispute exists regarding whether BNSF received documentation of Feit’s weight loss.
The Montana Supreme Court noted that the EEOC Interpretive Guidance distinguished between conditions that were impairments and conditions that were simply physical characteristics, which suggested that a person with normal weight required a physical condition to qualify as an impairment. The court referred to the ADAAA which instructed courts that they were interpreting the statute too restrictively and expressed its specific intent that determination of disability not demand extensive analysis (122 Stat. at 3553-54).
The DISSENT noted that the definition of a "physical and mental impairment" included "any physiological disorder, or condition" that affects a major system of the human body (29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)), and argued that the plain meaning required a physiological condition be present before an impairment existed.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/07/obesity_can_be.html
find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation
The Law and the Liability of Eugenics
For decades, a program called Eugenics gave state boards the right to deem someone "unfit to procreate." The outcome of this was 66,000 Americans were selectively sterilized between the late 1920’s and the 1980’s. Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney J. Craig Williams welcomes Professor Alfred Brophy, from the University of North Carolina School of Law and Attorney James Bowden from Waller Lansden, to discuss this controversial practice, the US Supreme Court’s shocking decision on eugenics and why forced sterilization "is" technically constitutional.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/02/the-law-and-the-liability-of-eugenics/
Six Hats: Parallel Thinking for Paralegals
Edward De Bono’s, Six Thinking Hats, also known as parallel thinking, is a fun method used in NALA’s year-long leadership webinars for those involved in state and local affiliated associations. On The Paralegal Voice, co-host Vicki Voisin welcomes Karen G. McGee, ACP, President of NALA, as they spotlight De Bono’s method of thinking and share some important tools paralegals can use to facilitate open discussions in a meeting or work situation.
local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer
From the Courtroom to the Comedy Club
Lawyers are very often the brunt of jokes, but there is a group of attorneys that has turned the tables and is making people laugh with them instead of at them. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, share the stage with two of the Comedians At Law. Alex Barnett and Matt Ritter explain how they transitioned from lawyers to comics and how they now make people laugh at the lighter side of the law.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/08/from-the-courtroom-to-the-comedy-club/
discrimination lawyers district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers
OPINION: A misplaced crusade
Suit by immigration officers against deferred-action program has disturbing implications.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202576461366&rss=rss_nlj
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Supreme Court to Close Tuesday
The Supreme Court was the only federal court in Washington open on Monday, but the justices have called off plans to sit tomorrow.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/10/29/supreme-court-to-close-tuesday/?mod=WSJBlog
Seizing Authority: Write Well or Get Out
Eugene Volokh argues that a well-written legal argument doesn't merely have a logical persuasive effect, but creates what he calls an authoritative bubble.
Rightly or wrongly, something that seems to be a thoughtful written argument by a respectable professional tends to have more than just a logical persuasive effect — it also has a psychological effect. If the argument is well-crafted, the reader is inclined to credit not just the factually verifiable claims in the argument (whether about fact or about precedent), but the analogies and the speculation in that argument, too.
The reader, even a judge (who is therefore of higher status than the writer), is likely to subconsciously treat the argument as having some authority. This usually won’t let the author get away with total nonsense, or mischaracterization of the facts and the law (once that’s exposed). But when the argument involves judgment calls — is the case really that similar to that precedent? what are the practical effects of a ruling likely to be? — the reader will be inclined to be moved by the argument even beyond what the purely logical force of the argument justifies.
The more general argument is that poorly written briefs impair a lawyer's "credibility," which Eugene defines as dishonesty or factual accuracy. My definition would be somewhat different, more along the lines of general believability and trustworthiness. I trust that a person knows what he talks about when he can write well about it.
Eugene's bubble runs more along these lines, that the solid writer creates a psychological impression of authoritativeness on the subject of his writing, and is thus sufficiently trusted as an authority that he can both go further with his argument and his thoughts are accepted with lesser scrutiny.
An unnamed, relative rookie judge responded to Eugene's post with his views:
As a criminal law trial attorney I thought it advantageous to write in a way that made it easy for a judge to rule in my favor; succinct, good authority, concise arguments. I tried to make every submission under 7 pages. I can count on one hand in 28+ years as a trial attorney reading an opponent’s brief that impressed me or, as you put it, carried a sense of authority.
I had never thought about it in terms of, “authority,” but I think it’s an apt description. The citation to a statute or case was usually on track, but everything else seemed almost always to be the written counterpart to a Jackson Pollok painting. Terrible sentence structure, typos, misuse of punctuation, facts not incorporated effectively, hyperbole, the list goes on. Good, persuasive written arguments do carry an authoritativeness that, for me, equates to persuasiveness. And it often is an unconscious appreciation, you’re persuaded without understanding why.
