colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law conservator
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Global Lawyer: Chevron by the Numbers: 60 Law Firms, 114 Gibson Dunn Lawyers, 117 Charges of Ghostwriting
Ecuadorean plaintiffs have filed a letter in New York federal court stating that Chevron is now using 60 law firms and more than 2,000 legal professionals to fend off the $19 billion environmental judgment obtained by plaintiffs in an Amazonian court in 2011. The Ecuadorean team told U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan that he would be presiding over a "show trial" unless he places limits on filings by Chevron.
Voting Rights Act Takes Harsh Criticism In Court
It was a big week at the Supreme Court. The court heard arguments on a case challenging the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Plus, the Obama administration filed an important brief in an upcoming gay marriage case. NPR's Nina Totenberg joins host Scott Simon for analysis.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/02/173303504/voting-rights-act-takes-harsh-criticism-in-court?ft=1&f=1070
IP Intensive Industries: Part One
Professor David L. Lange, Melvin Shimm Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, joins us for our latest Intellectual Property podcast. Learn more about Professor Lange at http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/lange.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/05/ip-intensive-industries-part-one/
immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney
Defense Attorneys Turning to Social Media
Lead counsel for accused murderer George Zimmerman calls social media an unavoidable component of high profile cases. So, should blogging, posting and tweeting become standard practices in defense strategies? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, debate the pros and cons, as well as the legal and ethical issues of social media with Dr. Amy Singer, founder of Trial Consultants Inc., and Attorney Scott Greenfield, Of Counsel at Hull McGuire, PC.
company law conservator copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer
Bahrain female activist sentenced to 3 months in jail
[JURIST] A court of appeals in Bahrain overturned the acquittal [BNA report] of Zainab al-Khawaja, who is accused of insulting a government employee, and sentenced her to three months of imprisonment on Friday, according to the Bahrain State New Agency (BNA). Al-Khawaja is the daughter of prominent Bahraini human rights activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], and has served previous jail terms [JURIST report] for tearing up a picture of Bahrain's king, destruction of government property and organizing...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/03/bahrain-female-activist-sentenced-to-3-months-in-jail.php
civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law
California Supreme Court Resolves Court of Appeal Split, Holding that Section 2010 of the California Corporations Code -- California's "Survival Statute" -- Does Not Apply to Foreign Corporations
In Greb v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 2013 WL 628328 (Cal. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Supreme Court unequivocally and unanimously laid to rest the assertion that dissolved foreign corporations may be sued in California after the time of the statute of limitations provided by the laws under which the foreign corporations were incorporated. In so holding, the California Supreme Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal for the First District’s dismissal of a personal injury claim against a dissolved Delaware corporation, holding that the claim was filed more than three years after dissolution of the corporation in violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 278 [blog article here]. In deciding that the California survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the Supreme Court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the interpretation of California Corporations Code Section 2010 (“Section 2010”), which governs the winding-up and survival of dissolved corporations.
In December 2008, plaintiffs Walter Greb (now deceased) and his wife Karen Greb filed a complaint for personal injuries and loss of consortium against defendant Diamond International Corporation (“Diamond”) and several other entities. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged injuries from exposure to asbestos. Although Diamond had been dissolved for many years, plaintiffs sought recovery from unexhausted liability insurance that covered defendant during the decades when it did business in California. Diamond demurred to plaintiffs’ complaint, alleging that more than three years earlier, in July 2005, it had obtained a corporate dissolution pursuant to the laws of Delaware, Diamond’s state of incorporation. Accordingly, Diamond argued, pursuant to Delaware’s three-year survival statute, when plaintiffs filed their complaint in December 2008 Diamond lacked the capacity to be sued. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that they were entitled to file a lawsuit in California under Section 2010, which permits lawsuits to be filed against a dissolved corporation irrespective of the date of dissolution, which they asserted took precedence over Delaware law in this setting.
The California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco held Section 2010 did not apply to foreign corporations, and hence that Delaware’s corresponding statute applied to Diamond. Accordingly, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed. It followed the interpretation of Section 2010 set out in dicta in two prior Court of Appeal decisions — North American Asbestos Corp. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App. 3d 138 (1982) (“North American I”), and Riley v. Fitzgerald, 178 Cal. App. 3d 871 (1986) — and disagreed with the holding concerning the statute set out in a third Court of Appeal decision, North American Asbestos Corp. v. Superior Court, 180 Cal. App. 3d 902 (1986) (“North American II”). The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict.
Section 2010 provides:
A corporation which is dissolved nevertheless continues to exist for the purpose of winding up its affairs, prosecuting and defending actions by or against it and enabling it to collect and discharge obligations, dispose of and convey its property and collect and divide its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing business except so far as necessary for the winding up thereof.
The parties in Greb agreed that if Section 2010 did not apply to a dissolved foreign corporation, Diamond’s capacity to be sued would be governed solely by Delaware’s corresponding survival statute (8 Del. Code § 278), which would bar plaintiffs’ claims against Diamond. If, on the other hand, Section 2010 applied to a dissolved foreign corporation, a court would then be required to perform a choice-of-law analysis in order to determine which state’s law should apply and govern Diamond’s capacity to be sued.
