Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202631180111?rss=rss_nlj
Sunday, July 27, 2014
OPINION: Chemerinsky: God, Birth Control and Corporate America
Can a corporation claim to have religious beliefs and, if so, does it violate those beliefs to force the business to include contraceptive coverage in the health insurance it provides its employees? The U.S. Supreme Court has just granted review in two cases on the issue.
Who Represents Corporate America
Our annual survey of the law firms that work for the nation's largest companies takes a global focus.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202625300999?rss=rss_nlj
dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney
Entropy: It's Not What It Used To Be*
In thermodynamics, entropy is the measure of how things go from order to disorder. Its application is far broader, however, applying to life in general. For those of us, like me, who strive to maintain order, it is the enemy.
My ability to do what I do, to function, depends on my maintaining order. In a world of chaos, it's a constant battle. No man is an island, and so almost every function relies to some greater or lesser extent on interactions with others. In order to prepare an affidavit, a person must take or return my phone call, do so in time for me to get their words on paper in both an accurate and comprehensible manner, make sure I've captured their thoughts properly, get it executed and file and serve the document. If the person decides that he would rather go to the beach than speak with me, but will get back to me later, the entire scheme can fall apart. A call back on Monday at 11 doesn't help when the papers are due Monday at 9.
When I explain how their conduct affected my ability to do my job, the response is one of two things: "Oh, I didn't realize," or "you should have told me that before." Of course, I can't tell you anything if you don't take or return my call. "Oh."
It's a fragile set up at best. Some people are reliable in a way that allows other to count on them, to plan ahead and not find themselves in a quagmire from which they can't emerge. These are people who make other people's lives go smoothly. They tend to be somewhere along the anal compulsive spectrum, which sounds pretty nasty but is actually a really good thing for organized people, especially lawyers.
Others are chaos personified, off in the thousand directions without any thought whatsoever to the consequences for themselves or those who rely on them. Their alternative to order is their tolerance of disorder. It's not that they don't eventually come to realize what they failed to accomplish because of their chaotic approach to responsibility, but that they can live with themselves that way.
The other day, a massive failure to accomplish a task upon which I relied was explained to me as the result of unforeseen circumstances. It wasn't quite true. Getting hit by a truck is an unforeseen circumstances. Making overly optimistic promises which you chose not to keep when time or interest gets tight is not an unforeseen circumstances. It's life.
There is a difference between explanations and excuses. When something doesn't go as intended, which happens despite best efforts and planning, there is either an explanation or it was just a screw-up. If the former, then there is a reason. If there is no reason, then it's a screw-up. Yes, screw-ups happen. No, they don't have to. Are they your fault? Yes. That's why we call them screw-ups.
Excuses are a different animal. Excuses are explanations that shift the fault onto the party who caused the problem. Most are imperfect, in that fault is born by more than one party, often all parties, who either failed to do what they should have, or said they would, as well as parties who failed to anticipate or accommodate the chaos wrought by others involved. See how that works? We knew that other people screw-up, and so we assume the responsibility of inserting that potential in our equation of order. When we organize our world, we do so in anticipation of entropy.
It's all a choice. Frankly, the failure to realize this, to conduct oneself as an island of order in a world tending toward chaos, to both live an ordered life and recognize that others don't or won't, is a choice. If you want to do what you can to do better, be more responsible, keep your promises to others despite reliance on those who infuse their chaos into your world, you can. But you must make the choice.
It's hard to fight entropy, but those who do keep the world running.
* The title is brazenly stolen from Buzzfeed's 21 Jokes Only Nerds Will Understand.
© 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.
My ability to do what I do, to function, depends on my maintaining order. In a world of chaos, it's a constant battle. No man is an island, and so almost every function relies to some greater or lesser extent on interactions with others. In order to prepare an affidavit, a person must take or return my phone call, do so in time for me to get their words on paper in both an accurate and comprehensible manner, make sure I've captured their thoughts properly, get it executed and file and serve the document. If the person decides that he would rather go to the beach than speak with me, but will get back to me later, the entire scheme can fall apart. A call back on Monday at 11 doesn't help when the papers are due Monday at 9.
When I explain how their conduct affected my ability to do my job, the response is one of two things: "Oh, I didn't realize," or "you should have told me that before." Of course, I can't tell you anything if you don't take or return my call. "Oh."
