Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/08/05/student-lawyers-get-in-on-the-ip-boom/?mod=WSJBlog
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Student Lawyers Get in on the Intellectual Property Boom
Heidi Alexander Interviews Lawducate Founder Kelli Proia at Mass LOMAP Conference
Heidi Alexander, co-host of The Legal Toolkit, interviews Kelli Proia, founder of the legal business training organization Lawducate, during Mass LOMAP's 4th Annual Super Marketing Conference. She explains how a law firm is like any business, and recommends lawyers put effort into marketing and outsource necessary areas like creating a website. Lawducate, one of the co-sponsoring organizations at Mass LOMAP, teaches fundamental business marketing and sales techniques to lawyers.
colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law conservator
Inside Washington: Our Annual Report on D.C. Law Offices
Despite Congressional gridlock on a number of critical national issues, legal work that grows from government relations and federal regulation continues to spell opportunity for lobbyists and lawyers.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202664409483?rss=rss_nlj
power of attorny private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney
Auto Parts Antitrust Case Produces First Civil Settlement
A Japanese automotive parts supplier has agreed to pay $6 million to resolve claims of price-fixing and bid rigging in the first civil settlements in a sweeping antitrust case coordinated in federal court in Detroit.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202636781749?rss=rss_nlj
Federal courts warn of email scam
The federal judiciary has learned of an email scam, in which emails purporting to come from federal and state courts are infecting recipients with computer viruses, it announced on its website
According to the Security Operations Center of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the emails are instructing recipients to report to a hearing on a specified day and time. The emails also instruct recipients to review an attached document for detailed case information. When the attachments or links in the email are opened, a malicious program is launched that infects the recipient’s computer. Several state courts have reported similar schemes, and also are warning the public about potential viruses.
The court’s website states that unless you are actively involved in a case in federal court and have consented to receive court notifications electronically, you generally will not be served with court documents electronically.
Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2014/01/20/federal-courts-warn-of-email-scam/
Liens Are Not Protected by Constitution, Circuit Rules
A 2005 law increasing the homestead exemption for New York debtors can be retroactively applied to a lien incurred before the reform took effect and, critically, does not violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, a federal appellate court has held.
attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer
Monday, August 4, 2014
Evernote and the Organized Lawyer
Many people, including lawyers, are using an organizational tool called Evernote and are singing its praises. They are enthusiastic about its capacity to capture all types of information in many formats, to organize information into useful notebooks, and to enable access to that information across multiple platforms. In a time when almost everything is done online, Evernote is a user-friendly web service that can help lawyers stay organized, freeing up time for marketing and taking on new clients.
In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell talk about their own use of Evernote and how Evernote might work well for you in a legal practice. They examine photo recognition, scanning business cards and connecting to LinkedIn, collecting and organizing information for case research, and many more ways in which Evernote can make an attorney's life more efficient. They also discuss downsides to using the tool; there are ethical dilemmas that incur when retaining sensitive client information in a cloud-based tool.
Kennedy and Mighell also briefly reflect on how printing physical copies has changed and how lawyers will think of hard copies in the future. Stay tuned for Parting Shots, that one tip, website, or observation that you can use the second this podcast ends.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell talk about their own use of Evernote and how Evernote might work well for you in a legal practice. They examine photo recognition, scanning business cards and connecting to LinkedIn, collecting and organizing information for case research, and many more ways in which Evernote can make an attorney's life more efficient. They also discuss downsides to using the tool; there are ethical dilemmas that incur when retaining sensitive client information in a cloud-based tool.
Kennedy and Mighell also briefly reflect on how printing physical copies has changed and how lawyers will think of hard copies in the future. Stay tuned for Parting Shots, that one tip, website, or observation that you can use the second this podcast ends.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2014/06/evernote-organized-lawyer
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
NLRB "recess" appointments were unconstitutional; Board lacked a quorum
Noel Canning v. NLRB (DC Cir 01/25/2013)
The DC Circuit this morning held that the President's attempt to make "recess" appointments of three NLRB Members was invalid under the constitution.
On February 8, 2012 the Board issued its decision finding that the employer violated the NLRA by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement reached with Teamsters Local 760. At that time the Board purportedly had five members. Two of these had been confirmed by the Senate. Three of these were appointed on January 4, 2012, purportedly pursuant to the constitution's recess clause.
At the time of the President’s purported recess appointments, the Senate was operating pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement, which provided that the Senate would meet in pro forma sessions every three business days from December 20, 2011, through January 23, 2012. The DC Circuit held that "recess" appointments must occur during an "intersession" recess of the Senate, that is to say, the period between sessions of the Senate when the Senate is by definition not in session and therefore unavailable to receive and act upon nominations from the President.
Because the appointments were invalid, the Board lacked a quorum (three Members) and its order was "void."
Lots of chatter from all over:
- New York Times
- Wall Street Journal
- Workplace Prof Blog
- New York Labor and Employment Law Report
- Faculty Lounge
- Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer
- SCOTUSblog
- Employment Law Watch
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2013/01/nlrb_recess_app_1.html
attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder attorney law attorney lawyer
NLRB: Firing for Facebook posting was legal
Let the NLRB's press release tell the story:
The National Labor Relations Board has found that the firing of a BMW salesman for photos and comments posted to his Facebook page did not violate federal labor law, because the activity was not concerted or protected. [Decision here]The question came down to whether the salesman was fired exclusively for posting photos of an embarrassing and potentially dangerous accident at an adjacent Land Rover dealership, or for posting mocking comments and photos with co-workers about serving hot dogs at a luxury BMW car event. Both sets of photos were posted to Facebook on the same day; a week later, the salesman was fired from Knauz BMW in Lake Bluff, IL.
The Board agreed with Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz, who found after a trial that the salesman was fired solely for the photos he posted of a Land Rover that was accidently driven over a wall and into a pond at the adjacent dealership after a test drive. Both dealerships are owned by the same employer.
In a charge filed with the NLRB, the salesman maintained that he was principally fired for posting photos and sarcastic comments about his dealer serving hot dogs, chips and bottled water at a sales event announcing a new BMW model. “No, that’s not champagne or wine, it’s 8 oz. water,” the salesman commented under the photos. Following an investigation,the regional office issued a complaint. Judge Biblowitz found that this activity might have been protected under the National Labor Relations Act because it involved co-workers who were concerned about the effect of the low-cost food on the image of the dealership and, ultimately, their sales and commissions.