The Supreme Court analyzed the conflict in the appellate decisions to determine whether Section 2010 applied to dissolved foreign corporations. The Supreme Court noted that the courts in both North American I and Riley reasoned that statutory provisions and history lead to the conclusion that Section 2010 does not apply to suits against dissolved foreign corporations. The court in North American II, however, reached a different conclusion. The majority in North American II held that “some of the history behind [Section 2010] and related provisions of corporation law” led to the conclusion “that section 2010 should not be so read under the circumstances of the case at bench, but should be read to protect the interests of California.” The majority in North American II also believed that the Legislature intended all of the various sections within the applicable code section to apply generally to both domestic and foreign business corporations.
The Supreme Court agreed with North American I and Riley, and disagreed with North American II. As the Supreme Court observed, the majority in North American II did not address Riley, which had been decided less than two months earlier. The Supreme Court also noted that the leading treatises and the majority of out-of-state decisions during the era when the code sections were enacted had held that a state’s survival statute typically does not apply to foreign corporations. “[I]n light of the national scope of the comprehensive review that preceded the legislation,” the Supreme Court reasoned, “if our Legislature had contemplated such a dramatic change from the majority approach, we would expect it to have been clear in doing so.” Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 2010 did not apply to foreign corporations, and disapproved of North American II to the extent it held otherwise. Having reached that decision, the Supreme Court did not perform a choice-of-law comparative-impairment analysis in order to determine which state’s law should apply.
In deciding that the survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the matter. The Supreme Court noted, “[t]he policy question concerning whether the provisions of California’s survival statute should apply to foreign as well as domestic corporations is properly a matter to be determined by the Legislature, not this court.” It remains to be seen whether the Legislature will enact legislation that might undo Greb.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Taraneh Fard at (213) 617-5492.
Litigation Boutiques Hot List
They may be small, but they command attention. The 10 law firms on our Litigation Boutiques Hot List, each fielding no more than 50 lawyers, demonstrate that when it comes to high-stakes cases it's all about skill, not size.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202587425322&rss=rss_nlj
Education Advocacy Clinic at Suffolk University Law School
Isabel Raskin, who runs the Education Advocacy Clinic at Suffolk University Law School, discusses her goals for the clinic, as well as what students enrolled in the clinic experience. Learn more about Ms. Raskin at http://bit.ly/AAPxJa.
business law business lawyer civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer
Monday, March 4, 2013
Language is Everything
You want to be sure not to break anything!
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/ay7qKuQiFOI/
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
Lawyers' Duty to Know Technology?
Many lawyers say they are "good lawyers," while knowing very little about legal technology. So does that statement really compute in this technology driven world? Recent discussions about possible changes to ethical rules include requirements that lawyers stay up-to-date on technology. Explore the intersection of technology, law practice and ethical rules, along with the implications for lawyers with Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell on this Kennedy-Mighell Report.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/05/lawyers-duty-to-know-technology/
free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice
Maybe She Thinks It's A Part-Time Job?
Shoot, $140,000 per year in Detroit will go a long way. You would think someone with a job like that - which also includes 9 weeks off! - would take it seriously. In this case, it appears that you would be wrong. As reported by myfoxdetroit.com:
Detroit district court judges have it pretty good. They work seven hours a day and get an hour for lunch... So why does 36th District Court Judge Cylenthia Miller need to show up late so often or not show up at all?That there's a serious accusation. Can you back it up? Well ...
It's 11:00 a.m. A video shows people have jammed the courtroom, but the judge isn't there, and the lawyers are still getting $300 an hour. This wasn't just a one off. We got a hold of the judge's attendance record. She's a truant. If this were high school, she'd never graduate.Maybe she's just going through a rough patch?
In 2009 she missed an extra 53 days or nearly three months of work.
In 2010 she missed an extra month and a half. It's the same with 2011 and 2012.Okay, maybe not. But back to the present:
So we put the peep on the judge over the last few weeks. On February 8, a Friday, she called in sick saying she injured herself when her sister's dog pulled her in a ditch. On February 1[1], the following Monday, we couldn't find her. The next day she didn't show grieving over a loved one.Yikes!
When the judge did show up, she was always late, took long lunches or left early. Pretty serious stuff for a judge who handles everything from murder to misdemeanors.
She showed up and hour and a half late on Wednesday. On Thursday, she showed up two hours late. After a rigorous hour and fifteen minutes on the bench, she cut out for lunch. A long lunch. A two hour and 15 minute lunch.
It was no better the next day, Friday, February 15. She was nearly two hours late again, and she left at 2:30 in the afternoon. Where could she be going? The law library? The prosecutor's office? Nope. She went shopping at Kroger in Grosse Pointe...
She was late again on Monday morning. We [the news crew] couldn't take it anymore.
"Court's been in session for an hour and a half and you're still [outside]," I said to her. "Been coming every day for three weeks, you've never been on time."
She said nothing.Shocker. Time to go up the chain.
"It's embarrassing to us as a court, and it's embarrassing to me as the court's chief judge that I'm having this discussion with you," said Judge Kenneth King. "I'm telling you that this matter will be dealt with."And?
