Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/new-solo/2012/02/helpful-tips-for-women-solo-practitioners/
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Helpful Tips for Women Solo Practitioners
New Solo host, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher, a solo practitioner and the most recent Chair of the Young Lawyers Division of the Massachusetts Bar Association is joined by Attorney Melissa Conner, from the Conner Law Offices out of Boston, Massachusetts, to spotlight women solos. Melissa shares her recommendations on everything from which organizations female attorneys can join when first starting their office, to the benefits of a women’s bar association to how to find a mentor.
Wisconsin public employee collective bargaining statute amendments declared unconstitutional
A teachers' union sought declarative and injunctive relief against the governor, claiming that statutory amendments dealing with municipal employees' collective bargaining rights and payroll deductions of dues and pension contributions were unconstitutional.
The trial court declared the statute unconstitutional. Madison Teachers v. Walker (Wisconsin Circuit Ct 09/14/2012)
(1) Certain portions of the statute violated the free speech clauses of the Wisconsin and US constitutions. Although there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining, the statute imposes burdens on the speech and associational rights of employees represented by unions which burdens are not imposed on other employees. They cannot negotiate wage increases greater than the cost of living, they cannot pay dues by payroll deductions solely because the dues go to labor organizations. A ban on fair share agreements means that union members bear the cost of bargaining for non-members who receive the befits of bargaining. Requiring unions to be recertified annually burdens members with the full costs of the election.
(2) The trial court applied strict scrutiny to the equal protection claims because of the infringement on speech rights. The statute creates two classes of employees (represented and non-represented), and the defendants "offer no defense of the statute that would survive strict scrutiny."
(3) Certain portions of the statute violated the Wisconsin constitution's home rule amendment, violated the constitutional bar on impairment of contracts, and deprived employees of property without due process.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/09/wisconsin_publi.html
company law conservator copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer
Tort reform battle ahead for Assembly
The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is out with its legislative wish list for the 2013 General Assembly and tort reform measures loom large on the Chamber agenda.
The Chamber will continue efforts to change Virginia’s 40-year practice of barring depositions from summary judgment motions, an issue already aired in a July 18 hearing.
The chamber hopes to limit the ability of a plaintiff to take a nonsuit in the late stages of a lawsuit and expand the ability of the defense to collect attorneys’ fees and expenses when plaintiffs take such a voluntary dismissal of right. Current law “effectively allows plaintiffs to take a ‘do-over’ after the defendant has expended significant resources preparing for trial,” the Chamber’s statement says.
Chamber goals include laws to further limit “forum shopping” and to require service of process within 90 days in most cases.
Although it does not fit precisely in the tort reform category, the Chamber will push for a fee schedule or other cost control measures to reduce the size of medical payments for workers’ compensation claims. The Chamber says Virginia medical payments per claim are almost 59 percent above the national average.
House Courts chair David Albo, R-Springfield, said recently he expects a tough battle over the tort reform measures.
Jack Harris, executive director of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, said his group is ready for the fray. He said Virginia is already regarded as a business friendly litigation climate, with efficient case resolution and low insurance premiums.
“Anything that is ‘tort reform’ is just another effort to unbalance a playing field that is already tilted heavily toward business,” Harris said.
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/vlwblog/2012/12/06/tort-reform-battle-looms-for-assembly/
The Legal Limits of Sports Violence
The infamous elbow jab of Metta World Peace, NFL "Bounty Hunters," soccer riots, high school hockey brawls ...where is the legal line drawn when it comes to violence in sports? Or is it just the nature of the game? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams turn to Attorney Eldon L. Ham, an adjunct professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law and Professor Matthew Mitten, Director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University Law School, for their take on whether there should be legal implications when an athlete goes too far.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/05/the-legal-limits-of-sports-violence/
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
Lawyers' Duty to Know Technology?
Many lawyers say they are "good lawyers," while knowing very little about legal technology. So does that statement really compute in this technology driven world? Recent discussions about possible changes to ethical rules include requirements that lawyers stay up-to-date on technology. Explore the intersection of technology, law practice and ethical rules, along with the implications for lawyers with Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell on this Kennedy-Mighell Report.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/05/lawyers-duty-to-know-technology/
Sidley Austin Looks to Riverbed to Build a Broader Network
Sidley Austin had a legacy network connecting its 17 offices in the U.S., Asia and Europe, resulting in slow data transfers and limiting the firm's ability to centralize IT resources. To create better connectivity between offices, the firm upgraded its network with Riverbed appliances.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202473966828&rss=rss_ltn
lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal
Justice Department drops challenge of Gitmo lawyer rules
The U.S. Justice Department has abandoned its fight over proposed rules governing attorney conduct at the Guantanamo Bay naval facility, dropping the case before the D.C. Circuit could dig into the dispute. The DOJ's appeal set up a legal fight over a judge's ruling in which the proposal was rejected as unnecessary and an "illegitimate exercise" of executive power.
Tips and Tactics for Law Firm Websites
With the prevalence of profile sites, blogs and social media platforms, law firms need effective websites. Jared Correia, the host of The Legal ToolKit and Law Practice Management Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, joins Larry Bodine, the Editor-in-Chief for Lawyers.com, to explore the importance of law firm websites. Larry discusses everything from the sort of content components that should appear on a website and designing the website to basic SEO tools attorneys can use to get visits from their target audience.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/03/tips-and-tactics-for-law-firm-websites/
employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney family law
Monday, December 17, 2012
Medicare Set-Aside Professional Administration
On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen welcomes colleague and co‑host, Brian J. Fillion and guests, Sandra O'Sullivan, President of Ametros Financial Corporation and Tom Ash, Chief Executive Officer of Ametros Financial, to discuss the professional administration of Medicare Set-Aside funds and Medicare Set-Aside trusts. Sandra and Tom talk about the benefits of Professional Administration, managing the fund as a professional administrator and how professional administration works in a structured settlement.