The Land Rover accident was another matter. A salesperson there had allowed a customer’s 13-year-old son to sit behind the wheel following a test drive, and the boy apparently hit the gas, ran over his parent’s foot, jumped the wall and drove into a pond. The salesman posted photos of the accident with sarcastic commentary, including: “OOPS”.
The National Labor Relations Act protects the group actions of employees who are discussing or trying to improve their terms and conditions of employment. An individual’s actions can be protected if they are undertaken on behalf of a group, but the judge found, and the Board agreed, that was not the case here.
As Judge Biblowitz wrote, “It was posted solely by [the employee], apparently as a lark, without any discussion with any other employee of the Respondent, and had no connection to any of the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. It is so obviously unprotected that it is unnecessary to discuss whether the mocking tone of the posting further affects the nature of the posting.” Because the posts about the marketing event did not cause the discharge, the Board found it unnecessary to pass on whether they were protected.
However, the three-member panel differed in its opinions of a “Courtesy” rule maintained by the employer regarding employee communications. Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Member Sharon Block found the language of the rule to be unlawful because employees would reasonably believe that it prohibits any statements of protest or criticism, even those protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
Dissenting, Member Brian E. Hayes found that the employer’s rule was “nothing more than a common-sense behavioral guideline for employees” and that “nothing in the rule suggests a restriction on the content of conversations (such as a prohibition against discussion of wages)”.
The Board ordered Knauz BMW to remove the unlawful rules from the employee handbook and furnish employees with inserts or new handbooks. The decision, dated Sept. 28 but made public today, was the Board’s first involving a discharge for Facebook postings; other such cases are pending before the Board.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/10/nlrb_firing_for.html
Dubious in the First Degree
While many folks from the heartland despise the New York Times for its purported coddling of criminals, its contents don't always bear out this sensibility. It's done it again by publishing Lawrence Downes' homage to ignorance in its editorial notebook.
Payback is a bitch, and to the extent Downes' screed offers anything, it's the insight to what motivates this tyranny of the majority against the 600 Long Island Railroad retirees on disability who had the misfortune of following the LIRR's advice and going to Dr. Peter Ajemian. Long Islanders hate the LIRR. They hate the price of tickets. They hate having to stand on their daily commute despite the absurdly expensive cost of the ride. They hate the uncaring conductors enforcing rules that presume their passengers to be criminals seeking to get free rides. The LIRR has done much to cause this hatred, and only a fool would deny it's well deserved.
This is payback time. Finally, the media and the government have given us an easy target of this hatred, this simmering anger, and the rest of us, the commuters, the business people who paid the hated Commuter Tax, have an excuse to unleash our venom.
For a working schlub who commutes from the suburbs, the Long Island Rail Road disability scandal of 2008 was powerful evidence that the game of life is rigged.
Hundreds of railroad employees — engineers to white-collar managers — would retire in fine health as early as 50, then become instantly and lucratively disabled. If they took their phantom neck and back pain to the right doctor and to an obscure federal railroad board that almost never said no to a disability claim, the checks would start to flow. The daily grind turned into daily golf.
Hundreds? Name them, Downes. After years of investigation, the government has prosecuted a grand total of 33 defendants, of which 25 have pleaded guilty. Does this amount to hundreds on disability playing "daily golf" using the New York Times version of math?
The scheme cost taxpayers more than a quarter of a billion federal dollars from 2000 to 2008. It also gouged the L.I.R.R., which had to pay for all those early retirees’ pensions and for overtime and training new employees. What was most shocking about this gravy train was how many L.I.R.R. employees were on it. Every year from 2000 to 2008, between 93 percent and 97 percent of employees over 50 who retired with 20 years of service got disability payments. Experts had to wonder what other workplace, besides the gulag, crippled so many of its workers.
Experts knew exactly what happened, even if pundits were confounded. Older employees cost the LIRR a lot of money. They were paid at a much higher rate than new employees, and to reduce costs, the LIRR sought to persuade older workers to move on so they could be replaced with far less expensive employees. Nothing hard to grasp here, Downes. It's just money.
So the LIRR held seminars for the older workers about how they could retire on disability, and steered workers to facilitators who would help them navigate their way through the Railroad Retirement Board's disability system. These workers were sent to physicians who knew what was needed and could help them obtain a disability annuity.
Of course (and nobody seems to get this part of it), the RRB would have these retirees examined by their own physicians, who would review not only the narrative reports of docs like Ajemian, but the treatment notes, x-rays and MRI's as well. Suggesting that one doc like Ajemian could single-handedly defraud the federal the government is absurd, unless you eliminate the nasty facts and ignore the parts that don't conform to the narrative of payback.
It's not that this doesn't give rise to issues. A railroad disability isn't like a disability that applies to desk jockeys. It's an occupation disability, where it's given because of the inability to do railroad work, meaning those guys who fix the broken switches in the middle of the night in a snowstorm so you can hate them during your morning commute.
Do you really want the guy popping Vicodin because of his herniated disks responsible for the lives of a thousand people? The potential for harm is so great that railroad workers have been singled out for random drug testing, approved by the Supreme Court in 1989 in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn even thought suspicionless testing would be unconstitutional if applied to, say, New York Times pundits.
Even putting aside these and myriad other "details" wholly ignored by the media, there remains a flagrant flaw:
The Railroad Retirement Board has only now decided to cut off payments to about 600 of the dubiously disabled, months after the doctor who signed off on their diagnoses, Peter Ajemian, pleaded guilty to fraud in federal court.
Meet the new criteria for terminating rights by the federal government, dubiousness. Forget "beyond a reasonable doubt," "preponderance of the evidence" or "probable cause." Heck, not even reasonable suspicion. Dubiousness. And why does the New York Times endorse the new standard of "dubiousness" for deprivation?
Disenchanted riders are counting on the feds and the L.I.R.R. to get the money back, and send the belated message that the schemers will be punished.
It's not about proof of wrongdoing. There is no proof of wrongdoing. The only "proof" is that guys with missing limbs and multiple surgeries went to Peter Ajemian (plus the unmentioned RRB doctors, but let's not muddle up anger with facts). As long as people are angry, we don't need no stinkin' evidence.