It's a fragile set up at best. Some people are reliable in a way that allows other to count on them, to plan ahead and not find themselves in a quagmire from which they can't emerge. These are people who make other people's lives go smoothly. They tend to be somewhere along the anal compulsive spectrum, which sounds pretty nasty but is actually a really good thing for organized people, especially lawyers.
Others are chaos personified, off in the thousand directions without any thought whatsoever to the consequences for themselves or those who rely on them. Their alternative to order is their tolerance of disorder. It's not that they don't eventually come to realize what they failed to accomplish because of their chaotic approach to responsibility, but that they can live with themselves that way.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,Then again, it has nothing to do with God. It has to do with us. We make choices. If you're inclined to believe in a deity, then know that the deity imbued you with the power to make wise or foolish choices, and left it to you to decide which.
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.When I'm asked how I manage to get as much done in a day as I do, the answer is order. I organize. I plan ahead. I try to anticipate the chaos I will confront in the course of trying to get things done so that I can accommodate it as much as possible, and will give myself enough room so that someone else's choice of disorder won't completely undermine what I need to accomplish.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
The other day, a massive failure to accomplish a task upon which I relied was explained to me as the result of unforeseen circumstances. It wasn't quite true. Getting hit by a truck is an unforeseen circumstances. Making overly optimistic promises which you chose not to keep when time or interest gets tight is not an unforeseen circumstances. It's life.
There is a difference between explanations and excuses. When something doesn't go as intended, which happens despite best efforts and planning, there is either an explanation or it was just a screw-up. If the former, then there is a reason. If there is no reason, then it's a screw-up. Yes, screw-ups happen. No, they don't have to. Are they your fault? Yes. That's why we call them screw-ups.
Excuses are a different animal. Excuses are explanations that shift the fault onto the party who caused the problem. Most are imperfect, in that fault is born by more than one party, often all parties, who either failed to do what they should have, or said they would, as well as parties who failed to anticipate or accommodate the chaos wrought by others involved. See how that works? We knew that other people screw-up, and so we assume the responsibility of inserting that potential in our equation of order. When we organize our world, we do so in anticipation of entropy.
It's all a choice. Frankly, the failure to realize this, to conduct oneself as an island of order in a world tending toward chaos, to both live an ordered life and recognize that others don't or won't, is a choice. If you want to do what you can to do better, be more responsible, keep your promises to others despite reliance on those who infuse their chaos into your world, you can. But you must make the choice.
It's hard to fight entropy, but those who do keep the world running.
* The title is brazenly stolen from Buzzfeed's 21 Jokes Only Nerds Will Understand.
© 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/2013/07/14/entropy-its-not-what-it-used-to-be.aspx?ref=rss
colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law conservator
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 malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice
Lawyers and Depression
Depression within the legal community is a very real issue. According to the American Psychiatric Association, lawyers as a group are 3.6 times more likely to suffer from depression than the average person. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen welcomes colleague Cindy Chanley, and special guest, Professor Brian Clarke, Assistant Professor at the Charlotte School of Law. Brian shares his own personal struggle with depression, talks about recognizing the signs of depression, getting help, and how the legal community is coming together to help their own.
Source: http://ringlerradio.com/?p=13808
Florida Accuses Special-Effects Company of Misusing Economic Grants
The state of Florida has filed a lawsuit against former executives of Digital Domain Media Group Inc., saying the movie-special-effects company was essentially a Ponzi scheme that defrauded the state out of more than $80 million in job-creation grants.
lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice
77% of Lawyers Can’t Be Trusted With Confidential Client Data
All lawyers have an ethical obligation to employ security measures when sharing information and data with their clients. Whether that means encrypting all important emails or properly researching cloud based file-sharing services like Dropbox, it is incumbent on lawyers to understand the levels of security available. LexisNexis recently did a survey on what tools lawyers and legal professionals are using to protect their clients' privileged information. 77% of the lawyers surveyed did not have adequate security for their confidential client data. How important is encryption and what can lawyers do to change the way they share data?