As a judge, admittedly with only 20 months experience, I have yet to read anything that has impressed me. Some of it is just plain, well, garbage. For years judges in private conversations would extol the superiority of civil law attorneys to me but I have yet to see much in the way of praiseworthy writing there either.
Naturally, a reader smacked back from the safety of an anonymous internet comment,
Holy pretentiousness Batman! Do you have an ego or what.
This reaction, aside from ignoring the nature of what it means to sit as a judge, reflects perhaps the most dangerous threat to good writing, maybe even good lawyering. Yes, the judge's thoughts, that he was a wonderful writer and every other lawyer in his 28 years of practice or has come before him in the past 20 months sucks, is outrageously arrogant. But he is now the judge. He now decides whether you win or lose. By definition, the effectiveness of every lawyer who comes before him is determined by his reaction to their authoritativeness, or lack thereof.
It takes a very long to time to fully appreciate this aspect of jurisprudence. I can still recall Myres McDougal tell this to the class, and warning us not to get too wrapped up in the details as we wouldn't come to appreciate it for many years. Just listen, he said. Some day, you will understand. He was right, but it took a long time.
Self-assessment of the quality of our legal work is fraught with danger. The distinction between efficiency and effectiveness has been so horribly blurred that we have great difficulty realizing that our satisfaction with the sufficiency of our effort is utterly irrelevant. We pat ourselves on the back for a job well done and feel self-satisfied. Other than the fact we lost, we were great. After all, didn't our mother tell us to do our best, and that's all anyone could ask of us?
Mother was wrong. If our best is inadequate, we have two choices. Get better or get out. And the person who determines whether our best is inadequate is the judge, no matter how crazy, arrogant or wrong he may be.
Almost all lawyers in the first five to ten years of practice reject this notion without even realizing it. They glow with the confidence of youth, Certain that they not only know what they're doing, but that they're doing it well. They know this because they've decided it about themselves, and to them, that's the only bar they need to meet.
Somewhere about the tenth year of practice, most lawyers come to the realization that they aren't nearly as brilliant as they thought. They don't' necessarily reach this epiphany willingly, but by reaching a point in life where one surveys one's accomplishments and failures, and those with sufficient metacognitive abilities realize what they could have done better if they had only known.
Over the next 20 years (and I limit it to 20 as that's as far as my experience stretches), you struggle to achieve the bubble of authoritativeness. You will never be as confident as you were in those first ten years because you know too much.
This is one of the reasons so many lawyers' aspirations change from Clarence Darrow to survival, realizing that they weren't before, and will never be, a great lawyer. Instead, they turn to making a living and, for the better of the bunch, not screwing up too badly. They give up trying to be better. It won't happen.
As a group, lawyers have never lacked for unwarranted self-esteem. But if it's worse now, since everybody's a winner, then the earlier one reaches this epiphany, the better off everyone will be, whether as an effective lawyer or coming to the realization that you won't be Clarence Darrow either.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/10/28/seizing-authority-write-well-or-get-out.aspx?ref=rss
getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law
IP Law Concentration
Professor Andrew Beckerman-Rodau discusses the Intellectual Property Law Concentration offered by Suffolk University Law School. To learn more about the program, please visit the Law School's website, http://bit.ly/JNtxXh.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/04/ip-law-concentration/
attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney
Court arguments still scheduled, despite Sandy
With many government offices closed in the wake of the storm, including administrative offices of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the court nevertheless is in session and will be hearing its schedule of oral arguments today (Tuesday). The essential personnel required to support the court session should report as planned, the court advised on its webpage.
The First Day in Practice seminar for new lawyers scheduled for today at the Richmond Convention Center has been cancelled, the Virginia State Bar reports. A new date will be set, the VSB reports.
The Alexandria U.S. District Courthouse is closed today, according to the website for the Eastern District federal courts. The Norfolk and Newport News Courthouses will open at 10 a.m., the court reports.
The court notes specific case information:
- Trial USA v. Jeffrey Charles (4:12cr63), before Judge Henry C. Morgan, will be postponed until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 in the Newport News Courthouse.
- Trial I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc., et al (2:11cv512), before Judge Raymond A. Jackson, will begin at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 30, 2012. Jurors and counsel will be given access to the building at 9:30 a.m.
The court advises to call the Court’s Inclement Weather Line at (757) 222-7499 for Norfolk and/or (757) 247-0785 for Newport News for updated information.
Richmond Circuit Court is closed today, reports clerk Bevill Dean, but he says it will be business as normal on Wednesday.