Blawging Blowback: Sarcasm Edition
When Ken White and Ron Coleman stepped in to defend conservative blogger and Los Angeles County prosecutor Patrick Frey of Patterico's Pontifications from a frivolous and censorious attack on free speech, it was a mitzvah, especially since no conservative lawyers were willing to take up pro bono arms on behalf of their good buddy.
But as Ken reveals, his earlier words came back to bite him:
Write about a particular subject and someone will see it and use it against you. Write about a general subject and someone will try to use it to extrapolate something to be used against you. Or against all criminal defense lawyers, assuming they can get away with it.
On a few occasions, I've walked into court or a conference where someone, whether judge or prosecutor, will make an off-hand remark designed to make sure I know that they've read SJ. Given the number of posts here, there is a fair to middling chance that I've written something about them, about the issue, about their office, that wasn't entirely flattering. They want me to know that they know, so I know that they know that I know that they know. As if I didn't already know.
This is a risk that goes along with being a blawger. While all the angry IANAL commenters writing their simplistic yet hateful thoughts about cops, prosecutors and judges do so under cover of darkness, lawyers who actually take a stand and write substantive posts on the internet are fully exposed. We're here for all the world to see, and for all our adversaries to use against us at their leisure. And the people hiding under rocks are fearful of exposure? We are in the direct line of fire.
I'm well aware of this. I'm sure that Ken is well aware of this as well, particularly since he went from pseudonymous Ken to former federal prosecutor turned criminal defense lawyer Ken White. He's a very smart guy, so there is no doubt when he came out that he appreciated the consequences.
Some blawgers try to use this to their advantage, writing self-aggrandizing posts about themselves and their cases, laying out their arguments or angst online. It rarely works, particularly when their one-sided arguments fail to carry the day, and often shows them to be reckless in revealing client confidences. It's a risky game to play, and no one has yet to pull it off without disgracing themselves amongst their peers.
So blawgers who have made the choice to offer seriously (in the substantive sense, even if humor or sarcasm is the delivery mechanism) commentary on issues of consequences have put their butts on the line. Readers may not think about this part of the fabulous life of blawgers. You may love or hate what we say, but you don't really care that we have to walk into court later that day and have a judge peer over the bench furious about our less than enthusiastic thoughts of his recent opinion. You applaud? The judge, not so much.
One might hope that judges and prosecutors are all big boys and girls who are smart enough and tough enough to take some criticism. After all, the nature of what we do invites challenge. It's called an adversary system for a reason, right? And in fairness, we can revile a judge's decision one day, and applaud his decision the next. It's not personal (Godfather moment. Relish it.).
Well, that's not always the way it works out. Like the 7th grader who inadvertently farts in history class and suffers the nickname "Stinky" until graduation, people tend to remember the things we write that bother them, and it lingers. It's not so much that grudges are held as that fair disagreement or criticism is a slap that continues to sting. Well, maybe it is that grudges are held.
Ken, who occasionally makes his point by using sarcasm, faces this problem. So too, I suspect, other serious criminal law blawgers, like Bennett, Tannebaum, Matt Brown and Murray Newman. So do I. That's the risk of what we do. We can either write tepid, pointless, worthless garbage, and be embraced by the Happysphere, or hit hard and get hit hard in return.
On the bright side, there are also readers who respect what we say, and our fortitude in saying so. On the whole, we make a lot more friends in high places than enemies, because we have the opportunity to say what a lot of people (even lawpofs, who often hold shockingly strong opinions you would never discern from their public writings) are thinking but, because of their positions or fear of ramifications, would never say aloud. We do it for them. And if the price of doing so is the occasional blowback, it's a price we're willing to pay.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
But as Ken reveals, his earlier words came back to bite him:
Self-evidence is rarely, well, self-evident. More to the point, anyone who writes stuff on the internet should realize that the words are there for others to read. This is true whether one asks a question that's ridiculously unethical, incredibly stupid or just addresses more mundane issues of the practice of criminal defense.A Note About Sarcasm
I'm only going to address one minor issue in the briefs and the tentative ruling, because it involves me and this blog. In March, well before Ms. Naffe sued and I appeared in this case, I wrote a post about Ms. Naffe's threats against Mr. Frey. In that post, referring to Mr. Frey's point-by-point questioning of Ms. Naffe's accusations against James O'Keefe, I dropped this line:
The defense attorney in me is tempted to say that this is the most thorough consideration of exculpatory evidence that I have ever seen from a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, but that would be uncouth, so I will not, and you should definitely forget that I brought it up.
I thought that this was self-evidently a joke, a friendly swipe by a snarky criminal defense lawyer talking about a prosecutor. I was rather surprised to see both Ms. Naffe's counsel and — in response – the judge seem to take it literally. Such are the hazards of sarcasm. Or maybe I should say, as I always do to my wife, kids, law partners, and anyone who will sit still, that nobody understands me.
Write about a particular subject and someone will see it and use it against you. Write about a general subject and someone will try to use it to extrapolate something to be used against you. Or against all criminal defense lawyers, assuming they can get away with it.
On a few occasions, I've walked into court or a conference where someone, whether judge or prosecutor, will make an off-hand remark designed to make sure I know that they've read SJ. Given the number of posts here, there is a fair to middling chance that I've written something about them, about the issue, about their office, that wasn't entirely flattering. They want me to know that they know, so I know that they know that I know that they know. As if I didn't already know.
This is a risk that goes along with being a blawger. While all the angry IANAL commenters writing their simplistic yet hateful thoughts about cops, prosecutors and judges do so under cover of darkness, lawyers who actually take a stand and write substantive posts on the internet are fully exposed. We're here for all the world to see, and for all our adversaries to use against us at their leisure. And the people hiding under rocks are fearful of exposure? We are in the direct line of fire.
I'm well aware of this. I'm sure that Ken is well aware of this as well, particularly since he went from pseudonymous Ken to former federal prosecutor turned criminal defense lawyer Ken White. He's a very smart guy, so there is no doubt when he came out that he appreciated the consequences.