On this episode of Digital Detectives, Sharon Nelson and John Simek interview Bob Ambrogi, a lawyer and journalist who recently wrote about the LexisNexis survey. They ask him about the implications of the survey, what security measures lawyers should be taking, how frequently clients are hurt by lack of security, and why lawyers are generally resistant to learning about data encryption. Ambrogi explains that an overall lack of information, ignored ethics rulings, lack of time, and assumed difficulty are the reasons lawyers often refuse to learn how to safely share data. He encourages lawyers, especially the ones in small or solo firms, to seek out a consultant to learn about the relatively easy encryption tools and techniques. After all, no lawyer wants to be a part of the 77%.
Bob Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist and has covered legal technology and the Internet for two decades. He writes the "Ambrogi on Tech" column for the ABA Journal and his blog LawSites, launched in 2002, is in the ABA Journal Blawg 100 Hall of Fame. Since 2005, he has co-hosted the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer 2 Lawyer also on the Legal Talk Network.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
On this episode of Digital Detectives, Sharon Nelson and John Simek interview Bob Ambrogi, a lawyer and journalist who recently wrote about the LexisNexis survey. They ask him about the implications of the survey, what security measures lawyers should be taking, how frequently clients are hurt by lack of security, and why lawyers are generally resistant to learning about data encryption. Ambrogi explains that an overall lack of information, ignored ethics rulings, lack of time, and assumed difficulty are the reasons lawyers often refuse to learn how to safely share data. He encourages lawyers, especially the ones in small or solo firms, to seek out a consultant to learn about the relatively easy encryption tools and techniques. After all, no lawyer wants to be a part of the 77%.
Bob Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist and has covered legal technology and the Internet for two decades. He writes the "Ambrogi on Tech" column for the ABA Journal and his blog LawSites, launched in 2002, is in the ABA Journal Blawg 100 Hall of Fame. Since 2005, he has co-hosted the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer 2 Lawyer also on the Legal Talk Network.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Barclays Moves to Dismiss N.Y. AG's Suit Over 'Dark Pools'
Barclays is challenging the authority of New York's top lawyer to sue the bank for fraud over allegedly deceptive statements it made to investors concerning high frequency trading in its "dark pool," or private stock exchange.
Baseball
In yesterday’s news, the Oakland A’s (the best team at this point of the season) announced trades that brought them 2 outstanding pitchers. Why did they do this? After reading Moneyball, you will know why. Teams’ trade activities highlight the two seasons of baseball, the first that will end in a few days and the second that begins after the “trade deadline” date.
I just finished reading “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.” Great expose by Michael Lewis about the 2002 A’s and their general manager, Billy Beane who changed the way the game is played. How could a team with the lowest payroll in baseball win more games than any other team?
Beane used new data to understand baseball talent, data that was ignored by traditionalists and older scouts. Because of his non-traditional perspective, he was successful in attaining the talent he needed at bargain prices … He won “the game” while being strategic and cost conscious. I suspect that was what prompted yesterday’s trades.We’ll know by the end of the season. :-)
Are you doing that in your law firm as well?
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/pdD7dMGSUdQ/
legal help legal information legal news legal services lemon law
Inmate Down An Ear, Up A Little Coin
No doubt this gent would rather have his ear back. Unfortunately, that is not an option. As reported by the Belleville News-Democrat (Illinois):
Roger W. Harris, 21, alleged in a federal lawsuit that guards at the jail should have done more to protect him from other inmates. On May 11, 2012, inmate Teryun D. Jackson bit off Harris’ ear and another inmate, Marlon K. Jackson, flushed the ear down a toilet.
Ouch! What was the end result?
[Harris] received a $7,500 settlement from the county.
… The county admits no wrongdoing in the settlement, which was approved June 25. The News-Democrat received a copy of the settlement through a request under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
Harris is serving his prison sentence at Graham Correctional Center in Hillsboro. He is eligible for parole in October.
You’ll find the source, and a fair amount more of the story, here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/XLlt3iTiZgQ/sdfg.html
corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense
SMU's Next Law Dean Has Administrative Background
Southern Methodist University has named Wake Forest University Vice Provost Jennifer Collins as the next dean of its Dedman School of Law. Collins, who has also taught law at Wake Forest since 2003, will assume the SMU deanship in July.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202634048159?rss=rss_nlj
colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law conservator
Webinar Presentation Pointers for Legal Professionals
During their many years of public speaking, one of the biggest challenges Tom and Dennis have encountered is the webinar format. There are a lot of moving parts and some unique challenges. In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss how webinars differ from in-person presentations, how to prepare for and avoid common pitfalls when presenting on webinars, and practical tips for novice and veteran presenters.