Virginia Beach Circuit Court is open for business today, having closed Monday, according to clerk Tina Sinnen.
Fairfax County courts should reopen Wednesday after closing today, reports clerk John Frey.
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/vlwblog/2012/10/30/court-arguments-still-scheduled-despite-sandy/
A Radical or Rational SCOTUS Session?
After one of the most historic United States Supreme Court sessions in years, emotions ran high and charges of radicalism ran amuck as the Justices handed down rulings on immigration enforcement, national healthcare, campaign finance law, stolen valor and more. But in the end, did SCOTUS simply uphold the law of the land? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the legal facts behind the decisions from New York University School of Law Professor Roderick Hills, Jr. and Temple University Beasley School of Law Professor Jan Ting.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/a-radical-or-rational-scotus-session/
employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney
Structured Settlements and NSSTA’s 2012 Mission
NSSTA stands for National Structured Settlements Trade Association - the largest gathering of top professionals in the country taking the a lead in the structured settlement industry. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen welcomes Eric Vaughn, Executive Director of National Structured Settlements Trade Association, to discuss what’s ahead for NSSTA 2012. Eric addresses everything from NSSTA’s Annual Meeting to its Take the Hill initiative with Congress, and the steps individuals of retirement age should take to ensure a better financial future.
Click the link to see a video snippet of the podcast.
Click the link to see a video snippet of the podcast.
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
Turn Your Solo Practice into a Highly Utilized Business
Looking to get your solo practice off the ground but aren’t sure how? Learn about the tools you need to turn your solo practice into a highly utilized business when New Solo host and solo practitioner, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher, talks to Alex Vega ,a law firm consultant with The Vega Firm. Alex shares his great insight on the basic human skills a lawyer needs for a successful practice, how a solo can develop an effective word of mouth campaign and the importance of a realistic marketing plan.
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
Fifth Circuit Upholds Ban on Gun Sales to People Under 21
An appeals court on Thursday upheld a federal law that prohibits people under the age of 21 from purchasing guns from dealers, rejecting the first challenge to the age rule since the Supreme Court recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney
Court proposes to drop full-time rule for waived-in lawyers
Following angry reactions prompted by examination of the rules for “waived in” lawyers, the Supreme Court of Virginia is proposing to drop its full-time practice requirement.
The change would affect lawyers who were licensed in other states and then admitted to the bar in Virginia by reciprocity, without taking the Virginia bar exam. Many of those lawyers, said to be “admitted by motion,” chafed at a rule under which their bar admission could be revoked if they failed to “practice full time as a member of the Virginia State Bar.” Regulations specified at least 35 hours a week.
Under proposed rules published for comment this week, the permanent full-time practice requirement would be replaced by a requirement for five years of practice “predominantly” in Virginia. The amended rules apparently would dispense with any minimum number of hours for a law practice.
“Predominantly” would mean that a lawyer’s Virginia practice each year would equal or exceed any practice in other jurisdictions.
Current regulations prohibit a waived-in lawyer from dividing time between a Virginia office and one in another jurisdiction.
Until the five-year requirement is met, a waived-in lawyer would have to certify annually that he or she is practicing predominantly in the commonwealth. If the lawyer elected not to continue with a predominant Virginia practice, the lawyer could opt for associate status.
Lawyers admitted on motion complained last year that the full-time practice requirement unfairly hindered attorneys taking time off for child birth or child care, older lawyers seeking to limit their work hours and retired lawyers who wanted to offer pro bono services.