Some blawgers try to use this to their advantage, writing self-aggrandizing posts about themselves and their cases, laying out their arguments or angst online. It rarely works, particularly when their one-sided arguments fail to carry the day, and often shows them to be reckless in revealing client confidences. It's a risky game to play, and no one has yet to pull it off without disgracing themselves amongst their peers.
So blawgers who have made the choice to offer seriously (in the substantive sense, even if humor or sarcasm is the delivery mechanism) commentary on issues of consequences have put their butts on the line. Readers may not think about this part of the fabulous life of blawgers. You may love or hate what we say, but you don't really care that we have to walk into court later that day and have a judge peer over the bench furious about our less than enthusiastic thoughts of his recent opinion. You applaud? The judge, not so much.
One might hope that judges and prosecutors are all big boys and girls who are smart enough and tough enough to take some criticism. After all, the nature of what we do invites challenge. It's called an adversary system for a reason, right? And in fairness, we can revile a judge's decision one day, and applaud his decision the next. It's not personal (Godfather moment. Relish it.).
Well, that's not always the way it works out. Like the 7th grader who inadvertently farts in history class and suffers the nickname "Stinky" until graduation, people tend to remember the things we write that bother them, and it lingers. It's not so much that grudges are held as that fair disagreement or criticism is a slap that continues to sting. Well, maybe it is that grudges are held.
Ken, who occasionally makes his point by using sarcasm, faces this problem. So too, I suspect, other serious criminal law blawgers, like Bennett, Tannebaum, Matt Brown and Murray Newman. So do I. That's the risk of what we do. We can either write tepid, pointless, worthless garbage, and be embraced by the Happysphere, or hit hard and get hit hard in return.
On the bright side, there are also readers who respect what we say, and our fortitude in saying so. On the whole, we make a lot more friends in high places than enemies, because we have the opportunity to say what a lot of people (even lawpofs, who often hold shockingly strong opinions you would never discern from their public writings) are thinking but, because of their positions or fear of ramifications, would never say aloud. We do it for them. And if the price of doing so is the occasional blowback, it's a price we're willing to pay.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/12/11/blawging-blowback-sarcasm-edition.aspx?ref=rss
power of attorney power of attorny private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers
Focus on Privacy: The Facebook Internet Tracking Case
Back in May of 2012, Facebook was sued for $15 billion for improperly tracking users even after they logged off the social network. Digital Detectives co-hosts, Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc.,and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, join Attorney David Straite, partner at Stewarts Law U.S. LLP, Head of Investor Protection Litigation and co-lead counsel in the Facebook Internet Tracking Case, to discuss the main issues of this case including: digital privacy litigation, the current statutory and common law involved in this case, calculation of damages and the future of digital privacy rights.
Snitching, For Fun and Profit
Necessity is the mother parent of invention, and so a new cottage industry is born. What's surprising isn't that it happened. When there is money to be made, someone eventually comes forward to make it. What's surprising is that it took as long as it did. Via Brad Heath at USA Today:
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
For a fee, Watkins and his associates on the outside sold them information about other criminals that they could turn around and offer up to federal agents in hopes of shaving years off their prison sentences. They were paying for information, but what they were really trying to buy was freedom.
"I didn't feel as though any laws were being broken," Watkins wrote in a 2008 letter to prosecutors. "I really thought I was helping out law enforcement."
That pay-to-snitch enterprise – documented in thousands of pages of court records, interviews and a stack of Watkins' own letters – remains almost entirely unknown outside Atlanta's towering federal courthouse, where investigators are still trying to determine whether any criminal cases were compromised. It offers a rare glimpse inside a vast and almost always secret part of the federal criminal justice system in which prosecutors routinely use the promise of reduced prison time to reward prisoners who help federal agents build cases against other criminals.
Were laws broken? The question is only asked after the scheme goes public, because only then does anybody care whether something that emits a bad stink was wrong. Ironically, the scheme played into the hands of law enforcement's crack investigators, who only smelled sweet busts. After all, the ability to copy down the name and address offered by a snitch is what agents refer to as "investigation." Once they smell their first successful take-down, the scent becomes intoxicating.
The snitch method of defense grew out of the Sentencing Guidelines, and during the 1990s, became the predominant method of avoiding the absurdly draconian prison sentences required by the grid. When defendants had no one to give up, substituted cooperation came into being, where someone on the outside would snitch or work a case on behalf of an arrested defendant. It was never popular with prosecutors though, as it rewarded a defendant for something he didn't do and presented a disconnect when it came time to take a case to trial. Many offices eventually refused to allow substituted cooperation.
According to Heath, 48,895 federal convicts, or one in eight, had their prison sentences reduced by snitching over the past five years. Let's face it, neither the bonds of friendship nor even family ties are strong enough for some defendants to take a ten year hit. There is no honor among thieves, or drug dealers, money launderers or fraudsters. Hey, you can always make new friends, right?
But Watkins took the battle in a new direction, selling names to desperate defendants who had no one to give up. What Heath's number doesn't reflect is the number of defendants who want to snitch, are desperate to snitch, but just don't have anything good enough to give. Bear in mind, if a defendant is in on a ten kilo sale, giving up the guy selling dime bags isn't going to do him much good. He needs to give up somebody the feds want badly enough to cut him a break.
As for the lawfulness of Watkins' business, there really isn't any doubt.
Prosecutors have said they were troubled that informants were paying for some of the secrets they passed on to federal agents. Judges are outraged. But the inmates who operated the schemes have repeatedly alleged that agents knew all along what they were up to, and sometimes even gave them the information they sold. Prosecutors told a judge in October that an investigation found those accusations were false. Still, court records show, agents kept interviewing at least one of Watkins' customers even after the FBI learned of the scheme.