Pharma sales reps are FLSA exempt as outside salesmen (5-4)
This morning the US Supreme Court decided - on a 5-4 vote - that pharmaceutical sales representatives are "outside salesmen" and therefore exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court also unanimously held that the Department of Labor's recently-announced contrary interpretation was entitled to exactly zero deference.
Christopher v. SmithKline Beacham (US Supreme Ct 06/18/2012)
Christopher, a pharmaceutical sales representative, sued the employer for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging failure to pay overtime. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and denied Christopher's motion to amend the judgment based on the trial court's failure to consider an amicus brief filed by the Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL). The 9th Circuit affirmed. The US Supreme Court affirmed (5-4).
The job of a pharmaceutical sales representative is to try to persuade physicians to write prescriptions for products in appropriate cases. For over 70 years DOL acquiesced in an interpretation that they were "outside salesmen" who are exempt from FLSA overtime requirements. In amicus briefs filed in Circuit courts DOL took the position that a "sale" requires a "consummated transaction." In Supreme Court briefing DOL's position was that there is no "sale" unless the employee "actually transfers title."
The Court said that the DOL's new interpretation is entitled to no deference at all because it would impose massive liability for conduct that occurred before the interpretation was announced, there had been no enforcement actions suggesting the industry was acting unlawfully, DOL gave no opportunity for public comment, and the interpretation is "flatly inconsistent" with the FLSA.
The FLSA definition of "sale" includes consignments, which do not involve a transfer of title. Although DOL regulations say that sales include the transfer of title, that does not mean a sale must include a transfer of title. The regulations also use the phrase "other disposition" which - in this unique regulatory environment - includes the work of pharmaceutical sales representatives. The representatives also bear all the exterior indicia of salesmen (average salaries exceeding $70,000, work that is difficult to standardize to a particular time frame, etc.)
The DISSENT reasoned that sales of drugs are made by pharmacists, not pharmaceutical sales representatives. The pharmaceutical sales representative neither make sales nor promote "their own sales." (The dissent agreed that the DOL's current views expressed in briefs are not entitled to any weight.)
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/06/pharma_sales_re.html
lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys
Greece v. Galloway: Prayer in Government Assemblies
On May 5th 2014, the Supreme Court decided Greece v. Galloway, a landmark case about the right of prayer in government assemblies. Both sides of the argument invoked the First Amendment to make their case, but who is right and why? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings this issue to the forefront with opposing counsels Douglas Laycock, for the respondents, and David Cortman, for the petitioner. Together, they discuss the relative merits of their cases, the endorsement test, and the coercion test. Tune in to hear more about the future of legislative prayer and your First Amendment rights.
Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court.
David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court.
David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
power of attorny private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney
77% of Lawyers Can’t Be Trusted With Confidential Client Data
All lawyers have an ethical obligation to employ security measures when sharing information and data with their clients. Whether that means encrypting all important emails or properly researching cloud based file-sharing services like Dropbox, it is incumbent on lawyers to understand the levels of security available. LexisNexis recently did a survey on what tools lawyers and legal professionals are using to protect their clients' privileged information. 77% of the lawyers surveyed did not have adequate security for their confidential client data. How important is encryption and what can lawyers do to change the way they share data?
On this episode of Digital Detectives, Sharon Nelson and John Simek interview Bob Ambrogi, a lawyer and journalist who recently wrote about the LexisNexis survey. They ask him about the implications of the survey, what security measures lawyers should be taking, how frequently clients are hurt by lack of security, and why lawyers are generally resistant to learning about data encryption. Ambrogi explains that an overall lack of information, ignored ethics rulings, lack of time, and assumed difficulty are the reasons lawyers often refuse to learn how to safely share data. He encourages lawyers, especially the ones in small or solo firms, to seek out a consultant to learn about the relatively easy encryption tools and techniques. After all, no lawyer wants to be a part of the 77%.