Judge Miller met with the chief judge on Monday. She promised to "do better in the future"."Better"? The Juice is guessing the folks at WJBK will be monitoring the situation. Here's the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/iLyf7nA6mjM/post_608.html
injury lawyer injury lawyers international law international law schools internet lawyer
Judge dismisses 3 of 5 counts in Brodkorb lawsuit
Associated Press
The federal lawsuit of a former Minnesota Senate aide who alleges he was fired because of his gender was narrowed Wednesday when a federal judge granted the state’s request to dismiss three counts, including defamation allegations. Michael Brodkorb’s discrimination claims — one alleging a violation of state law and one a violation of federal law — remain.
Brodkorb was fired in 2011 after Senate leaders discovered he was having an affair with then-Majority Leader Amy Koch. Brodkorb sued the state of Minnesota, the Senate, and then-Senate Secretary Cal Ludeman, claiming he was unfairly treated because female Senate staffers who carried on affairs were not punished.
Senate officials have said Brodkorb’s termination was proper because he was an “at-will” employee.
Brodkorb sued last summer on 10 counts. Several invasion-of-privacy claims were dropped months ago, leaving just five counts relating to defamation and gender discrimination. The state had asked that three of those counts be dismissed.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted that request, dismissing two defamation claims and a third constitutional rights claim. The civil rights claim was dismissed on its merits and on procedural grounds, with Nelson saying Brodkorb’s attorneys failed to assert a plausible claim for relief.
When it comes to the defamation claims: Brodkorb said Ludeman defamed him by publicly discussing the case and suggesting Brodkorb was trying to “blackmail” the state and “extort” money. Nelson dismissed those allegations, saying that while the words “blackmail” and “extort” were intemperate choices, they were made “in context of heated, back and forth negotiations between the parties.”
She said a reasonable person would not interpret that Ludeman was accusing Brodkorb of committing the crimes of blackmail or extortion.
Nelson went on to say that Ludeman’s statements were made in response to Brodkorb’s demand for a settlement and a threat to expose other relationships among staffers at the Capitol.
“The larger contextual backdrop for these statements was the political arena, where speakers — even those from the same political party, as here — often engage in provocative or inflammatory speech,” Nelson wrote.
The defense had also asked to dismiss the state of Minnesota from the lawsuit, as well as any reference to unnamed “employees” of the Senate. Nelson granted those requests, saying that including the state as a defendant was redundant, and no there were no allegations that Senate employees engaged in any conduct that could prompt a civil claim.
Dayle Nolan, the Senate’s attorney, said Ludeman is also no longer a party to the case, because the claims naming him have been dismissed. Nolan said the Senate is the only remaining defendant.
Nolan said the Senate will request that the remaining two counts, the gender discrimination counts, will also be dismissed through summary judgment.
“The Senate remains steadfast in its position that there was no gender discrimination,” Nolan said.
An attorney for Brodkorb did not return messages seeking comment.
Senate leaders from both parties welcomed the news.
“We’ve said all along these claims are without merit and the Senate has acted lawfully,” said Senate Republican Leader David Hann. “We believe the courts will find the remaining claims to also be without merit.”
Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk said: “We will now take time to review the implications of this decision as we determine how the Senate will proceed and ultimately resolve this litigation. Our hope is to bring the remainder of the lawsuit to a prompt and satisfactory conclusion.”
The Senate has spent more than $200,000 on legal bills to defend itself in this case.
__
Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2013/02/14/judge-dismisses-3-of-5-counts-in-brodkorb-lawsuit/
corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense
Execute a Long-Term Technology Strategy
For today’s corporate law departments faced with the challenge of doing more with less, a legal matter and spend management system is almost an imperative. In this edition of Tech Experts, Mandy Purington, a Managing Director in Datacert’s professional services group, shares best practices and practical tips for keeping your department’s legal matter and spend management system implementation project on-time and on-budget, while also ensuring that it supports your department’s long-term technology strategy.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2012/09/execute-a-long-term-technology-strategy/
The Only Constant is Change: FRCP Amendment Updates and Departures from the Zubulake Gold Standard
The ESI Report’s Michele Lange, Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership at Kroll Ontrack joins Henry Kelston, Senior Counsel at the law firm of Milberg LLP, to discuss the current work of the Sedona Conference on ediscovery and its significant impact of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Kroll Ontrack legal correspondent, Alicia J. Smith, examines the recent departures in case law from the notable Zubulake standard.
lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal
International Law Opportunities at Suffolk University Law School
Professor Christopher Gibson, Associate Dean, & Ian Menchini, Director of Electronic Marketing and Enrollment Management discuss the many opportunities available through Suffolk Law's International Law program. Learn more at http://bit.ly/I95LF3.
Because It's Only "Unreasonable" Searches and Seizures
While not the only amendment in the bill of rights of importance to criminal defendants, it's certainly the one the generates the most litigation by a mile. The Fourth.
One word is at the root of so many questions, issues and problems: Unreasonable. Much as we pretend to be reasonable people all, the harsh reality is that no one has as yet found that "reasonable man" the law speaks of so respectfully. Instead, we are left with judges who substitute their notion of reasonable for ours.
This would be more understandable if judges all agreed with each other, but they don't, meaning that lower judges who are reversed are unreasonable, while even our top shelf jurists, the Supremes, frequently find themselves to be part of the unreasonable minority, though it's never entirely clear who will be the unreasonable goat in any particular decision.