Lest someone get the misimpression that it's just the Times feeding into the anger and ignorance that pervades the media attention, Newsday offered an editorial as well:
Now the LIRR wants to revoke their pensions as well. Workers who are truly disabled can reapply for disability benefits -- a hassle, probably, but a crucial step to whittle out those who committed fraud.
Because it would be far too hard to expect the government of the United States of America to figure out first whether someone did wrong before convicting them of dubiousness in the first degree and denying them due process? The difference here is that expectations of thoughtfulness by Newsday are inherently lower than that of the Times. Tell the families who use the disability annuity for food that they just need to suffer the hassle of the next year without it to make the government's job easier.
As far as I can tell, I may be the only voice speaking out for the LIRR disabled, which is itself curious given that I commuted for 25 years on the railroad and hate the LIRR as much as the next guy. But my hatred of the railroad doesn't obscure the facts, my rage doesn't make me desire payback from innocent targets.
For those of you who rail about constitutional violations when it comes to the police, what's being done here isn't materially different. These 600 have been painted with the Ajemian brush, though none have been found guilty of any fraud nor afforded a fair opportunity to challenge the taint imputed to them for committing the crime of dubiousness.
But then, you aren't getting a disability annuity, so why should you care if the government wrongfully beats the crap out of some other guys, as long as you get to go about your life unimpeded. And besides, everybody hates the LIRR, so it's just too hard to muster any sympathy. Too hard for Newsday. Too hard for Downes. Too hard for the New York Times. Thinking is too damn hard. Let's just burn them all at the stake and call it a day.
© 2007-13 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/2013/07/08/dubious-in-the-first-degree.aspx?ref=rss
government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer
MA governor signs abortion buffer zone bill
[JURIST] Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick [official website] signed a bill [Bill S.2281; text] Wednesday tightening security regulations to protect clients and patients at abortion clinics from abusive protests and demonstrations. The Act to Promote Public Safety and Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities was proposed in reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling [JURIST report] that the state's prior 35-foot "buffer zone" law was unconstitutional. The new bill prohibits protesters from impeding access to reproductive health facilities or using...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/ma-governor-signs-abortion-buffer-zone-bill.php
family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney
When it comes to America's waterways, we have proven repeatedly that we can't wait ... to make costly mistakes (Florida Times-Union)
Teens Exhibit Wholly Inappropriate Post-Manicure Behavior!
Girls wanted to get their manicure on. Totally fine. Not paying for it, and worse? (you’ll have to read below) – totally uncool. As reported by The Orlando Sentinel
Ty Nguyen called police around 2:45 p.m. Thursday after the three teens ran from MD Nails on Claracona Ocoee Road after having their nails done. The girls arrived at the nail salon and asked to have sets of acrylic nails applied, Nguyen told the Orlando Sentinel.
When the $60 manicures were finished, the teens — a 15-year-old and two 17-year-olds who the Sentinel is not naming because they are minors — refused to pay, according to police.
Not cool, but check this out:
Nguyen said he chased after the teens and that’s when the 15-year-old girl pulled out a pink Taser and shocked him.
Since they weren’t named, you’ve probably figured out that these little ladies got busted. How?
Nguyen, who photographed the teens as they ran and even as one pulled out the Taser, jumped in his car, followed them to a nearby apartment complex and called 911 to report the attack and the $180 theft.
A property manager at the Waterstone Apartments, in the 5200 block of Long Road, was shown a picture of the three girls and immediately recognized them. Officers were shown the apartment where at least one teen lived.
You do NOT mess with Mr. Nguyen!
As officers approached the unit they hear what sounded like “several juveniles yelling,” reports show. But when officers knocked on the door and announced their presence, the noise stopped.
The teens refused to open the door for at least 20 minutes when an adult resident arrived at the home with a key. Officers found the three teen suspects and several other juveniles inside the apartment, reports show.
Think they came clean?
The 15-year-old told officers she “did not pay for her manicure because someone else was supposed to pay,” and shouted, “I didn’t tase anyone!” reports show.
Officers arrested the trio and charged them with aggravated battery with a weapon, resisting a merchant and petty theft. They were booked into the Juvenile Assessment Center and the Taser was confiscated.
You had the Taser! Aaargh. Here’s the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/Q8Lz0UIJEi8/gsd.html
personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys
The 2014 New England Report
A look at the performance of the legal sector in the area's six states.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202663577661?rss=rss_nlj
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney
Enlisting Smartphones In The Campaign For Campus Safety
Developers hope technology can help stop sexual assaults on campus — or at least provide students with easier access to resources.
traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney attorney
Why It’s Important for Lawyers to Build Expertise and Stand Out From A Crowd
In this increasingly saturated market, being a successful lawyer means standing out from the crowd and becoming the expert in a specific field. Due to economic pressures, it is now necessary for a lawyer to develop a powerful brand in order to make a good living. This means going above and beyond being a hard worker and a self-aware lawyer. Additional research in the field, networking, and self-promotion to garner awareness are all necessary actions required to thrive in the legal community.
In this episode of The Legal Toolkit, Jared Correia interviews internationally established marketing strategy consultant, Dorie Clark, about why it is important for lawyers to become subject matter experts, how they might realistically do so, and what the benefits of success are. Clark explains how many lawyers don't try to become experts because they don't believe it is possible, others think that expertise and success should fall into their laps due to hard work, and a third group think that it requires a genius level of intelligence. They should instead be expanding an expert niche, doing original research, combining ideas and fields, or creating a definitive guide to a system. Although expertise requires additional work, the benefits include a more trusting relationship with clients resulting in increased efficiency and results.
Dorie Clark is the CEO at Clark Strategic Communications and is a frequent contributor to Forbes, Harvard Business Review, and Entrepreneur. She has guest lectured at Harvard Business School, the Harvard Kennedy School, Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, the Wharton School and the MIT Sloan School of Management. Her new book, Stand Out: How To Find Your Breakthrough Idea and Build a Following Around It, further delves into the topics discussed in this podcast.
In this episode of The Legal Toolkit, Jared Correia interviews internationally established marketing strategy consultant, Dorie Clark, about why it is important for lawyers to become subject matter experts, how they might realistically do so, and what the benefits of success are. Clark explains how many lawyers don't try to become experts because they don't believe it is possible, others think that expertise and success should fall into their laps due to hard work, and a third group think that it requires a genius level of intelligence. They should instead be expanding an expert niche, doing original research, combining ideas and fields, or creating a definitive guide to a system. Although expertise requires additional work, the benefits include a more trusting relationship with clients resulting in increased efficiency and results.