As part of the opening spiel at every proffer session, the assistant tells the Queen for a Day that if he doesn't tell the truth, he won't be accepted as a snitch and may be prosecuted under §1001. By the truth, he means good dirt. Truth is such a relative term. So when a convict claims to possess personal knowledge about a crime, but leaves out the part about the tens of thousand he paid Watkins or the fact that he doesn't actually have a clue about the person he's ratting out, it's just a minor detail. A sin of omission. Barely a sin at all, when the dirt is good enough to capture the government's interest.
But why blame Watkins, who is merely showing the entrepreneurial spirit that made America great? He saw a need and filled it. That's the American way. The beef, if any, is with an incentive system that rewards people for giving up others, whether it's true or not. The incentive system promotes turning minor criminals into drug lords, manufacturing lies that will make value of the snitch's information sufficiently enticing to the government to cut a sentence in half, or maybe more. After all, if Sammy "The Bull" can make murders disappear with the right information, certainly a run of the mill drug dealer shouldn't be a problem.
The government, with the help of the judiciary, has made snitching an art when it comes to overcoming any potential aversion a juror may have to it. The inherent reasonable doubt over allegations provided by a person who has an enormous incentive to lie is blunted by prosecutors who harp on how a convict must tell the truth or lose any potential benefit. Judges instruct juries with carefully crafted words to explain that snitches aren't unreliable, but a critical part of the system that prevents their wives from being raped. Without them, the judge solemnly intones, our streets would be overrun by crime. Thank God for snitches.
So why not Watkins? Is his snitch-for-hire information any less reliable than the stuff guys make up in the quiet of their prison cells? In fact, he may well be more reliable, for there is no better marketing for a service than customer satisfaction, and so he's got a strong incentive to sell only the highest quality information.
And on the law enforcement side, there is no incentive to do anything to impede the flow of names and addresses for the next day's bust. After all, how would they possibly win awards for their brilliant investigative techniques if somebody doesn't feed them every detail? All they have to do is write it down on a pad correctly, which my empirical research shows happens 57% of the time, and they get medal and a promotion.
Of course, once the government and courts come up with an artful explanation for the jury about why pay-to-snitch is really a valued part of our legal system, then competition will follow and the marketing wars will start. The only problem after that will be scarce resources, making sure there is enough crime to snitch about, which will give rise to the next cottage industry: getting children to become criminals so that there is no shortage of people to snitch about.
The business of America is business, and there is no reason why snitching should be any different.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/12/16/snitching-for-fun-and-profit.aspx?ref=rss
family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney
Douglas Cawley of McKool Smith
Douglas Cawley, principal of McKool Smith in Dallas and a patent lawyer, tells how he works to make jurors comfortable with the idea of large verdicts.
On Intellectual Property and Pot
The City of Oakland's legal gambit to protect California's largest medical-marijuana dispensary has shed light on some of the nuances in federal government's stance on pot. Lawyers for Oakland pointed out in a court filing Tuesday that, while marijuana is regarded by federal law as a controlled substance with no medicinal value, the U.S. government's own patents and research claim otherwise.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/12/12/on-intellectual-property-and-pot/?mod=WSJBlog
Italy court strikes down ban on embryonic research
[JURIST] A court in Florence on Wednesday struck down Law 40 [text, PDF, in Italian], Italy's nationwide ban on the use of embryos for scientific purposes. The panel of judges ruled that the law is an unconstitutional violation of fundamental rights regarding health [ANSA report] and the freedom of research. The case was originally brought by a couple who wished to donate leftover embryos to science after the couple finished a series of legal fertility treatments. Italy has defended its...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/italy-court-strikes-down-ban-on-embryonic-research.php
The Best Resources for Staying Current in E-Discovery
How do you keep up with all that is going on in the world of e-discovery? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome guest, Neil Squillante, publisher of LitigationWorld, who discusses his selection of resources for staying current in e-discovery. Neil tells us how to keep up with e-discovery developments, lists his favorite blogs and podcasts, and explains how you can benefit from the Sedona Conference and webinars.
lawyer lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Courts brace for cuts
Like their federal court colleagues, D.C. court officials approached the end of 2012 with a nervous eye on Capitol Hill. If lawmakers fail to reach a budget deal by the end of the year, mandated spending cuts will axe 8.2 percent of dollars going to the federally funded local courts.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202581554756&rss=rss_nlj
civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law
Getting a Passing Grade on Passwords
Good password practices are essential in a world where major compromises are common. So how do you create, use and protect strong passwords for all of your accounts? Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell, the hosts of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, take a look at the current state of passwords, give recommendations on password management, and share some simple approaches to dealing with today’s password requirements.
You Think YOU Are A Hardcore Giants' Fan? Fuhgeddaboutit!
Hardcore fans of the New York Giants were not feeling good after their team lost to the Redskins on Monday. Hopefully, though, only one took it this hard. As reported by The Star-Banner (Ocala, Florida):
Authorities say a Silver Springs Shores man upset that the Redskins had beaten the Giants fired multiple shots at sheriff's deputies who came to his home early Tuesday after his wife called 911 to report domestic violence.Holy shiznit!
After evacuations and an hours-long standoff, Richard Braccia, 50, surrendered and was charged with three counts of attempted homicide on a law enforcement officer and one count each of tampering with evidence and domestic battery, according to the Marion County Sheriff's Office.
Yikes! You can read more (a lot) and see a photo of Mr. Braccia here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/HrGGLa5UdDA/you_think_you_are_a_hardcore_g.html
criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer
Delaware Chancery Court Rejects Stockholder's Section 220 Books and Records Demand Based Upon Failure to Demonstrate "Credible Basis" for Inspection
In Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Lennar Corp., C.A. No. 7314-VCG, 2012 WL 4760881 (Del. Ch. Oct. 5, 2012), the Delaware Court of Chancery, on a motion for summary judgment, rejected a stockholder’s demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”). Section 220 provides that a stockholder in a Delaware corporation may, under certain conditions, request and cause the corporation to make available for inspection certain books and records, provided the demand has a proper purpose and some credible basis exists for suspecting mismanagement, waste, or wrongdoing. In this instance, although the court found the purpose of the demand — investigation of the corporation’s compliance with labor law — to be proper, it held that the evidence presented did not amount to a credible showing that legitimate issues of mismanagement existed to warrant an investigation.