free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers
Monday, October 29, 2012
As California Vote Looms, Scientists Say No To Labeling Genetically Modified Foods
By now you know that California is preparing to vote Nov. 6 on a ballot initiative to require labels on genetically modified food. While polls show people evenly split on the issue, scientists says such labeling is misleading and may scare consumers.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney
Hot Coffee and our Civil Justice System
An elderly woman, Stella Liebeck, buys coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru, spills it on her lap, sues and wins. This case caused quite the controversy, but also contributed to some dramatic changes in the law. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen and co-host, Nolan Robinson, chat with Susan Saladoff, the producer and director of the documentary, Hot Coffee. Susan gives us the real story behind this notorious coffee case, talks tort reform, frivolous lawsuits and caps on damages and shares some other examples of how individuals are not getting a fair shake in this current civil justice system.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/09/hot-coffee-and-our-civil-justice-system/
solicitors statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney
Predictive Policing and the Law
Some law enforcement agencies, like the Los Angeles Police Department, are turning to crime prediction software to aid in decreasing the rising crime rate, better known as predictive policing. Weighing the advantages of these programs to reduce crime raises questions about racial profiling within specific neighborhoods and our civil liberties. Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Dr. Jeff Brantingham, co-founder of the company, PredPol and Professor Andrew G. Ferguson from the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, as they look at the legal issues surrounding predictive policing.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/09/predictive-policing-and-the-law/
Technology-Enhanced Television
As rumors of a game-changing new Apple TV begin to swirl, we wonder whether technology will start to change the way we watch television. Or maybe it already has. Does technology always need to have "productive" uses? In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell turn to a "non-serious" technology topic for the end of summer, explore ways technology, especially tablets, can enhance your TV viewing experience, and find some surprisingly serious conclusions about where technology is taking us.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/08/technology-enhanced-television/
criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer
Making Collaboration Tools Work in 2012
People are collaborating more than ever before. There are more collaboration tools and technologies than ever before. Yet, the actual adoption of collaboration tools seems to lag behind the wish to use collaboration tools. In this episode, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss the gap between tools and people in collaboration, the common challenges faced when implementing collaboration tools, especially ones used by lawyers, and their best recommendations for improving the adoption of collaboration tools and technologies in 2012. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennis’ co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.
statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer
Now that Judge Lippman Has Taken Charge
When New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman decided that it was time to assert his rule-making authority by instituting a 50 hour pro bono requirement of applicants to admission to practice, he opened a door. Jeffrey Kurzon has decided to go through that door.
Via Above the Law, Kurzon has sent Judge Lippman a letter asking that he use his authority as chief judge to make a difference.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Via Above the Law, Kurzon has sent Judge Lippman a letter asking that he use his authority as chief judge to make a difference.
In the past few years, there has been a wide public debate about the number of lawyers practicing law throughout the country. Our concern is not with the quality of education, but rather the quantity of lawyers being produced each year who graduate with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt at the expense of tax payers - and then have no way to pay such nonbankruptcy dischargeable debt back by practicing as lawyers.
While it is true that legal access for the poor is a concern, what is troubling is that recent law school graduates are graduating without jobs and with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. And so enticed by the dream of becoming a lawyer, what happens is that they become worse than poor; they become enslaved to a lifetime of debt.
Kurzon points to Thomas M. Cooley Law School as the poster boy of all that's gone wrong under the control of the American Bar Association.
And thus the question is asked: when is enough enough?
Would the American Medical Association permit half of its recent graduates to graduate with no job or no way to payoff their loans?
Essentially, there is a systemic failure in the legal academy and we write this letter to ask that the Court establish a special task force to review the authority it has delegated to the ABA and make specific recommendations and force their enactment on the ABA on how to improve the legal education system in our country.
Think of the tag line, "Think Globally. Act Locally." We've grown inured to the control of the ABA, their requirements for accreditation and their choice as to how many law schools should be out there, raking in tuition, providing homes for scholars, cranking out young men and women who expect to practice law, or at least have a secure financial future as a lawyer. Brian Tamanaha, in his book, Failing Law Schools, offered the backstory of how the ABA came into power over law schools. There was nothing magical about it.
That a problem exists isn't in dispute, at least not among anyone to be taken seriously and who doesn't have a huge paycheck in the race. But while there are well-meaning folks trying to find a global solution, we can't even get the stakeholders in the same room, no less engaged in any kind of meaningful discussion.
Some, like the lawprofs, are holding symposiums amongst themselves. Others, like practitioners, are too busy scratching for their own business to be bothered. And still others, like me, aren't welcome in the talks because we neither represent Biglaw nor the Legal Academy, and those are the only players who matter.
By sending this letter to Judge Lippman, Jeffrey Kurzon has taken a new direction that has a great deal of merit. If we can't come up with a global solution, and the ABA, an insular community of lawyers who are deeply concerned with their own importance as Leaders of the Bar and protectors of the status quo, won't deal with it during the timeframe of a life in being, then what's left for the tens of thousand (yes, tens of thousands) of new lawyers being cranked out of law school with nowhere to go?
Like Kurzon, I have no doubt that part of the solution lies in part with the closure of law schools. Despite the progressive dream that more lawyers means lower cost legal services and greater availability to the poor and working classes, the numbers do not crunch. They never had. They never will. It's a flawed dream, and no theoretical band-aids are going to change it.
Lawyers need to earn enough money to pay for law school, to cover their lost opportunity costs, and to feed their families. Lawyers, no matter how deeply they feel the responsibility of their position, still need to eat, put a roof over their heads and occasionally drive a car. They can't do this on the adoring appreciation of their clients alone. And most have no interest in trying.