Therein lies the problem with the word "unreasonable." Whoever gets it wrong, meaning fails to end up on the winning side of a ruling, is unreasonable. If in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, we come to learn that four members of our highest court are "unreasonable," shouldn't they immediately be replaced with reasonable judges and sent away to an isolated island for unreasonable people?
At A Public Defender, Gideon notes that John Wesley Hall, the chronicler of all things 4th Amendment for the defense side of the room, has given us a gift.
This isn't a post for non-lawyers, looking for the latest outrage or a reason to spit fire. Rather, it's a somewhat jaded effort to splash water on the faces of new lawyers who haven't yet argued their 500th suppression motion, again expressing a near perfect opportunity for the court to punish the cops for ignoring the warrant clause because of their inexcusable conduct, only to hear the judge enunciate, in a clear, calm and cool voice, that the motion is "denied," thereafter mumbling the word "reasonable."
Hall's exasperation shows itself in his lucky 13th "reality" of 4th Amendment law:
© 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.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
One word is at the root of so many questions, issues and problems: Unreasonable. Much as we pretend to be reasonable people all, the harsh reality is that no one has as yet found that "reasonable man" the law speaks of so respectfully. Instead, we are left with judges who substitute their notion of reasonable for ours.
This would be more understandable if judges all agreed with each other, but they don't, meaning that lower judges who are reversed are unreasonable, while even our top shelf jurists, the Supremes, frequently find themselves to be part of the unreasonable minority, though it's never entirely clear who will be the unreasonable goat in any particular decision.
Therein lies the problem with the word "unreasonable." Whoever gets it wrong, meaning fails to end up on the winning side of a ruling, is unreasonable. If in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, we come to learn that four members of our highest court are "unreasonable," shouldn't they immediately be replaced with reasonable judges and sent away to an isolated island for unreasonable people?
At A Public Defender, Gideon notes that John Wesley Hall, the chronicler of all things 4th Amendment for the defense side of the room, has given us a gift.
In what is quite possibly the most (only?) useful post ever written in the legal blogosphere, John Wesley Hall, author of a massive treatise of 4th Amendment Law, gives us a preview of the next edition with 13 “realities” of the 4th Amendment obvious to him after reading a shit-ton (that’s a legal term) of cases. Don’t be fooled. This is essentially a primer for 4th Amendment law. He’s giving away the outline here.
This isn't a post for non-lawyers, looking for the latest outrage or a reason to spit fire. Rather, it's a somewhat jaded effort to splash water on the faces of new lawyers who haven't yet argued their 500th suppression motion, again expressing a near perfect opportunity for the court to punish the cops for ignoring the warrant clause because of their inexcusable conduct, only to hear the judge enunciate, in a clear, calm and cool voice, that the motion is "denied," thereafter mumbling the word "reasonable."
Hall's exasperation shows itself in his lucky 13th "reality" of 4th Amendment law:
13. If you find you don’t completely understand the Fourth Amendment, you’re not alone because hardly anybody does any more. To me, much of the Fourth Amendment has turned into a Rorschach test that means different things to different people, all depending on how they want it to come out. How did just 54 words generate untolled [sic] millions of words in cases, treatises, and law review articles? The U.S. Supreme Court alone has decided about 250 Fourth Amendment cases.
It isn't accidental that Hall suggests that doctrine takes a back seat to outcome. If there is one factor that is most significant in determining the outcome of a suppression motion, it's the inclination of the judge. It's not the facts. It's not the law. It's the willingness of the judge to do the dirty deed of telling the prosecution that they can't use the great evidence that nails the coffin shut on the guilty defendant. The criminal goes free because the constable stumbles.
A great many thoughtful people will find this astounding, contrary to the beloved platitude that we are nation of laws, not men. But words can wiggle, and no word wiggles better than "unreasonable." With minimal effort, there is always an argument to be made that the great value of public safety trumps the minor intrusion on individual rights.
The black letter law is that a warrantless search is per se unreasonable. This line will appear in almost every decision involving the 4th Amendment. The rest of the decision will explain why it doesn't apply. When it comes to search and seizure, the exceptions to the doctrine have completely overwhelmed the rule.
For a judge to come out on the wrong side of the equation is to risk personal ruination. Consider Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer's 1996 ruling in Bayless.
After his decision was issued in late January, Judge Baer was widely criticized by public officials, including Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, as well as by radio talk show hosts and others, who said it was an example of a judiciary that cared more for the rights of criminals than for the rights of the public.
Much of the criticism focused on a comment he made about four men who the police said had dropped two duffel bags stuffed with $4 million worth of drugs in Ms. Bayless's trunk on April 21, 1995. The judge said he considered it reasonable and not suspicious for the men to flee when they saw police officers in Washington Heights, a neighborhood that he said was beset by police brutality and corruption.
"Had the men not run when the cops began to stare at them, it would have been unusual," he wrote, adding that the act of fleeing was not enough to justify police officers' pulling over the woman's car.
Calls for his impeachment came from all quarters, including the Clinton White House. Miraculously, the judge decided to revisit his ruling "in the interest of justice," and reversed himself, thus staving off his impending trial in the Senate. And that's how Judge Baer saved his future as a Supreme Court Justice. Or a Second Circuit Judge. Or still a district court judge with no future potential of ever being named to a higher bench.