Dorie Clark is the CEO at Clark Strategic Communications and is a frequent contributor to Forbes, Harvard Business Review, and Entrepreneur. She has guest lectured at Harvard Business School, the Harvard Kennedy School, Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, the Wharton School and the MIT Sloan School of Management. Her new book, Stand Out: How To Find Your Breakthrough Idea and Build a Following Around It, further delves into the topics discussed in this podcast.
lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Congress passes legislation legalizing cell phone unlocking
[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] on Friday passed [bill status summary] a bill [text, PDF] that would make it legal for individuals to open the digital locks on their cellphones. The process, known as unlocking or jailbreaking, is currently illegal [text, PDF], punishable by fines of up to $500,000 and five years in jail for unlocking cellphones without the authorization of wireless carriers. The bill, known as the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, was passed...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/congress-passes-legislation-legalizing-cell-phone-unlocking.php
Plaintiff on Hook for Patent Office's Attorney Fees
An 'odd' federal law requires plaintiffs who bring lawsuits challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's trademark rulings to pay all of the agency's expenses including attorney fees, no matter which side wins, a Virginia federal judge has ruled.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202636754148?rss=rss_nlj
divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer
Law Firm Marketing Tips: What Small Firms Can Adopt From Large Firms
Many large law firms are embracing modern marketing strategies to be more competitive. Although some of the options are out of budget for smaller firms, there are many within reach. On this episode of Legal Toolkit, host Jared Correia interviews Jennifer O'Leary Cathell from Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. Together, they discuss what marketing paradigms and strategies small firms can adopt from the big firms. Whether your firm is in need of a new website or new look, there are many obtainable objectives to explore. Tune in to learn more about design by committee, relevant metrics, and when to hire outside consultants.
Jennifer O'Leary Cathell is the eMarketing, Design and Brand Manager at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, where she conceptualizes, produces and enforces the visual identity for the firm's brand. She oversees the creation, design and production of all Edwards Wildman marketing materials, including websites, blogs and videos. Prior to her 16 years with Edwards Wildman, Cathell worked with the Warren Group (publisher of Banker and Tradesman).
Jennifer O'Leary Cathell is the eMarketing, Design and Brand Manager at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, where she conceptualizes, produces and enforces the visual identity for the firm's brand. She oversees the creation, design and production of all Edwards Wildman marketing materials, including websites, blogs and videos. Prior to her 16 years with Edwards Wildman, Cathell worked with the Warren Group (publisher of Banker and Tradesman).
pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor
European Court rules in favor of former Russia oil Company
[JURIST] The European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] on Thursday ruled [judgement, PDF] that Russia must pay € 1.87 billion (USD $2.51 billion) to the former owners of the now defunct Russian oil company Yukos to compensate for unfair tax proceedings. The ECHR ruling comes three years after the court first found that Russia violated the company's rights [JURIST report] by forcing it into liquidation. While the penalty is the largest payout ever awarded by the ECHR [Wall...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/08/european-court-rules-in-favor-of-former-russia-oil-company.php
employment lawyers estate attorney family law family lawyer federal attorney
Wisconsin Top Court Backs Law Curbing Public-Employee Bargaining Rights
Wisconsin's highest court upheld a law ending most collective-bargaining rights for government employees in the state, a blow for public-sector unions that have been stymied in their efforts to reverse the controversial measure championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney
Uganda high court voids anti-homosexuality law
[JURIST] Uganda's Constitutional Court [official website] on Friday ruled that Uganda's anti-homosexuality law was passed without the requisite quorum, effectively voiding the law. The law [text, PDF] was challenged [JURIST report] by right activists in March. The ruling [Reuters report] may still be appealed. The law punished homosexual acts with imprisonment for "aggravated homosexuality" and banned the "promotion of homosexuality." Ugandan government spokesperson Ofwono Opondo said that donors should reinstate any aid [BBC report] that had been cut in response...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/08/uganda-high-court-voids-anti-homosexuality-law.php
personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers
When Lawyers Get Divorced: Ethically Breaking up a Law Firm
When a law firm breaks up or a lawyer leaves to start a new practice, there are always clients, contingency arrangements, and hourly cases to split up. It is important to know what ethical steps a lawyer or law firm should take when parting ways. If the firm splits up, who has the rights to the name, brand, clients, or even client files? How can both parties ethically allocate unfinished business, accounts receivable, or unsettled contingency prearrangements? An ethical and professional split is inevitably beneficial for the future of the law firm and the lawyer.
On this episode of The Digital Edge, Sharon D. Nelson and Jim Calloway ask legal ethics expert Tom Spahn about the proper way to professionally deal with the various situations that arise when a law firm splits up. He explains that lawyers and their firms should remain civil and open to negotiation before the lawyer has left. Firms have run into trouble while trying to penalize leaving employees on an individual basis. He discusses the ethically proper way to deal with unfinished business doctrines, document retention programs, and fiduciary duties to clients. Due to technology, there are new issues to consider including digital files or property ownership of domain names. Overall, however, Spahn emphasizes that every partner has a continuing duty to make sure every client is adequately served.
Tom Spahn, often known as "Mr. Ethics" in Virginia, practices as a commercial litigator in the Tysons Corner office of McGuireWoods. He has served on the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism, and has spoken over 1,200 times on ethics and other topics in the United States and abroad.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
On this episode of The Digital Edge, Sharon D. Nelson and Jim Calloway ask legal ethics expert Tom Spahn about the proper way to professionally deal with the various situations that arise when a law firm splits up. He explains that lawyers and their firms should remain civil and open to negotiation before the lawyer has left. Firms have run into trouble while trying to penalize leaving employees on an individual basis. He discusses the ethically proper way to deal with unfinished business doctrines, document retention programs, and fiduciary duties to clients. Due to technology, there are new issues to consider including digital files or property ownership of domain names. Overall, however, Spahn emphasizes that every partner has a continuing duty to make sure every client is adequately served.