So if the ABA refuses to fix the problem they created, and continue to perpetuate, the big fix will remain out of reach. Why, then, not shoot for the smaller fix?
As Judge Lippman has taken the lead with the pro bono requirement for admission to practice, so too can he take the lead in putting an end to the ABA's tyranny. He has the rule-making authority for admission, and is under no obligation to continue to recognize the ABA's acceditation of law schools as being anything more than one voluntary association's view of lawyer-life. They won't deal with the mess? Screw 'em. They aren't the center of the legal universe, even though they think they are and we've let them be.
Each year, more law students flip their tassels. Put aside their worthiness to be lawyers, as some will be great ones and others will suck, and we can't tell who is who yet. What we can tell is that many are walking away from law school to life as a slave to debt and a future of misery. We know this, and yet we allow it to happen. Judge Lippman doesn't have to let this happen in New York on his watch.
Jeffrey Kurzon is right, and if Judge Lippman forms a task force, I will volunteer to be on it. I only hope it reports back before another ten fifty thousand souls are buried in misery, but I will do my best to help Kurzon, and Judge Lippman, to see that doesn't happen.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/10/24/now-that-judge-lippman-has-taken-charge.aspx?ref=rss
free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer
Defending Big Data
On this October edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, chats with Mark Melodia, partner at Reed Smith and Antony Kim, a partner at Orrick, to discuss the Law Technology News October cover story, Defending Big Data.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2012/10/defending-big-data/
US sues Bank of America for $1 billion in mortgage fraud case
[JURIST] US Attorney Preet Bharara [official profile] on Wednesday filed a $1 billion civil lawsuit [complaint, PDF] against Bank of America (BOA) [corporate website; JURIST news archive] claiming the bank committed fraud in residential mortgages. The claim was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) [official website] and alleges [press release] that Countrywide Financial, a home mortgage originator subsequently purchased by BOA, initiated a program to originate residential mortgages with increased speed that...
employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney family law family lawyer
Castle Doctrine, Bronx Style
Texans are very possessive of their Castle, even if it means they have to shoot some teenage kid running away across a neighbor's lawn in the back. After all, if he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't be on someone else's property, they say. Not as easy for someone living in the Bronx, where you can't get home without crossing someone else's property.
For more than 20 years, the New York Police Department has maintained its "Clean Halls" program, a leftover of the crack days. Back then, drug dealers would take over the lobby of an apartment house to use as their "spot," or keep an apartment as a stash house. Bronx apartment houses were particularly well suited for drug dealing, as they had an outer door, a vestibule and an inner door leading to a lobby, with two staircases and a nonfunctional elevator. It offered great security for drug dealers, who were competing for control of their block, and easy means of escape. It was a blight that landlords couldn't stop, and make life for other tenants horrible.
So the NYPD came up with a plan. Landlords signed affidavits that allowed the police free reign inside their buildings, and waived the rights of all who entered "unlawfully" to be stopped, questioned and searched. There was a small sign placed outside the building, but the same sign was essentially on every building. There was no way to know who was entering unlawfully from who was there as a tenant or lawful guest without first stopping and demanding to know their business in the building.
The cops would lay in wait behind the inner door. When someone entered the vestibule, they would open the inner door and grab them. There was no escape for the visitor or tenant, who was then questioned, if they were lucky, or thrown against the wall if they were not. They were asked who they were there to see, but that's a tricky question in a borough where Spanish is more likely spoken than English, because the question often posed asked for a very different response according to how it was phrased. In Spanish, it calls for a description ("Who are you here to see? My friend"), while in English, it called for a name.
The person in custody was then searched for fun and, if there was a bit of marijuana or a gun, arrested. If nothing, but the person gave the cops a hard time, they were arrested for the trespass. It would resolve with an ACD at arraignment, or at worst a disorderly conduct with time served, but the person would learn his lesson not to screw with cops. And if the person resisted, an occasional shot rang out from a service revolver. And that was how they kept the natives under control.
More than twenty years later, it's still happening. While the arguable purpose of stopping the plague of crack has long been forgotten, it's programs have since become a part of life in the Bronx. Tenants in Bronx apartment houses can't get to their own Castle without crossing the no-man's-land between the vestibule door and their apartment door.
On the street, they have the limited protection of other people's eyes, maybe even someone's video. Inside their building, there is no one to see what happens. It's just them and two cops, and there is no way to reach their Castle without running this gauntlet.
It never made any sense to me that one party, the landlord, could waive another party's constitutional rights, and I argued this point many time to no avail. While the landlord could prohibit entry into his building for those without legitimate reason to be there, he could not authorize police to seize and search another human being. But crack times were bad times, and judges ignored my arguments. Granted, my clients weren't always the finest of people based on what came out of their pockets, so they didn't enjoy much sympathy.