Bob Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist and has covered legal technology and the Internet for two decades. He writes the "Ambrogi on Tech" column for the ABA Journal and his blog LawSites, launched in 2002, is in the ABA Journal Blawg 100 Hall of Fame. Since 2005, he has co-hosted the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer 2 Lawyer also on the Legal Talk Network.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
On this episode of Digital Detectives, Sharon Nelson and John Simek interview Bob Ambrogi, a lawyer and journalist who recently wrote about the LexisNexis survey. They ask him about the implications of the survey, what security measures lawyers should be taking, how frequently clients are hurt by lack of security, and why lawyers are generally resistant to learning about data encryption. Ambrogi explains that an overall lack of information, ignored ethics rulings, lack of time, and assumed difficulty are the reasons lawyers often refuse to learn how to safely share data. He encourages lawyers, especially the ones in small or solo firms, to seek out a consultant to learn about the relatively easy encryption tools and techniques. After all, no lawyer wants to be a part of the 77%.
Bob Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist and has covered legal technology and the Internet for two decades. He writes the "Ambrogi on Tech" column for the ABA Journal and his blog LawSites, launched in 2002, is in the ABA Journal Blawg 100 Hall of Fame. Since 2005, he has co-hosted the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer 2 Lawyer also on the Legal Talk Network.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law
Change of Plea Out the Window!
Most prosecutors will negotiate with accused offenders. Obviously, this is done to move the trial court calendar along, eliminate the need to tie up resources that could be used elsewhere, truly not needed when the defendant is willing to change a plea. Even in civil matters, parties negotiate settlements in order to achieve reasonable business outcomes and reduce the cost of litigation.
In at least one civil instance, an insurance company said they will not settle any case, large or small, that everything had to go to trial. This clearly delays the outcomes … and enables the insurance carrier to withhold payment for some time. I’ve not seen any studies about the merits of such activities from the carrier’s perspective. It does, however, frustrate plaintiffs. Frustration without economic benefit is hardly a good business outcome. And the carrier has since reversed this policy.
Now, we have a new version. The State Bar of California has announced that it will refuse to accept “no contest” pleas from lawyers accused of ethics violations. The issue here is not one of criminal liability, but rather of retaining one’s license to practice law. One has to ask what more can be given to the Bar once the lawyer-accused has agreed to take his/her punishment?
The Office of Trial Counsel maintains that accused lawyers are not accepting responsibility for their actions unless they are tried and convicted or accept a guilty plea. That is why they will not accept a nolo contendere plea. Other than civil damages, the effect of a nolo plea is the same … and punishment is no less. Criminal prosecutors understand this. But, the Bar wants its “pound of flesh.” It is questionable whether this is a question of morality.
This is just one more example of the California State Bar’s new adversarial attitude toward its members … Although the legislative directive to the State Bar is that its primary, if not sole, function is to protect the public (not help its members who pay all the expenses of the Bar), one has to wonder how the public is being better helped by this new approach.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/-ANxxuDCoWg/
Thailand king endorses interim constitution
[JURIST] Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] announced his support on Tuesday for an interim constitution [PDF; in Thai] that would grant extensive authority to the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) [MThai report, in Thai], the military junta currently in power. King Bhumibol announced [Reuters report] his endorsement during a routine royal news bulletin. The NCPO, which has controlled Thailand since a coup expelled former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra [BBC profile] in May, has declared...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/thailand-king-endorses-interim-constitution.php
family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney
Friday, July 25, 2014
Iowa Mayor Calls For 'Caring Cities' To Take In Young Immigrants
Unaccompanied, undocumented children from Central America aren't just sparking debate in the Southwest. The question of whether to offer shelter to the minors has led to divided opinions in Iowa.
personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney
Jared Correia Interviews Legal Marketing Expert Joyce Brafford at the Mass LOMAP Conference
Jared Correia, co-host of The Legal Toolkit on Legal Talk Network, interviews Joyce Brafford about marketing for lawyers at Mass LOMAP's 4th Annual Super Marketing Conference. She recommends that lawyers choose one social media platform, maintain consistent engagement, and be sincere, especially in solo and small firms with more personal clients. Brafford is a Practice Management Advisor with the North Carolina Bar Association, making sure lawyers have access to the technology that can help them run their firms efficiently and professionally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)