Tom Spahn, often known as "Mr. Ethics" in Virginia, practices as a commercial litigator in the Tysons Corner office of McGuireWoods. He has served on the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism, and has spoken over 1,200 times on ethics and other topics in the United States and abroad.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer
Appeals court overturns law that would close Mississippi abortion clinic
[JURIST] A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] ruled [text, PDF] on Tuesday to overturn a 2012 Mississippi state law [text, PDF] that would have closed Jackson Women's Health Organization (JWHO) [official website], the only abortion clinic in the state. The law required that all physicians associated with an abortion facility must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. None of the three JWHO-affiliated physicians had such privileges. The state [official website]...
lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys
Seven arrested in $1.6 million StubHub fraud case
[JURIST] New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance [official profile] announced [press release] Wednesday that police have arrested seven individuals on charges connecting them to an international group that defrauded the online ticketing service StubHub [official website] of approximately $1.6 million. Six of the seven arrests were made Tuesday, including three in London, two in New York and one in Toronto. The seventh individual was arrested earlier this month in Spain. The remaining cybercriminals include an American that is expected to...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/seven-arrested-in-16-million-stubhub-fraud-case.php
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Drawing Attention To Yourself? Not A Good Idea.
Working on your knife-throwing in a public area is not a good idea under normal circumstances. How about under these circumstances, as reported by kval.com (Eugene, Oregon):
Police responded to the commercial district near NW 9th Street and NW Spruce Avenue around 5:30 p.m. Sunday to a report of a man throwing a knife at trees [near a credit union drive-through].
The officer contacted [Drew William] Phillips, [23] who told police he was practicing his knife-throwing skills with a 3.5-inch fixed blade knife.
Phillips had 7 warrants out for his arrest. He was arrested and booked into jail.
Perhaps keeping a low profile would have been wiser? You’ll find the source, including mug shots, here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/702MQqaWj4I/afd-7.html
legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information legal news
Delaware Court of Chancery Rejects Indemnification Sleight of Hand
In Branin v. Stein Roe Inv. Counsel, LLC, C.A. 8481-VCN, 2014 WL 2961084 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a vested right to indemnification may not be rescinded by a subsequent amendment to the governing corporate document.
Francis S. Branin Jr. (“Branin”) owned and managed the investment management firm Brundage, Story & Rose, which was sold to Bessemer Trust, N.A. (“Bessemer”) in 2000. Nearly two years later, Branin left Bessemer and was hired by Stein Roe Investment Counsel LLC (“SRIC”), taking former clients with him. Bessemer proceeded to sue Branin under New York’s Mohawk Doctrine, which refers to an implied covenant imposed on the seller of a business that prevents the seller from approaching former customers and attempting to regain their patronage after the seller has purported to transfer the sold business’ goodwill to the purchaser. As a result of the legal claim by Bessemer, Branin sought indemnification under the directors and officers indemnification provisions of the operating agreement of SRIC (the “Operating Agreement”).
The Operating Agreement in effect when Branin was hired by SRIC provided that, “each member, manager or employee of [SRIC] shall be entitled to indemnification from [SRIC]for any loss, damage or claim by reason of any act or omission performed or omitted by such Person in good faith on behalf of [SRIC]” (the “Original Indemnification”). Following the lawsuit by Bessemer, SRIC adopted an amendment to the Operating Agreement to exclude from the indemnification provision claims for damages incurred as a result of a “breach of any agreement, express or implied, entered into by such Person with one or more outside parties prior to such Person’s association with the [SRIC]” (the “Amended Indemnification”). The issue before the Court hearing Branin’s claim against SRIC was which version of the Operating Agreement should govern.
Under Delaware law, limited liability companies have the ability to indemnify members and managers and have significant freedom to define, limit and amend these rights. Therefore, the issue is not whether SRIC was within its rights to amend the Original Indemnification to exclude certain types of claims, but rather when Branin’s right to indemnification (pursuant to the Original Indemnification) became a vested interest. The Court looked to the terms of the Original Indemnification, which covered a “claim” and determined that, without more, the right to indemnification would be triggered by the initial occurrence of a “claim.” The Court concluded that Branin established the right to pursue a claim for indemnification under the Original Indemnification, agreeing with the examined case law that “generally protects indemnitees and looks to the operating agreement in place when the events giving rise to the claim accrued or when the lawsuit involving the claim was filed.” (emphasis added) See Branin at page 19. The Court held that once a right to indemnification vests, it may not thereafter be rescinded by an amendment to the operating agreement. See Branin at page 18.
The Court, however, reinforced the concept that the terms of the agreement will govern and chose to not grant Branin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, as there was a question of fact regarding whether Branin had satisfied all of the requirements of the Original Indemnification clause in the Operating Agreement. In this case, the full text of the Original Indemnification included the requirements that a potential indemnitee have acted “in good faith on behalf of [SRIC] and, as applicable, in a manner reasonably believed to be within the scope of the authority conferred on [him] by this agreement.” Therefore, Branin must still prove that he acted in good faith and within the scope of his authority in order to have a successful indemnification claim.
Although this case concerns a limited liability company and not a corporation, the concepts and reasoning behind the Court’s decision will likely be applied to claims under indemnification provisions of by-laws in the same way as it was applied to operating agreements here. For this reason, it is important for all companies to note that while the specific restrictions and carve-outs of an indemnification provision will be applied to the facts of a claim, such indemnification provision may not be amended in order to avoid liability if the right to indemnification has already vested pursuant to the terms of such indemnification provision.
For questions or additional information, please contact Ariel Yehezkel (212-634-3064), Thomas Michael (212-634-3055) or your usual Sheppard Mullin contact.
employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney family law
Affirmative action ban in state constitution violates US constitution (8-7)
Michigan voters adopted a state constitutional amendment that prohibits "all sex- and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting."
The 6th Circuit (8-7) held this provision - as it relates to education - violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Univ of Michigan (6th Cir 11/15/2012)
(Plaintiffs limited their challenge to racial discrimination in public education.)
The court said that a black applicant could seek adoption of a constitutionally permissible race-conscious admissions policy only through the "lengthy, expensive, and arduous process" of amending the state constitution. On the other hand, someone wishing to change any other aspect of a university's admissions policy has four options - lobby the admissions committee, petition the leadership of the university, seek to influence the school's governing board, or initiate a statewide campaign to alter the state's constitution.
"The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change."