The Bronx District Attorney has decided he's had enough busts of tenants and legitimate guests under the "Clean Halls" program, where the same routine allegations appear in every complaint. It's another version of Irving Younger's observations about "dropsy" cases, where it had become so common that no one bothered to question them. Recite the mantra of trespass and it was close enough. There a trial happening now in the Southern District of New York over the practice, and the New York Times editorial says it's time for it to stop.
Whenever someone proposes a new law to "stop the insanity" of a transitory plague, certain that whatever rights are lost in the name of a moment's safety, it's worth it, think of all those people who had to make it from the vestibule door to their apartment door without being rousted by the cops along the way. In Texas, they shoot people under their vision of the Castle Doctrine. In the Bronx version, they pray not to be shot.
Epilogue: It would be a shame to pass up an opportunity to quote Irving Younger.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
For more than 20 years, the New York Police Department has maintained its "Clean Halls" program, a leftover of the crack days. Back then, drug dealers would take over the lobby of an apartment house to use as their "spot," or keep an apartment as a stash house. Bronx apartment houses were particularly well suited for drug dealing, as they had an outer door, a vestibule and an inner door leading to a lobby, with two staircases and a nonfunctional elevator. It offered great security for drug dealers, who were competing for control of their block, and easy means of escape. It was a blight that landlords couldn't stop, and make life for other tenants horrible.
So the NYPD came up with a plan. Landlords signed affidavits that allowed the police free reign inside their buildings, and waived the rights of all who entered "unlawfully" to be stopped, questioned and searched. There was a small sign placed outside the building, but the same sign was essentially on every building. There was no way to know who was entering unlawfully from who was there as a tenant or lawful guest without first stopping and demanding to know their business in the building.
The cops would lay in wait behind the inner door. When someone entered the vestibule, they would open the inner door and grab them. There was no escape for the visitor or tenant, who was then questioned, if they were lucky, or thrown against the wall if they were not. They were asked who they were there to see, but that's a tricky question in a borough where Spanish is more likely spoken than English, because the question often posed asked for a very different response according to how it was phrased. In Spanish, it calls for a description ("Who are you here to see? My friend"), while in English, it called for a name.
The person in custody was then searched for fun and, if there was a bit of marijuana or a gun, arrested. If nothing, but the person gave the cops a hard time, they were arrested for the trespass. It would resolve with an ACD at arraignment, or at worst a disorderly conduct with time served, but the person would learn his lesson not to screw with cops. And if the person resisted, an occasional shot rang out from a service revolver. And that was how they kept the natives under control.
More than twenty years later, it's still happening. While the arguable purpose of stopping the plague of crack has long been forgotten, it's programs have since become a part of life in the Bronx. Tenants in Bronx apartment houses can't get to their own Castle without crossing the no-man's-land between the vestibule door and their apartment door.
On the street, they have the limited protection of other people's eyes, maybe even someone's video. Inside their building, there is no one to see what happens. It's just them and two cops, and there is no way to reach their Castle without running this gauntlet.
It never made any sense to me that one party, the landlord, could waive another party's constitutional rights, and I argued this point many time to no avail. While the landlord could prohibit entry into his building for those without legitimate reason to be there, he could not authorize police to seize and search another human being. But crack times were bad times, and judges ignored my arguments. Granted, my clients weren't always the finest of people based on what came out of their pockets, so they didn't enjoy much sympathy.
The Bronx District Attorney has decided he's had enough busts of tenants and legitimate guests under the "Clean Halls" program, where the same routine allegations appear in every complaint. It's another version of Irving Younger's observations about "dropsy" cases, where it had become so common that no one bothered to question them. Recite the mantra of trespass and it was close enough. There a trial happening now in the Southern District of New York over the practice, and the New York Times editorial says it's time for it to stop.
More than twenty years after the "Clean Halls" program commenced, there is a concern about its violating constitutional rights, at least as far as tenants and their legitimate guests are concerned. It's a start. Of course, no one is arguing about the programs waiver of rights in general, since no one really cares about the problem of general waivers of other people's constitutional rights. Maybe, twenty years from now, they will get to that problem.But a hearing under way in Federal District Court in Manhattan is featuring an open and fiery dispute between the Police Department and an assistant district attorney from the Bronx, who has testified that her office began to have misgivings about the legality of some trespassing arrests as far back as five years ago.