Still, the occasional unlawful search and seizure will result in suppression. It happens. And it's those rare cases, those rare judges, who inexplicably yet boldly decide to honor the Constitution and rule in favor of the defendant despite all incentives to do otherwise, that make this area of criminal law so confounding.
© 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.
bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Taking Control of Your Mobile Apps
There’s an app for everything. As we all discover how effectively we can use apps to connect with social media, as our work task managers, to find user-friendly news, and much more, they begin to accumulate on our smartphones and devices. Our hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell share tips on how to organize those apps to be the most efficient, aesthetically pleasing, and space conserving - making room for more apps. We will also learn how to sync all of their devices so that we always have access to our apps. The second portion of the show will discuss the pros and cons of having an iPad, an iPad Mini, or how to utilize both. And stay tuned until the end to hear each host’s tech tip, one will surely save you some time on your computer.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/02/control-your-mobile-apps/
Starting Your Own Bankruptcy Practice
Did you ever think of starting your own bankruptcy practice? New Solo host and solo practitioner, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher chats with Attorney Christina M. Turgeon, about some of the pros and cons of opening a bankruptcy practice, professional organizations a new lawyer should join when starting a bankruptcy law practice and important resources that would assist a new bankruptcy law practitioner.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/new-solo/2012/10/starting-your-own-bankruptcy-practice/
employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney family law
But What About Clients?
My old buddy, co-author, of-counsel, fellow blawger at What About Clients? and muse, Dan Hull, is hanging up his disco shoes.
© 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.
Labor of Love Ended. We'll soon do a parting post about our 7.5 years. We can't tell you how much the blog and our readership meant to us. It permitted us the honor to meet in the flesh--here and abroad--some vibrant and inspirational people, and to trade ideas about getting life and work right. Je vous remercie de tout cœur.
Erudite and urbane, intolerant of the stupid, the lazy, the cowardly, and occasionally wild, the blawgsophere will be much poorer for his absence. Having coined the phrase "slackoisie," and drilled into our minds "ease of use" as a mantra for dealing with clients, Dan has done his job well.
Will there ever be another blawger to remind us so well of "sensitive litigation moments," or that the only reason lawyers exist is to serve our clients? Maybe, but not as well or as boldly as Dan Hull.
And What About Paris?
© 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/2013/03/01/but-what-about-clients.aspx?ref=rss
best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney colleges for lawyers
Paralegal Career 101: Dealing with Work-Related Stress
On this September edition of The Paralegal Voice, co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin explore the different kinds of work-related stressors many paralegals face on a day-to-day basis. They talk about the realities associated with an exciting but deadline-driven, detail-oriented paralegal job, and offer tips for both anticipating and resolving common stressors.
colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law
Predictive Coding: A Rose by Any Other Name
One of e-discovery’s hottest topics today is predictive coding. So what exactly "is" predictive coding? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome guest Dan Gallivan, one of the founders and Chief Technology Officer for Gallivan Gallivan & O’Melia , to discuss technology-assisted review, also known as predictive coding. Dan shares his thoughts on this new technology replacing keyword search, common areas of misunderstanding and Judge Peck’s role as a flag bearer for predictive coding.
The Speech and Press Clauses, Revisited
David L. Lange, Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, discusses the First Amendment's speech and press clauses. Read more about Professor Lange at http://bit.ly/rw3ueY.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/02/the-speech-and-press-clauses-revisited/
find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation
Gone Clio with Paul "Woody" Scott
Listen as Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Attorney Paul "Woody" Scott, founder of The Scott Law Firm, based in Louisiana. Jack and Woody talk about Dropbox and its integration with Clio, disaster recovery and how digital and the cloud can save on overhead in your firm.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/04/gone-clio-with-paul-woody-scott/
attorney fees attorney finder attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys
TAR Update: Precision, Recall, F-measure & Kleen Products Revisited
The ESI Report’s Michele Lange, Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership at Kroll Ontrack joins Ralph Losey, Partner at Jackson Lewis, as they take an in-depth look at how lawyers and experts are leveraging information science in arguments regarding the effectiveness of Technology Assisted Review, keyword search and everything in-between. In addition, on the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent, Elliot Westman revisits Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of America.
The Best Paralegal Law Technology Trends
Paralegals need to know the latest trends in law practice and productivity technology to contribute to a successful law practice. For the hottest tech trends, Paralegal Voice co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin turn to Jared D. Correia, Esq., the Senior Practice Advisor for Massachusetts’ Law Office Management Assistance Program (MASSLOMAP). Jared shares his thoughts on everything from law practice management software, to cloud-based solutions and document management, to remote access and the benefits of social media. A big fan of legal support staffers, he explains why they are a key part of the legal team. This podcast is a must-listen for both paralegals and attorneys!
free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Wait, So You Didn't Want The Deluxe Exorcism Package?
The gent says he just wanted to talk with the preacher. Well sir, it is alleged that a little more than that happened one day back in February 2012, as reported by knoxnews.com:
Andrew Byrd filed a lawsuit Feb. 15 in Sevier County against the Rev. Joel Arwood, his wife Theresa Arwood and deacon Charles Shields, all of Sevierville, as well as the Family Chapel Church of God and the Church of God International.So what happened?