Seven judges wrote five DISSENTING opinions. Six said that the majority relied on two US Supreme Court cases that "have no application here," and one said that the majority relied on "an extreme extension" of those cases. The cases are Hunter v. Erickson, 393 US 385 (1969), and Washington v. Seattle Sch Dist, 458 US 457 (1982).
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/11/affirmative_act.html
international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney law
Sound The Retreat (Update)
Remember when the word "wilding" was introduced into the general lexicon so that we would have a word to capture the "super-predator" gangs of youths who were intent on destroying society? It came out of the Central Park Five case, and produced a huge shift in our approach to juvenile prosecution and punishment.
"Justice," people cried. They demanded justice. Don't let these super-predator kids destroy our world with wilding.
Except it didn't happen. The kids never beat and raped a woman in Central Park, and were coerced into false confessions. Of course, we didn't learn that until much later, after the wilding scare had done its damage to our laws, procedures and psyches, to save us from the super-predators and give us justice.
The New York Times has a post-Zimmerman-verdict editorial today that threatens to do the same. It's titled "Trayvon Martin's Legacy," a blatant appeal to emotion. Invoking the name of a dead child has proven one of the most utilitarian methods of manipulation available, and the Times unabashedly uses it to further its point.
But the point of the editorial is just plain wrong:
Stand Your Ground laws apply to one aspect of the larger concept of self-defense, and only one: they eliminate the requirement that a person retreat if he can safely do so. To be clear, I believe that Stand Your Ground laws are fundamentally wrong. The balance is a human life, on the one hand, and some machismo principle that a person should not have to endure the humiliation of retreat on the other.
The argument is that they have a right to stand their ground and fight rather than be forced to run away in the face of an attack, even if they can safely do so. Life is not so cheap that it should be taken to protect ego. Many disagree with me, and they're allowed. This isn't a legal judgment, but a moral balance. I come out in favor of life, and have no plans to change.
But that's not how the Times plays the game in its editorial. While blaming Stand Your Ground, they are attacking the basic concept of self-defense having absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's not merely intuitive, which is used to suggest the inherent fight or flight instinct in human beings, but characterized by the Times as some unnatural shift imposed by law to empower "self-deputized" gun nuts with "a grudge."
This is an artfully crafted diversion from the law that existed long before anybody came up with the cool phrase, Stand Your Ground. We always had the right to defend our lives when threatened with death or serious physical injury. If we could safely retreat, then that was the best option and we were required to do so. If not, then we defended our lives.
The underlying gripe is twofold, neither of which have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. The first is playing the race card. Like most people, I can't let go of the assumption that race influenced perceptions here, even though I have no basis for the assumption. But there is no law, nor can there be, that requires us to behave one way when the interaction is black and white versus white and black, or people of the same race. Does the Times suggest we start writing two sets of laws, maybe more, to accommodate the races of participants?
The second is the gun card, as reflected in the "Kel-Tec 9 millimeter" language. New York, not being at all gun-friendly, is easily shaken by words that make guns sound particularly vicious and high tech. And again, I'm no personal fan of guns, having no interest in strapping one on. But a great many other people are fans, and the Second Amendment protects their right to be fans. It's irrelevant whether that's my favorite amendment, just as it's irrelevant whether cops like the Fourth.
The same Constitution we invoke to protect the rights we favor protects some things that we don't. Either we honor the Constitution or not, and that includes all the parts, even the ones that aren't as dear to us as others.
A guy is cornered, there is no escape. The other guy is big. Huge. Strong. And is about to bash his head in. The cornered guy has a gun (give it whatever nasty gun-type name you want). Should the law prohibit him from using it to save his life? But that's not the facts in Zimmerman, you say. True, but laws don't exist for every conceivable set of facts and circumstances people can come up with, and the law of self-defense applies to this scenario the same as it did in Zimmerman. Would it make you feel better to have the cornered guy die because the law prohibited him from using his gun to save his life?
While the New York Times editorial may fairly argue for racial tolerance and the evils of guns, Second Amendment be damned, what it cannot do is lie to people by claiming that Trayvon Martin would not be dead but for Stand Your Ground laws, and then call for the evisceration of our basic, age-old right to self-defense. The alternative to self-defense when one cannot safely retreat is to die.
While it's painfully hard to know whether a person's fear of harm was "reasonable," especially when there is only one side to the confrontation who is alive to tell the story, it's a necessary evil in distinguishing whether force can be lawfully used. The choice was made hundreds of years before anyone ever heard of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, and it's been the right choice for all those years since.
As much as many feel that it played out poorly here, it was always understood that some variations in fact on the same theme would touch our sensibilities differently than others. But the flaw was never with the law. The flaw is that we're human and subject to feelings that may defy reason, and not every application of sound and neutral law will make us feel good about what happened. It's what we must suffer in a society of laws. And the New York Times should know this and be ashamed of itself for engaging in this deception.
Update: In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360, one of the jurors spoke:
© 2007-13 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.
"Justice," people cried. They demanded justice. Don't let these super-predator kids destroy our world with wilding.
Except it didn't happen. The kids never beat and raped a woman in Central Park, and were coerced into false confessions. Of course, we didn't learn that until much later, after the wilding scare had done its damage to our laws, procedures and psyches, to save us from the super-predators and give us justice.
The New York Times has a post-Zimmerman-verdict editorial today that threatens to do the same. It's titled "Trayvon Martin's Legacy," a blatant appeal to emotion. Invoking the name of a dead child has proven one of the most utilitarian methods of manipulation available, and the Times unabashedly uses it to further its point.
But the point of the editorial is just plain wrong:
The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.It's been explained, calmly and rationally, over and over. It's impossible to believe that the editorial board of the Times, a smart bunch of folks, didn't hear it or grasp it. If so, then what's written here can only be attributed to disingenuousness and a deliberate effort to deceive.These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.
Stand Your Ground laws apply to one aspect of the larger concept of self-defense, and only one: they eliminate the requirement that a person retreat if he can safely do so. To be clear, I believe that Stand Your Ground laws are fundamentally wrong. The balance is a human life, on the one hand, and some machismo principle that a person should not have to endure the humiliation of retreat on the other.
The argument is that they have a right to stand their ground and fight rather than be forced to run away in the face of an attack, even if they can safely do so. Life is not so cheap that it should be taken to protect ego. Many disagree with me, and they're allowed. This isn't a legal judgment, but a moral balance. I come out in favor of life, and have no plans to change.