The federal lawsuit, Ligon v. City of New York, was brought on behalf of people who say they were illegally stopped, given tickets or arrested on trespassing charges in apartment buildings, some in buildings where they lived. The suit focuses on the city’s two-decade-old “Clean Halls” program, under which police officers patrol private buildings with the permission of landlords.
###The case could potentially go into next year. But the prosecutor’s testimony is strong evidence of the program’s problems and the Police Department’s failure to protect people’s constitutional rights.
Whenever someone proposes a new law to "stop the insanity" of a transitory plague, certain that whatever rights are lost in the name of a moment's safety, it's worth it, think of all those people who had to make it from the vestibule door to their apartment door without being rousted by the cops along the way. In Texas, they shoot people under their vision of the Castle Doctrine. In the Bronx version, they pray not to be shot.
Epilogue: It would be a shame to pass up an opportunity to quote Irving Younger.
People v. McMurty, 314 N.Y.S.2d 194, 195-96 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1970), (Younger, J.).‘* * * Policemen see themselves as fighting a twofront war
—against criminals in the street and against ‘liberal’ rules of law in court. All’s fair in this war, including the use of perjury to subvert ‘liberal’ rules of law that might free those who ‘ought’ to be jailed * * * It is a peculiarity of our legal system that the police have unique opportunities (and unique temptations) to give false testimony. When the Supreme Court lays down a rule to govern the conduct of the police, the rule does not enforce itself. Some further proceeding * * * is almost always necessary to determine what actually happened. In Mapp v. Ohio, for example, the Supreme Court laid down the rule that evidence obtained by the police through a n unreasonable search and seizure may not be used in a state criminal prosecution. But before applying the rule to any particular case, a hearing must be held to establish the facts. Then the judge decides whether those facts constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. * * * The difficulty arises when one stands back from the particular case and looks at a series of cases. It then becomes apparent that policemen are committing perjury at least in some of them, and perhaps in nearly all of them. Narcotics prosecutions in New York City can be so viewed.
Before Mapp, the policeman typically testified that he stopped the defendant for little or no reason, searched him, and found narcotics on his person. This had the ring of truth. It was an illegal search (not based upon ‘probable cause’), but the evidence was admissible because Mapp had not yet been decided. Since it made no difference, the policeman testified truthfully. After the decision in Mapp, it made a great deal of difference. For the first few months, New York policemen continued to tell the truth about the circumstances of their searches, with the result that evidence was suppressed. Then the police made the great discovery that if the defendant drops the narcotics on the ground, after which the policeman arrests him, the search is reasonable and the evidence is admissible. Spend a few hours in the New York City Criminal Court nowadays, and you will hear case after case in which a policeman testifies that the defendant dropped the narcotics on the ground, whereupon the policeman arrested him. Usually the very language of the testimony is identical from the case to another. This is now known among defense lawyers and prosecutors as ‘dropsy’ testimony. The judge has no reason to disbelieve it in any particular case, and of course the judge must decide each case on its own evidence, without regard to the testimony in other cases. Surely, though, not in every case was the defendant unlucky enough to drop his narcotics at the feet of a policeman. It follows that at least in some of these cases the police are lying.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. And yet we never heed George Santayana's admonition that those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And repeat it we do.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/10/24/castle-doctrine-bronx-style.aspx?ref=rss
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
Legal Talk Network Live at LegalTechNY 2012- Clio Introduces Document Automation
Jack Newton, CEO and Co-Founder of Clio, explains Clio's newest feature: Document Automation, allowing attorneys to quickly and easily create forms from the information already imported into their Clio database. Be sure to watch the interview , hosted by Legal Talk Network producer, Kate Kenney.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Gone Clio with Attorney Beate Weiss-Krull
Listen as Clio co-founder and CEO Jack Newton talks with special guest, Beate Weiss-Krull, a general practitioner based in Portland, Oregon. You’ll hear Jack and Beate talk about how #cloudcomputing helps her manage her US and German cases, her switch from PC to Mac, ScanSnap and other #paperless productivity tips.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/01/gone-clio-with-beate-weiss-krull/
Technology drives new client service dynamic
Electronic and computer technology enable lawyers to do more and better work in less time, but this creates a new service dynamic where clients continually demand to pay less for what they increasingly see as a commoditized service.
Law firms must meet client needs through greater technology efficiencies. Not only does this seem obvious, it is an element necessary to maintain competence as required by the rules of professional conduct.