The facts in the case were not in dispute. In September 2011, a news article reported that the U.S. Department of Labor was investigating several of the nation’s largest home builders, including Lennar Corp. (“Lennar”), to enforce compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Nine days later, a follow-up article reported that state-level agencies and the IRS had joined the investigation. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System sent a Section 220 demand letter to Lennar seeking board minutes and other documents related to Lennar’s compliance with state and federal labor laws, tax and immigration laws, citing the recent news articles. Lennar rejected the demand, claiming that plaintiff had no credible basis for believing there had been wrongdoing by Lennar.
In response to the rejection, plaintiff filed an action to obtain the requested books and records. In its lawsuit, plaintiff relied on the news articles it had cited in its demand letter and on a series of eight settled lawsuits brought by Lennar employees against Lennar between 2007 and early 2009 alleging FLSA violations. Lennar moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a Section 220 demand.
The Chancery Court first considered whether plaintiff’s stated purpose for the demand was proper. The court noted that Delaware law recognizes that an investigation of corporate mismanagement, waste or wrongdoing is a proper purpose provided the issues investigated affect the stockholder’s interest as a stockholder, and thereby permit the stockholder to seek a remedy. Based upon this standard, plaintiff agreed that it lacked standing to investigate any past wrongdoing that gave rise to the 2007-2009 FLSA suits, and that it sought to investigate only ongoing mismanagement relating to labor law compliance. The court determined that plaintiff stated a proper purpose.
The court next considered whether a credible basis existed to believe mismanagement was in fact occurring to warrant a Section 220 inspection. The court remarked that absent some required showing, Section 220 inspections would occur upon mere suspicion, indiscriminately exposing corporations to constant fishing expeditions and draining corporate resources. At the same time, under a “credible basis” standard, a stockholder need not prove actual wrongdoing occurred, but must only show legitimate mismanagement issues exist. The court noted that this standard is so low that to lower it more would remove the requirement of coming forward with evidence altogether.
Nevertheless, the court concluded that the evidence plaintiff presented failed to clear even this low hurdle. It found that the past FLSA lawsuits as proof of present wrongdoing required an improper, speculative inference, and thus lacked probative value. Specifically, the last of the lawsuits was brought in early 2009, more than two years earlier. All of the lawsuits settled without an admission of wrongdoing. Furthermore, plaintiff offered no proof that the number of FLSA lawsuits — eight — represented a disproportionally high or unusual number for a company of Lennar’s size. Plaintiff itself did not rely on the suits in its demand letter.
The court also discounted the evidentiary value of the newspaper articles. While a newspaper article reporting on possible wrongdoing could meet the “credible basis” test (at least where there is some corroborating evidence), the articles here did not identify any actual mismanagement. The articles mentioned only the existence of the investigation and named Lennar as one of the companies being investigated. As the court put it, the articles provided “no reportorial suggestion, based on investigation, that Lennar is engaged in wrongdoing.”
Lastly, the court considered whether the past lawsuits and the newspaper articles taken together supplied a credible basis of misconduct justifying a Section 220 inspection. It concluded that, because the probative value of each item was so negligible, combining them could make no difference, and granted summary judgment.
This case confirms that the Delaware Court of Chancery, while continuing to endorse the use of Section 220 to investigate claims before stockholders file suit on behalf of the corporation, will nevertheless insist that stockholders meet the low evidentiary showing required to justify imposing Section 220’s books and records inspection burden on the corporation.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or John Landry at (213) 617-5561.
IP Industries: Part Two
Professor David L. Lange, Melvin Shimm Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, concludes his two-part discussion on IP Industries. Learn more about Professor Lange at http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/lange.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/06/ip-industries-part-two/
private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney
Defense Attorneys Turning to Social Media
Lead counsel for accused murderer George Zimmerman calls social media an unavoidable component of high profile cases. So, should blogging, posting and tweeting become standard practices in defense strategies? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, debate the pros and cons, as well as the legal and ethical issues of social media with Dr. Amy Singer, founder of Trial Consultants Inc., and Attorney Scott Greenfield, Of Counsel at Hull McGuire, PC.
You Really Think You're The Right Person To Teach This Girl How To Drive?
It's really not that hard to teach someone how to drive. Of course, there is the requirement that you, the teacher, be legally permitted to drive! As reported by timesonline.com (Beaver, PA):
Monaca police said [Bobbie Jo] Gacesa [age 36] was teaching a girl, whose age and identity were not released, how to drive in Gacesa’s minivan on Oct. 26, and as the girl approached Building 2 at Spring Run Apartments, her foot slipped off the brake and onto the gas pedal. The van jumped the curb and struck the building.
Police said the van damaged a metal railing, bent the door jamb at Apartment 207 and broke the building away from the foundation. No injuries were reported.Doh! Well, even new driver's with learner's permits need ... wait, what's that?
Gacesa, who later admitted to police that she knew the teen did not have a valid driver’s permit or license, got behind the wheel and drove to Building 7 of the complex, where she lives. According to the police report, Gacesa made no effort to contact authorities about the accident, but a witness saw the incident and called police.How was Ms. Gacesa caught?
Officers said they were able to follow a fresh trail of vehicle fluid right to Gacesa’s van. They said the vehicle’s engine still was warm, there was front-end damage and they could see fluids leaking.Um. Er. Uh.
When officers checked the license plate on the minivan, they discovered it was registered to someone other than Gacesa. When they spoke with Gacesa, police said she admitted the license plate did not belong to her vehicle and that she does not have insurance.Sorry?
Officers also discovered Gacesa’s license was expired and had been suspended as a result of a previous drunken-driving conviction. Her vehicle registration and inspection sticker also were expired, according to the police report.Really sorry? The charges against Ms. Gacesa?