But that's not how the Times plays the game in its editorial. While blaming Stand Your Ground, they are attacking the basic concept of self-defense having absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's not merely intuitive, which is used to suggest the inherent fight or flight instinct in human beings, but characterized by the Times as some unnatural shift imposed by law to empower "self-deputized" gun nuts with "a grudge."
This is an artfully crafted diversion from the law that existed long before anybody came up with the cool phrase, Stand Your Ground. We always had the right to defend our lives when threatened with death or serious physical injury. If we could safely retreat, then that was the best option and we were required to do so. If not, then we defended our lives.
The underlying gripe is twofold, neither of which have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. The first is playing the race card. Like most people, I can't let go of the assumption that race influenced perceptions here, even though I have no basis for the assumption. But there is no law, nor can there be, that requires us to behave one way when the interaction is black and white versus white and black, or people of the same race. Does the Times suggest we start writing two sets of laws, maybe more, to accommodate the races of participants?
The second is the gun card, as reflected in the "Kel-Tec 9 millimeter" language. New York, not being at all gun-friendly, is easily shaken by words that make guns sound particularly vicious and high tech. And again, I'm no personal fan of guns, having no interest in strapping one on. But a great many other people are fans, and the Second Amendment protects their right to be fans. It's irrelevant whether that's my favorite amendment, just as it's irrelevant whether cops like the Fourth.
The same Constitution we invoke to protect the rights we favor protects some things that we don't. Either we honor the Constitution or not, and that includes all the parts, even the ones that aren't as dear to us as others.
A guy is cornered, there is no escape. The other guy is big. Huge. Strong. And is about to bash his head in. The cornered guy has a gun (give it whatever nasty gun-type name you want). Should the law prohibit him from using it to save his life? But that's not the facts in Zimmerman, you say. True, but laws don't exist for every conceivable set of facts and circumstances people can come up with, and the law of self-defense applies to this scenario the same as it did in Zimmerman. Would it make you feel better to have the cornered guy die because the law prohibited him from using his gun to save his life?
While the New York Times editorial may fairly argue for racial tolerance and the evils of guns, Second Amendment be damned, what it cannot do is lie to people by claiming that Trayvon Martin would not be dead but for Stand Your Ground laws, and then call for the evisceration of our basic, age-old right to self-defense. The alternative to self-defense when one cannot safely retreat is to die.
While it's painfully hard to know whether a person's fear of harm was "reasonable," especially when there is only one side to the confrontation who is alive to tell the story, it's a necessary evil in distinguishing whether force can be lawfully used. The choice was made hundreds of years before anyone ever heard of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, and it's been the right choice for all those years since.
As much as many feel that it played out poorly here, it was always understood that some variations in fact on the same theme would touch our sensibilities differently than others. But the flaw was never with the law. The flaw is that we're human and subject to feelings that may defy reason, and not every application of sound and neutral law will make us feel good about what happened. It's what we must suffer in a society of laws. And the New York Times should know this and be ashamed of itself for engaging in this deception.
Update: In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360, one of the jurors spoke:
COOPER: Because of the only, the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
JUROR: Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
This mention of stand your ground gave rise to an apology from Eugene Volokh, who had also written about this Times editorial subsequent to this post.
It thus appears that at least one of the jurors did “consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of the ... Stand Your Ground provision in Florida’s self-defense law,” and on that the Times editorial was right, and I was wrong to criticize it; my apologies to the editorialists, and to our readers.
While there is no issue that stand your ground had no legal bearing on the case, Eugene apologized for arguing that the aspect of the editorial suggesting that the jury somehow relied on it in reaching its verdict. My view is that these were empty words to the juror, having been uttered too many time in the media before trial, and she offered them in the interview either without any grasp of what they meant or inadvertently.
It was a loose phrase, not a reflection that an unrelated legal concept, mentioned in passing as part of pattern jury instructions, and never argued to the jury, played a role. Loose language shouldn't be taken too seriously and serve as a basis for assuming scholar-like attention to something that scholars universally agree had no place in the case.
While it was gracious of Eugene to apologize, it was both unnecessary and, perhaps, a mistake to feed misguided understandings about a law which is being blamed for a role it never played.
© 2007-13 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/2013/07/15/sound-the-retreat.aspx?ref=rss
family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer
With Prosecutors Circling, Ethics Questions Get Serious For N.Y. Governor
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is facing reports that his administration interfered with the work of an anti-corruption commission that he created — and then abruptly disbanded.
family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer
Seven arrested in $1.6 million StubHub fraud case
[JURIST] New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance [official profile] announced [press release] Wednesday that police have arrested seven individuals on charges connecting them to an international group that defrauded the online ticketing service StubHub [official website] of approximately $1.6 million. Six of the seven arrests were made Tuesday, including three in London, two in New York and one in Toronto. The seventh individual was arrested earlier this month in Spain. The remaining cybercriminals include an American that is expected to...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/seven-arrested-in-16-million-stubhub-fraud-case.php
find lawyer free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation
This Week on Legal Talk Network (7/14/14)
Hello. This is Laurence Colletti for This Week on Legal Talk Network. On Monday, Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway from the Digital Edge talk to expert Tom Spahn about the ethics involved when a law firm breaks up or a lawyer wants to leave. Here's a preview- On Wednesday, The Legal Toolkit's Jared Correa continues our Special Report series from the MASS LOMAP 4th Annual Super-Marketing Conference and interviews Joyce Brafford from NCBA on how to manage social media to improve client relationships. Thursday, Heidi Alexander returns to the conference to speak to Kelli Proia from Lawducate about the how to run and market your law firm like a regular business. And on Friday, we finish the week with The Kennedy-Mighell Report - our hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discussing the new 3rd edition of Tom's book "iPad in One Hour for Lawyers" - what's happening with the iPad now and what to expect in the future. So tune in. It's all right here . . . This Week on Legal Talk Network.
Source: http://traffic.libsyn.com/sr/This_Week_on_LTN_7-14_Audio_Only.mp3
Are you a lawyer or a manager?
In a recent case, the lawyer was successful in growing his practice. So much so that he engaged 30 staff; they met with clients and even provided legal advice in loan modification matters. The net result is that the attorney did not provide adequate supervision for his staff and allowed them to five legal advice. This was the unlawful practice of law. The attorney was guilty of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and was suspended for two years. Punishment could have been more, but the lawyer made financial restitution to aggrieved clients and agreed to community service during his suspension.