More efficient law firms that reduce client legal costs should gain new business that enhances revenue. However, the ability to increase billings while becoming more efficient depends on changing the billing system to embrace alternative fee arrangements. With greater reliance on contingent, fixed, capped or value fees where time is not the relevant issue to determine the fee; service to the client is the key metric of value to the client, not billable hours.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/6KTT3bI9eVg/
statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer
The LinkedIn Lawyer
Are you on LinkedIn? Un-Billable Hour host Attorney Rodney Dowell, Executive Director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and Director of LCL’s Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program chats with Dennis Kennedy, lawyer and co-host of The Kennedy-Mighell Report and Allison Shields, author of Legal Ease Blog, about their recently published book, LinkedIn in One Hour for Lawyers. Dennis and Allison talk about how attorneys are using LinkedIn, and the key features that make LinkedIn a valuable networking and client development tool without consuming all of an attorney’s time.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2012/06/the-linkedin-lawyer/
colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law
Peter Vogel on Software Contracts
LTN Editor-in-Chief Monica Bay discusses with Peter Vogel, partner at Gardere Wynne Sewell, what companies can do when negotiating software agreements with vendors, such as protecting trade secrets and ensuring that the software performs according to its contract requirements. For more, read his LTN article, "Negotiating Software Contracts for Enterprise Resource Planning."
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer
Remote Working Options for Lawyers
The convergence of technology has created a “tipping point” for remote work options for attorneys. Law Technology Now, host and editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, Monica Bay analyzes the key advantages of remote work options, which is also June’s Law Technology News’ cover story, Unleashed, with Albert Barsocchini, senior director, strategic consulting at NightOwl Document Management Services and Marc Osborn, senior director, communications for LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2012/06/remote-working-options-for-lawyers/
download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer
Romney's Testimony In 1991 Trial Gives New Glimpse Of Work At Bain
Mitt Romney has touted his years running Bain Capital as a prime qualification for the presidency. Bain provided much of the money to get Staples started, but there's been a suit over how the company's stock was valuated before it successfully went public. Romney's testimony on the issue was unsealed Thursday.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
labor attorney lafayette attorney law law enforcement law firm
Dutch court rules Samsung did not infringe Apple patent
[JURIST] The Dutch Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage [official website, in Dutch] court ruled Wednesday that Samsung Electronics did not infringe on a software patent held by Apple [corporate websites]. Apple brought the suit alleging Samsung infringed on their patent [EP 2098498] concerning methods for user input and data manipulation through a "multi-touch" touch screen with their Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets running the Android operating system [official website]. The court undertook a detailed explanation of the property protected by Apple's patent...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/10/dutch-court-rules-samsung-did-not-infringe-apple-patent.php
international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney law
Intellectual Property Trademarks: A Special Report
The Internet spotlight can create a backlash against overaggressive trademark owners, even if they have legitimate claims. In this special report, we examine this trend as well as nontraditional trademarks, injunctions in trademark cases after eBay, plus ten hot issues in trademark law and how to handle them.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202575719292&rss=rss_nlj
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Biggest Mistakes by Lawyers in Business Development
On The Un-Billable Hour, host Attorney Rodney Dowell, joins Paramjit Mahli, a Development Coach/Consultant for lawyers at The Rainmakers Roundtable, to discuss some of the biggest mistakes lawyers make when it comes to business development and what kind of "skill set" lawyers need in order to be successful when it comes to business development.
immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer
Maximize Your Technology Investment
All too often, law departments underestimate the powerful impact that training can have on a software implementation project. In fact, as a key driver of user adoption, training can be the difference between a project’s ultimate success or failure. In this edition of Tech Experts, join Kevin Gaudet, Director of Instruction and Training Development at Datacert, as he guides you through best practices for planning and executing an effective training and knowledge transfer strategy that will drive user adoption of your new system and help maximize your return-on-investment.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2012/08/maximize-your-technology-investment/
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
New iPad, New Decisions
Apple just announced the newest version of the iPad, setting the Internet abuzz with anticipation and speculation. Is this next big thing? More importantly, must this be your next tech purchase? In this episode, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss the new iPad announcement and reactions, what the new iPad brings to the table, and whether lawyers should expect to see a new iPad in their possibly post-PC futures. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennis’ co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/03/new-ipad-new-decisions/
Calif. Death Penalty Opposition Focuses On Economy
Among the propositions on the ballot this November in California: a referendum that would end the death penalty. The effort to end capital punishment is being sold as an economic issue — not a moral issue.
Gone Clio with Attorney Andrew Kawel
Listen as Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Andrew Kawel, founder of Kawel PLLC. You'll hear Jack and Andy discuss switching to Mac to minimize time and frustration in doing certain non-billable and labor intensive tasks, Dropbox, Google Voice, Google Apps and the cloud.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/02/gone-clio-with-attorney-andrew-kawel/
statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)