According to the lawsuit, Shields and the Arwoods asked Byrd on Feb. 21, 2012, to attend a meeting at Family Chapel Church of God, 1038 Charlotte’s Court in Pigeon Forge. During the meeting, Theresa Arwood said Byrd had a “demon or spirit that needed to be cast out,” according to the lawsuit.
“Thereafter, Joel Arwood and Charles Shields physically assaulted (Byrd) , while being encouraged by the shouts of Theresa Arwood,” Byrd states in the lawsuit.
According to a Sevier County Sheriff’s Office report, Byrd suffered a broken tooth, bruising and lacerations to the face, and pain and lasting injury to his back and leg.Yikes.
Byrd alleges the pastor later bragged to the congregation that he had “punched the devil and knocked the devil’s tooth out.”
Byrd alleges in the lawsuit that Joel Arwood then “published” allegations accusing Byrd of murdering three people in Sevier County, including a 16-year-old girl, and having a contract to kill two more people, knowing that the statements were false.Should be one helluva trial. Here's the source.
The Juice is a personal injury lawyer practicing in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Northern Virginia. He handles a lot of bicycle and car accidents (no exorcisms yet).
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/wonKpY0hIcE/post_604.html
divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney
Obama administration urges Supreme Court to strike down same-sex marriage ban
[JURIST] The Obama administration urged [brief, PDF] the US Supreme Court [official website] Thursday to strike down California's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry [docket; cert. petition, PDF]. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, arguing that California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8 [text, PDF, JURIST news archive], violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court will...
attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer
California Supreme Court Resolves Court of Appeal Split, Holding that Section 2010 of the California Corporations Code -- California's "Survival Statute" -- Does Not Apply to Foreign Corporations
In Greb v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 2013 WL 628328 (Cal. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Supreme Court unequivocally and unanimously laid to rest the assertion that dissolved foreign corporations may be sued in California after the time of the statute of limitations provided by the laws under which the foreign corporations were incorporated. In so holding, the California Supreme Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal for the First District’s dismissal of a personal injury claim against a dissolved Delaware corporation, holding that the claim was filed more than three years after dissolution of the corporation in violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 278 [blog article here]. In deciding that the California survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the Supreme Court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the interpretation of California Corporations Code Section 2010 (“Section 2010”), which governs the winding-up and survival of dissolved corporations.
In December 2008, plaintiffs Walter Greb (now deceased) and his wife Karen Greb filed a complaint for personal injuries and loss of consortium against defendant Diamond International Corporation (“Diamond”) and several other entities. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged injuries from exposure to asbestos. Although Diamond had been dissolved for many years, plaintiffs sought recovery from unexhausted liability insurance that covered defendant during the decades when it did business in California. Diamond demurred to plaintiffs’ complaint, alleging that more than three years earlier, in July 2005, it had obtained a corporate dissolution pursuant to the laws of Delaware, Diamond’s state of incorporation. Accordingly, Diamond argued, pursuant to Delaware’s three-year survival statute, when plaintiffs filed their complaint in December 2008 Diamond lacked the capacity to be sued. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that they were entitled to file a lawsuit in California under Section 2010, which permits lawsuits to be filed against a dissolved corporation irrespective of the date of dissolution, which they asserted took precedence over Delaware law in this setting.
The California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco held Section 2010 did not apply to foreign corporations, and hence that Delaware’s corresponding statute applied to Diamond. Accordingly, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed. It followed the interpretation of Section 2010 set out in dicta in two prior Court of Appeal decisions — North American Asbestos Corp. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App. 3d 138 (1982) (“North American I”), and Riley v. Fitzgerald, 178 Cal. App. 3d 871 (1986) — and disagreed with the holding concerning the statute set out in a third Court of Appeal decision, North American Asbestos Corp. v. Superior Court, 180 Cal. App. 3d 902 (1986) (“North American II”). The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict.
Section 2010 provides:
A corporation which is dissolved nevertheless continues to exist for the purpose of winding up its affairs, prosecuting and defending actions by or against it and enabling it to collect and discharge obligations, dispose of and convey its property and collect and divide its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing business except so far as necessary for the winding up thereof.
The parties in Greb agreed that if Section 2010 did not apply to a dissolved foreign corporation, Diamond’s capacity to be sued would be governed solely by Delaware’s corresponding survival statute (8 Del. Code § 278), which would bar plaintiffs’ claims against Diamond. If, on the other hand, Section 2010 applied to a dissolved foreign corporation, a court would then be required to perform a choice-of-law analysis in order to determine which state’s law should apply and govern Diamond’s capacity to be sued.
The Supreme Court analyzed the conflict in the appellate decisions to determine whether Section 2010 applied to dissolved foreign corporations. The Supreme Court noted that the courts in both North American I and Riley reasoned that statutory provisions and history lead to the conclusion that Section 2010 does not apply to suits against dissolved foreign corporations. The court in North American II, however, reached a different conclusion. The majority in North American II held that “some of the history behind [Section 2010] and related provisions of corporation law” led to the conclusion “that section 2010 should not be so read under the circumstances of the case at bench, but should be read to protect the interests of California.” The majority in North American II also believed that the Legislature intended all of the various sections within the applicable code section to apply generally to both domestic and foreign business corporations.