... being involved in an accident resulting in property damage, driving while under license suspension, driving without insurance, driving without registration, license plate fraud and driving without a valid inspection sticker.Yikes! Here's the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/_910V07C5EA/you_really_think_youre_the_rig_1.html
free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Solos, Structured Settlements, & Medicare Set Asides
Solo attorneys need to know what is happening in the structured settlement industry for a more successful practice. New Solo host, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher, a solo practitioner looks to the experts, Ringler Associates Consultant Peter Early, and Vincent Polinsky, Director of Operations at Ringler Medicare Solutions, to explain the evolving role of the structured settlement consultant today. Hear the discussion about the advantages of a Medicare Set-Aside, and the benefits overall to your client’s settlement.
Gone Clio with Attorney Michael J. P. Schewe
On this edition of Gone Clio, Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Attorney Michael J. P. Schewe of Schewe Law LLC. Michael talks about his passion for employment-related issues, the pros and cons of starting your own law firm, and how Clio makes him confident when a malpractice issue comes up.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/08/gone-clio-with-attorney-michael-j-p-schewe/
solicitors statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney
SEC Adopts Dodd-Frank Rules Regarding Conflict Minerals and Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers and Defers Rules for Implementation of JOBS Act Elimination of Ban on General Solicitation until August 29
On August 22, 2012, the SEC adopted disclosure rules required by Sections 1502 and 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act related to conflict minerals and payments by issuers engaged in resource extraction.
The new rules on conflicts minerals disclosures will apply to all SEC reporting companies for which the identified conflict minerals are “necessary to the functionality or production” of a product manufactured or contracted to be manufactured by the issuer. We will be providing more detailed summaries of these rules in future posts.
Only issuers engaged in the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals are affected by the new rules adopted under Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The SEC previously announced that rules pursuant to Title II of the JOBS would be discussed at the August 22 open meeting of the Commissioners. Title II provides for the elimination of the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising in securities offerings conducted pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D provided that all purchasers are accredited investors. Title II has similar provisions relating to Rule 144A solicitations. In both cases, Title II is effective only upon the SEC implementing rules. The Commissioners announced that discussion of these rules would be deferred until August 29, 2012. For more information on Title II and other provisions of the JOBS Act, please see this post.
What if you have questions?
For any questions or more information on these or any related matters, please contact any attorney in the firm’s corporate practice group. A list of such attorneys can be found by clicking Lawyers on this page.
John Tishler (858-720-8943, jtishler@sheppardmullin.com), Louis Lehot (650-815-2640, llehot@sheppardmullin.com), Edwin Astudillo (858-720-7468, eastudillo@sheppardmullin.com), and Lauren Lewis (650-815-2672, lalewis@sheppardmullin.com) participated in drafting this posting.
Disclaimer
This update has been prepared by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice, is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete and may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this update.
DIVERSITY: A SPECIAL REPORT: Race's Role
Law school campuses have slowly grown more racially diverse during the past decade, to the point that minorities now account for 25 percent of law students nationally. But legal educators worry that the U.S. Supreme Court will use the closely watched Fisher v. Texas to curtail the use of affirmative action in college admissions and derail this modest progress.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202578616156&rss=rss_nlj
traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney attorney attorney at law attorney definition
Shooting Superman
As recently noted, the new diagnosis whenever someone dies following a tazing is "excited delirium," which Steve Tuttle from Taser International advised me was not their invention, even if they seized upon it as an awfully facile excuse. But there is another word in the lexicon of force to note: superhuman.
Who doesn't think it sounds pretty darned cool to be described as a "man of steel"? Except the word gets trotted out not as a compliment, but a rationalization. From Work Without Dread:
Bartholomew Williams, the unarmed African-American graduate student shot dead on Sunday night by Cal State San Bernardino campus police, showed "superhuman strength" as he struggled with them, according to police. If that sounds familiar, that's because superhumanity is a lot more common than has been thought. Roberto Laudisio-Curdi, an unarmed student killed by police in Sydney in October, also had "superhuman strength." A man on a stolen motorcycle who resisted arrest in South Carolina last September had "superhuman strength" too, although it seems to me that it was more to his advantage that he had a gun, which the deputy through superhuman strength of his own got control of. Last summer in Maryland, a guy in a shootout with police "held on to his gun" after being hit by a bullet, which led a police spokesperson to remark, "The PCP just provokes superhuman strength." And at about the same time, police in Georgia said that a delirious man that they arrested "had superhuman strength and admitted being high on bath salts." (See also State of North Carolina v. Jonathan Howard Norton, No. COA10–1544, June 2011.)
The post goes on to argue that the use of the characterization "superhuman" is the new means of dehumanizing the target of police violence.
You don't have to be Foucault to see that superhumanity functions as subhumanity; it allows the nonhuman to be eliminated while releasing the perceiver from having to answer for seeing someone as nonhuman. Like last spring's "bath salts" hysteria itself, the phrase "superhuman strength" reflects police discomfort with mental illness--or even just "irrationality"--on the one hand, and with the unaccountable phenomenon of resisting arrest on the other.
While this explanation delves deeply into the police psychology of viewing non-cops, the us-and-them mentality, as lesser humans unworthy of concern or compassion, my sense is that the description isn't so much a tacit reflection of their dehumanization as it is another in the long list of convenient words that can provide a ready excuse for the use of force. It's easy, quick and immediately explains why they had to shoot, taze, beat a person whose conduct otherwise compelled no need for force.
As is often the case, the word is used in conjunction with the underlying criminal accusation, such as the use of PCP or bath salts, playing upon public hysteria and ignorance. After all, how many people are going to rush to the aid of the dead man claiming they use PCP all the time and never had superhuman strength? On the other side, the mythology surrounding crazy, wild things that happen to people who do demon drugs plays right into a claim like this. As Judy Tenuta liked to say, "it can happen."