Moral to the story: Grow your practice with appropriate supervision of unlicensed staff and technological support. Don’t allow unlicensed staff to provide legal advice. Coaching helps both with growing your practice and with operating your practice efficiently and within professional guidelines.
The larger one’s firm gets, the more management issues arise. Running a law practice is equivalent to running a professional service business and management principles are as important as being legally competent.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/l7QnExQ0VsM/
legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel
Lawyer suspended for five years
Owatonna attorney Jeremy Thomas Kramer has been suspended for five years, following an investigation into allegations of misconduct.
Kramer has admitted that he misappropriated client funds and interest due under the IOLTA program, failed to reconcile his client trust account, allowed a non-lawyer to be a signatory on a client trust account and failed to cooperate with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in an investigation into the allegations. Kramer will be suspended for a minimum of five years, after which time he can petition for resinstatement.
The Supreme Court order noted that family matters causing Kramer stress during the period in which he committed misconduct were taken into account as mitigating factors.
Attorney Frances S. Li received a public reprimand this week from the Minnesota Supreme Court for committing misconduct. Li has admitted that she failed to supervise a suspended attorney she employed. The suspended attorney was allowed to handle client funds and engage in the practice of law.
Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2014/01/17/lawyer-suspended-for-five-years/
dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law
Friday, August 1, 2014
New Bill Aims To Hold Colleges Accountable For Campus Sex Crimes
Under new bipartisan legislation, colleges and universities could face strong new penalties for mishandling cases of sexual assault on campus. Critics question whether they can be implemented.
Rights groups condemn Algeria for unfair trial of activists
[JURIST] Two major human rights advocacy groups on Tuesday voiced [HRW press release] their opposition to the "unfair trial" that led to the conviction of 26 Algerian activists on charges of holding an "armed gathering" and violence against the police. Nine activists were sentenced to six months in prison. The remaining 17, convicted in absentia, received prison sentences of two years. Protesters gathered in the Algerian city of Laghouat [official website, in French] on June 8 to protest the government's...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/rights-groups-condemn-algeria-for-unfair-trial-of-activists.php
criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer
Punishment for former Tax Court Judge George Perez stands
The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the Board on Judicial Standards. Former Tax Court Judge George Perez should be censured and his case should be forwarded to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Registration.
The Supreme Court also said it would supervise any future application Perez submits to the Minnesota Bar.
In November 2012, the BJS filed a disciplinary petition against Perez alleging that he failed to issue his opinions in a timely manner, falsified court records to show he had no cases pending, refused to accept new cases and demonstrated a “pattern of delay” in issuing decisions
Chief Justice Lorie Gildea appointed a three member panel to hear the case. That body ruled the BJS proved two of the claims by “clear and convincing evidence”, but did not prove two others.
Among other findings, the panel concluded Perez made “a substantial number of false certifications over an extended period of time.”
For punishment, the panel recommended a nine month suspension, a prohibition on serving out the rest of the term and for Perez to submit monthly status reports on his pending cases. The BJS pushed to have Perez removed from office, effectively ending his judicial career.
None of that mattered however because Perez was up for reappointment. In the waning days Gov. Mark Dayton recommended he not be confirmed. The Minnesota Senate vote was unanimous and Perez’s tenure as a Tax Court judge ended.
But Perez appealed the panel’s decision arguing it was moot because he was no longer a Tax Court Judge and secondly, he argued the BJS did not prove its case. He also claims the damage has been done. He also argues that any discipline should be mitigated because since January 2012, the time when he engaged with the BJS’ investigation, all of his decisions were decided within the three month deadline.
“Judge Perez argues we should not discipline him. He contends his removal from office… and the news media coverage of the panel’s findings constitute sufficient discipline for his misconduct.”
The Supreme Court disagreed with Perez and affirmed the discipline handed down by the panel. Doing so, “protects the integrity of the judicial system and should help restore the public’s confidence.”
Justice David Lillehaug took no part in the decision.
free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney
Lawyer suspended for five years
Owatonna attorney Jeremy Thomas Kramer has been suspended for five years, following an investigation into allegations of misconduct.
Kramer has admitted that he misappropriated client funds and interest due under the IOLTA program, failed to reconcile his client trust account, allowed a non-lawyer to be a signatory on a client trust account and failed to cooperate with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in an investigation into the allegations. Kramer will be suspended for a minimum of five years, after which time he can petition for resinstatement.
The Supreme Court order noted that family matters causing Kramer stress during the period in which he committed misconduct were taken into account as mitigating factors.
Attorney Frances S. Li received a public reprimand this week from the Minnesota Supreme Court for committing misconduct. Li has admitted that she failed to supervise a suspended attorney she employed. The suspended attorney was allowed to handle client funds and engage in the practice of law.
Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2014/01/17/lawyer-suspended-for-five-years/
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
The 2014 New England Report
A look at the performance of the legal sector in the area's six states.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202663577661?rss=rss_nlj
This Week on Legal Talk Network (6/23/2014)
Hello. This is Laurence Colletti for This Week on Legal Talk Network. Monday, hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway from The Digital Edge speak with expert Paul Unger about the best use of Powerpoint in the courtroom. Wednesday, we join New Solo host Adriana Linares for a lively conversation with her guest Susan Liebel Cartier from Solo Practice University. And on Friday, we finish the week with Paralegal Mentor Vicki Voisin guiding us through an in depth discussion with distinguished Attorney Lin Wood - his experiences representing clients Richard Jewel and John and Patsy Ramsey and the challenges they faced in the court of public opinion. Here's a preview . . .
So tune in. It's all right here . . . This Week on Legal Talk Network.
So tune in. It's all right here . . . This Week on Legal Talk Network.
Source: http://traffic.libsyn.com/sr/This_Week_on_LTN_Pilot_6-23.mp3
lawyer lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm
Second Challenge to Gay Conversion Therapy Ban Dismissed
A Trenton, N.J., federal judge has dismissed a suit by a teen and his parents who claimed that the state's 2013 ban on gay conversion therapy for minors infringed on their First Amendment rights.
The Best of the Plaintiffs Bar
These 19 firms are at the cutting edge of plaintiffs' work -- and are giving defense players a run for their money.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202624154645?rss=rss_nlj
lawyer lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)