The Supreme Court agreed with North American I and Riley, and disagreed with North American II. As the Supreme Court observed, the majority in North American II did not address Riley, which had been decided less than two months earlier. The Supreme Court also noted that the leading treatises and the majority of out-of-state decisions during the era when the code sections were enacted had held that a state’s survival statute typically does not apply to foreign corporations. “[I]n light of the national scope of the comprehensive review that preceded the legislation,” the Supreme Court reasoned, “if our Legislature had contemplated such a dramatic change from the majority approach, we would expect it to have been clear in doing so.” Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 2010 did not apply to foreign corporations, and disapproved of North American II to the extent it held otherwise. Having reached that decision, the Supreme Court did not perform a choice-of-law comparative-impairment analysis in order to determine which state’s law should apply.
In deciding that the survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the matter. The Supreme Court noted, “[t]he policy question concerning whether the provisions of California’s survival statute should apply to foreign as well as domestic corporations is properly a matter to be determined by the Legislature, not this court.” It remains to be seen whether the Legislature will enact legislation that might undo Greb.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Taraneh Fard at (213) 617-5492.
The iPad Practice
Do you use an iPad in your legal practice? On The Un-Billable Hour, host Attorney Rodney Dowell, chats with Tom Mighell, the author of three books about the use of iPads, iPad in One Hour For Lawyers, iPad Apps in One Hour For Lawyers, and soon to be released, iPad in One Hour for Litigators, about the explosive growth of the use of iPads in the legal profession, and Tom’s favorite productivity and entertainment apps for the legal iPad.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2012/08/the-ipad-practice/
attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder attorney law attorney lawyer
Mapping The Effects Of The Sequester On Science
On Friday March 1, automatic cuts known as the 'sequester' go into effect across the federal budget. Michael Lubell of the American Physical Society discusses what scientific programs will likely be affected, in fields from medical research to renewable energy development.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/01/173242988/mapping-the-effects-of-the-sequester-on-science?ft=1&f=1070
getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law
The Controversial War on Drugs
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" claiming "America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse". Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-controversial-war-on-drugs/
legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
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/
Yeah, You Know You've Thought About It
Admit it. You've thought about it. Some jackass steals your parking spot. You want blood (or at least some bruising). But you don't do anything because ... it's a parking spot. Well, one of both of these gents felt otherwise, per timesonline.com (Beaver, PA):
[Franklin] Township police said officers were initially called around 6:40 p.m. Monday to the Giant Eagle parking lot for a report of a pedestrian being struck by a car, but then learned the incident was actually a man who had been assaulted.
Police said two men got into an argument over a parking spot, and one man assaulted the other. The man who was assaulted went to Ellwood City Hospital to be evaluated, but police said they did not believe he suffered any serious injuries.
Police did not release the names of anyone involved. No charges had been filed as of Tuesday night.No arrest? Perhaps the injured party was the aggressor? Here's the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/5IcPEpy4uAg/post_609.html
download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer
Cost-Effective Law Practice Management
As law firms slowly climb out of this recession, have their legal practice management skills changed? Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney J. Craig Williams welcomes Rudy Bazelmans, Regional Director of Expense Reduction Analysts and Jim Calloway, Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association's Management Assistance Program, to explain the current state of the legal industry, new law practice management skills, what attorneys have done to cut costs and how to keep costs down in the future.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/03/cost-effective-law-practice-management/
lawyer lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm
Friday, March 1, 2013
Supreme Court Makes It Harder To Challenge Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
The court blocked a suit contending the law is unconstitutional from going forward, saying the challengers had no legal standing because they had not shown with sufficient certainty that they had been monitored. That decision all but ensures there will be no further challenge to the law.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors
Inside BU Law’s Housing, Employment, Family and Disability Clinic
Law students who participate in the Civil Litigation Program's Housing, Employment, Family and Disability Clinic work for credit under the supervision of four full-time BU clinical faculty. They can represent anyone from tenants in eviction defenses in housing court, to parties in divorces in probate court. Host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, sits down with Professor Robert G. Burdick, director of the Civil Law Clinical Program, to talk about how the clinic works, and the real life training that students gain by participating in this clinic.
Inside the Trayvon Martin Tragedy
The shooting death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Florida has sparked outrage across the country. On February 26, 2012, Trayvon died from a single gunshot to the chest. Police say neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, fired that shot. Zimmerman is using Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" Law to justify the killing. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, welcome Professor Michelle Jacobs, from the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and Professor Kenneth Novak, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, to explore the legal issues surrounding the "Stand Your Ground" law, neighborhood watches, and the possibility of racial profiling.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/03/inside-the-trayvon-martin-tragedy/
civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law
Securing Electronic Law Firm Data for Big and Small Firms
Law firms are increasingly being targeted by hackers seeking to access confidential business and personal information. On The 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 welcomes Digital Detectives co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, to discuss a variety of issues including: computer security, why attorneys are targeted and malpractice and ethics risks related to having inadequate security.
labor attorney lafayette attorney law law enforcement law firm
LawBiz® Legal Pad: 8 Action Steps To Stay Afloat
Ed discusses 8 steps that law practitioners can take to survive a recession.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/38KSFxhW1uM/
Only As Brilliant As You
In a recent post revisiting the Aaron Swartz case, Orin Kerr noted (I think with some humor) a quote of his, in a remarkably ill-conceived post by my favorite Slate legal pundit, on the 9th Circuit's Nosal en banc opinion being "superb and extremely insightful." The "inside joke" of the quote is that all ideas are "superb and extremely insightful" if we agree with them.