While police are frequently uncomfortable with mental illness or irrationality, though the latter usually reflects the peculiar police perspective that failure to immediately comply with their commands constitutes irrationality per se, the use of force isn't limited by any stretch to those who suffer from some mental impairment. With increasing frequency, it's just a matter of time and convenience, where they have the means to end an incident now, and use it, or don't feel much like chasing down a perp and just shoot instead. It's quick and easy, the only thing needed is an excuse.
The beauty of characterizing a person as having "superhuman" strength is that it not only provides a justification for the use of force that would otherwise be inexcusable, but it can't be tested later for veracity. Much like the beloved "furtive gesture," it happened only because the police officer said so, and then it's gone. In the case of furtive gesture, the result is a search. In the case of superhuman strength, there's usually a dead body.
Does anybody actually have this "superhuman" strength? No and yes. No, there is no such thing as Superman, and no one suddenly manifests abilities beyond those of mere mortals, regardless of whether they're wearing a cape. But drugs do cause disinhibition, where a person will exert his very human strength to its fullest, without any reluctance, despite doing so in the face of police force. The fact is that a person on PCP may well beat a cop in fight; cops don't necessarily have secret cop-fu that allows them to come out on top in hand-to-hand combat. They can be beaten. They can be hurt. They are not inclined to let that happen.
At the same time, use of such shorthands as "superhuman" strength build a mythology that's hard to resist. It becomes a mantra, where just saying the magic words makes whatever comes afterward perfectly understandable. What could the cop do in the face of this drugged up guy with superhuman strength? He had no choice but to shoot. And another unarmed person lies dead on the street, and there is no way to dispute it. Except it isn't real.
H/T FritzMuffKnuckle
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/12/14/shooting-superman.aspx?ref=rss
Lawyer For WikiLeaks Suspect Says Client Was Treated As 'Zoo Animal'
The pretrial hearing for Wikileaks suspect Pfc. Bradley Manning ended on Tuesday, but the massive amounts of documents he is accused of leaking were hardly mentioned in the 10-day hearing. Instead, the focus was Manning's treatment at the hands of the military.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer
Recommendations for a Social, Mobile and Global Legal Profession
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has released its latest recommendations so that the rules and ethics of the legal profession keep up with the incredible pace of technology. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the details from the ABA Commission’s Chief Reporter, Professor Andrew Perlman, and debate these suggestions with Attorney Bradley Shear.
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL: 'Off-centered'
Profile of Shauna Barnes, general counsel for Dogfish Head Craft Brewery Inc.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202581554651&rss=rss_nlj
legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society
Friday, December 14, 2012
How do you talk to your lawyers about LinkedIn?
How do you win over LinkedIn skeptics? Show them the numbers.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202581425827&rss=rss_nlj
Germany passes law expressly permitting infant male circumcision
[JURIST] The German Parliament [official website, in German] on Wednesday approved a bill that explicitly permits male infant circumcision [JURIST news archive]. The law comes in response to a Cologne state court [official website, in German] ruling [JURIST report] that circumcision of minors even for religious reasons is prohibited because the practice amounts to bodily harm. Though the court's judgment was limited to the Cologne region, the ruling sparked outrage in religious communities, and doctors refused to carry out the...
pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor
Making Collaboration Tools Work in 2012
People are collaborating more than ever before. There are more collaboration tools and technologies than ever before. Yet, the actual adoption of collaboration tools seems to lag behind the wish to use collaboration tools. In this episode, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss the gap between tools and people in collaboration, the common challenges faced when implementing collaboration tools, especially ones used by lawyers, and their best recommendations for improving the adoption of collaboration tools and technologies in 2012. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennis’ co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.
What Should Solos Be Charging?
Are you confused about what to charge your clients? New Solo host and solo practitioner, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher talks to Attorney Jeremy Byellin, from Byellin Law, PLLC, about how a solo can determine how much to charge, the Laffey Matrix, the pros and cons of charging flat rates to clients and offers advice on how to communicate fees during the initial client meeting.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/new-solo/2012/07/what-should-solos-be-charging/
mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney
Liberty, Equality? No, Fraternity
Via Leo Mulvihill out of Fishtown, Philadelphia, a team of six narcotics cops has been broken up and transferred to lower profile assignments by Philly Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey. And the Fraternal Order of Police (Lodge 5, to be exact) isn't pleased.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, said that the transfers were based on "unfounded accusations" by the District Attorney's Office and that the allegations should have been investigated first.
"When you've got an aggressive group of officers, you're going to have people who aren't happy," McNesby said. "These guys took a lot of guns off the streets, took a lot of drugs off the streets. They did a lot of good work for the city."
The people who weren't happy turned out to be the district attorney and judges who didn't think nearly as well of these officers as their union president. As Leo (irony duly noted) explains it:
Besides, it’s not like they ever threatened anyone’s life while in the line of duty, right? When the officers caught up to him, Conolly said, he got out of the car with hands raised, but [the officers] threw him to the ground and choked, kicked, and punched him as he yelled for help. [Officer] Liciardello, he said, put a gun to the back of [Connolly's] head and told him, “We are the cops. If you don’t shut up, I will put a . . . bullet in your head.” The article finishes with this gem: McNesby has maintained the innocence of those officers.”It’s a sad day,” he said, “when you have the criminals in the city dictating where cops are going to be working.” No, John. It’s a sad day when police feel and act like they’re above the law they’re sworn to uphold. Ah, kids. So trusting. So believing. Aren't they cute as the dickens? On the one hand, you have police officers who take guns and drugs off the streets. So they sometimes put a little something in their own pocket for a rainy day? So they get a little rough with the bad guys on the street? It's a hard world out there when you're saving society from the criminals, you know.
Sure, back-benchers see it all neat and clean, platitudes and oaths galore, but somebody has to do the dirty work to keep us safe at night. And that's why they have the FOP.
McNesby's comments reflect the basic question that's been posed forever. Either we believe our beloved cops or we believe the criminals. Which side are you on?
While we now have the occasional video which shows cops gone bad, where for decades before it was the perps word against the cops, and the perps rarely won a pissing match because few judges wanted to be in McNesby's crosshairs for being on the wrong side of the question, not every bust offers a Youtube moment. And when there is no video, we go right back to the old ways, playing the odds and awaiting the union president's retort, next time you're in trouble, call a criminal. Hah! That'll show 'em.
But, you say, that's not what happened this time. The district attorney and police commissioner didn't side with the cops, didn't sweep it under the rug, didn't squint their eyes and conclude the accusations were unfounded. Well, yeah. Kinda. Maybe.
You see, these six cops didn't get canned. They didn't get prosecuted. They didn't get booted off the force and lose their pensions. They were transferred.
Bradley S. Bridge, a veteran lawyer in the Philadelphia Public Defender's Office, said the officers were "among the most troubled in the department."
"Transferring them out of a place where they have intense, high-profile interactions with people, and where there is little oversight of their actions, is an important and significant move," Bridge said. "We have had numerous clients who have complained about their interactions with these officers, who have maintained that these officers have testified falsely against them. And this is a recognition that those complaints are valid. This reflects that the problems are so significant that the department had to do something."
Ouch. Harsh. They made the cowboys change horses. That'll learn 'em for lying and beating folks and kicking 'em in the head.
And John McNesby goes full bore, because that's his job as union president, covering his people when they get fired prosecuted transferred for being tough cops in a tough world. Time to break out the champagne in Philly. No, not the citizens who applaud the firm action by the police chief and district attorney, but the guys in the party room at FOP Lodge 5. They got away with it again, and nobody noticed.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/12/06/liberty-equality-no-fraternity.aspx?ref=rss
The Controversial War on Drugs
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" claiming "America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse". Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-controversial-war-on-drugs/
free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer
Is Your Food Safe?
3,000 Americans die every year from food-borne illnesses. Recent warnings include listeria in lettuce, salmonella in tuna and E. coli in ground beef. So, is the food Americans eat safe? Are the FDA, USDA and federal laws doing enough to keep our food supply free from potentially deadly pathogens? Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney, Craig Williams gets the facts from food safety experts, William Marler, Managing Partner of Marler Clark and Editor of Food Safety News, and Dr. Michael Doyle, the Director of the University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/05/is-your-food-safe/
2011 Intellectual Property Year in Review and Outlook for 2012 – Part I: Patents
IP Counsel host, Attorney Peter Lando, partner at the firm of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, welcomes Craig Smith, partner at Lando & Anastasi, to discuss important patent cases and court decisions in 2011 from the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit covering a wide range of issues, including patentable subject matter, inventor rights, inducement of patent infringement, damages, and inequitable conduct. Peter and Craig also discuss major cases on the dockets of the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit in 2012 that will be followed closely by practitioners and the business community.
attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney
Thursday, December 13, 2012
The Impact of Voter ID Laws and Voter Purges
Before 2006, not a single US state required voters to show identification before marking a ballot. But now, 30 states have enacted some sort of voter identification law. Are these laws necessary to prevent voter fraud or are laws being passed to discourage low income groups, the elderly and minorities from voting? Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney, Craig Williams, joins Professor Richard L. Hasen, from the University of California, Irvine and Wendy Weiser, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, to talk voter ID laws in battleground states, voter purges and the potential impact on the upcoming election.
Bosnian Serb sentenced to life for Srebrenica massacre
[JURIST] Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] on Wednesday convicted [judgment, PDF; press release] former Bosnian Serb army commander Zdravko Tolimir [ICTY case materials; BBC profile] of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, sentencing him to life in prison. Tolimir, who served under Ratko Mladic [ICTY case materials; JURIST news archive] during the Bosnian civil war, was accused of involvement in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive]. Tolimir was...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/bosnian-serb-sentenced-to-life-for-srebrenica-massacre.php
free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice
Colombia puts security forces under martial jurisdiction
[JURIST] The Colombia Senate [official website, in Spanish] passed a bill [press release, in Spanish] on Tuesday that will create a military court for armed forces and police forces who commit crimes. Reportedly, the new law will allow for any armed forces' crimes to be prosecuted by military tribunals [Reuters report] rather than civil courts. A spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] last month expressed serious concern [JURIST report] regarding the...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/colombia-puts-security-forces-under-martial-jurisdiction.php
Compensation, Yes; Compliance, Maybe
Compliance may be a hot area for in-house lawyers--and the pay isn't bad--but that doesn’t mean the folks heading up those departments have all the tools they need to keep corporations out of regulatory hot water.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/12/10/compensation-yes-compliance-maybe/?mod=WSJBlog
employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego
An Empirical Study of Predispute Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Social Media Terms of Service Agreements
Michael Rustad, Thomas F. Lambert Jr. Professor of Law & Co-Director Intellectual Property Law Concentration at Suffolk Law, discusses his study on the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in social media. Read the article at: http://bit.ly/Kn6kKc.
The AM Roundup: Legal Industry Consolidation, Soaring Gun Violence
Law Blog rounds up the morning news.
getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law
The Best Paralegal Law Technology Trends
Paralegals need to know the latest trends in law practice and productivity technology to contribute to a successful law practice. For the hottest tech trends, Paralegal Voice co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin turn to Jared D. Correia, Esq., the Senior Practice Advisor for Massachusetts’ Law Office Management Assistance Program (MASSLOMAP). Jared shares his thoughts on everything from law practice management software, to cloud-based solutions and document management, to remote access and the benefits of social media. A big fan of legal support staffers, he explains why they are a key part of the legal team. This podcast is a must-listen for both paralegals and attorneys!
Will ‘Standing’ Stand in the Supreme Court’s Way?
So everyone's abuzz about the Supreme Court's decision to hear two key gay marriage cases. That's all fine and good. But let's not ignore that the court, in its very brief order, also went out of its way to tee up standing issues in both cases.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/12/07/will-standing-stand-in-the-supreme-courts-way/?mod=WSJBlog
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)