This brings me to a post by Orin that every thinking person needs to read, subtly entitled Brilliant People Agree With Me.
One of the great blessings and curses of the blawgosphere (and the internet as a whole) is that if you search hard enough, you will find someone who agrees with you, no matter what your opinion might be. You feel vindicated. You're not alone. There is a tribe behind you and no longer must you dwell in isolation, but you are embraced in the bosom of people who get it. Just like you do.
As Orin's posts were both one paragraph long, and I've quoted them in their entirety and fully anticipate his wrath at my brazen theft of his foundational points, resulting in his demand that I cease and desist, this post may not survive for very long. But what he has to say is critically important to critical thinking. Having been reminded of their existence, it seemed a good idea to offer it here as well.
These posts are something that everyone who reads Simple Justice ought to read. Take them to heart.
© 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.
This brings me to a post by Orin that every thinking person needs to read, subtly entitled Brilliant People Agree With Me.
Orin followed this up with a flip side, not-so-subtly entitled People Who Disagree With Me Are Just Arguing In Bad Faith:One of the consequences of confirmation bias is that we are overly impressed by ideas that we happen to share. It’s a natural instinct, if not watched carefully. If you read something that reflects or resonates with your own views, you’ll agree with it. Upon agreeing with it, you’ll think it is highly persuasive. And if it’s highly persuasive, it’s probably brilliant. You see this often in the blogosphere when bloggers link to someone’s “superb” and “extremely insightful” post. You click on the link, and you’re underwhelmed by the post. But you realize it is strikingly similar to what the original linker thinks about the topic. It’s possible to take our blinders off, or, more realistically, to minimize them. But it often requires some work, and the amount of work that different people give varies considerably.
This doesn't mean you have to relinquish your sincerely held beliefs, or that you're disingenuous for applauding someone with whom you agree, but that there are almost invariably meritorious arguments for and against any position. Just because someone comes out on the other side doesn't make them pond scum, and just because someone's insipid argument reaches a conclusion that warms your heart and validates your existence doesn't make them brilliant.I explained before why brilliant people agree with me. I want to talk about the other side of the picture. I’ve come to the realization that people who disagree with me are just arguing in bad faith. How do I know? Well, when I get into an argument, no one who disagrees with me ever says anything I find persuasive. They never even come close. It seems to me that if a person who disagrees with me were smart and acted in good faith, surely he would say something that persuaded me (even if only a little). But since that never happens, people who disagree with me must be either stupid or acting in bad faith. I’m a generous person, so I won’t assume the other guy is stupid. And that leads me to conclude, reluctantly, that people who disagree with me are arguing in bad faith.
One of the great blessings and curses of the blawgosphere (and the internet as a whole) is that if you search hard enough, you will find someone who agrees with you, no matter what your opinion might be. You feel vindicated. You're not alone. There is a tribe behind you and no longer must you dwell in isolation, but you are embraced in the bosom of people who get it. Just like you do.
As Orin's posts were both one paragraph long, and I've quoted them in their entirety and fully anticipate his wrath at my brazen theft of his foundational points, resulting in his demand that I cease and desist, this post may not survive for very long. But what he has to say is critically important to critical thinking. Having been reminded of their existence, it seemed a good idea to offer it here as well.
These posts are something that everyone who reads Simple Justice ought to read. Take them to heart.
© 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/2013/02/24/only-as-brilliant-as-you.aspx?ref=rss
colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law
Starting Your Own Bankruptcy Practice
Did you ever think of starting your own bankruptcy practice? New Solo host and solo practitioner, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher chats with Attorney Christina M. Turgeon, about some of the pros and cons of opening a bankruptcy practice, professional organizations a new lawyer should join when starting a bankruptcy law practice and important resources that would assist a new bankruptcy law practitioner.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/new-solo/2012/10/starting-your-own-bankruptcy-practice/
conservator copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney
Judge Scheindlin’s Collection Case and Florida E-Discovery Amendments
One of the attributes that makes for a great e-discovery lawyer is the ability to wade through the digital mire that separates preservation from collection. The ESI Report’s Michele Lange, Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership at Kroll Ontrack joins e-discovery expert David Kearney, Director of Technology Services at Cohen & Grigsby, to discuss Judge Shira Scheindlin’s recent opinion in the case, National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al. v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al. On the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent, Elliot Westman analyzes recent e-discovery amendments to the Florida Civil Procedure Rules.
legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
Special Masters in E-Discovery
In this October edition of Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, join returning guest, attorney Craig Ball, to talk about special masters in e-discovery. Craig describes how an ESI special master gets involved in a case, what a special master does to fix broken discovery efforts and how to select an ESI special master.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2012/10/special-masters-in-e-discovery/
labor attorney lafayette attorney law law enforcement law firm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)