Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/new-solo/2012/07/what-should-solos-be-charging/
download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
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.
Legal Implications Surrounding the Meningitis Scare
The New England Compounding Center (NECC) shipped out tainted steroid shots to 23 states in what authorities believe resulted in a national fungal meningitis outbreak. Lawyer2Lawyer host Craig Williams chats with Attorney Michael F. Barrett, a personal injury attorney from the firm, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, PC and Glenn Cohen, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, about the litigation stemming from this meningitis scare, the role of the FDA and CDC and regulation.
Judges Who Split on Surveillance Hail from Opposite Parties
The debate over national security surveillance powers is one of those issues that doesn't fit into neat ideological or partisan boxes. The latest rulings on the legality of the NSA's bulk phone data collection program are a case in point.
Content Marketing for Lawyers
If you want to market your practice by leveraging your expertise, content marketing may be your answer. Jared Correia, the host of The Legal Toolkit and Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, interviews Gyi Tsakalakis, the director of web marketing for AttorneySync, to get the skinny. Jared and Gyi discuss different types of content marketing and distribution platforms, the efficacy of paywalls and the skill set lawyers need to become effective content marketers.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/08/content-marketing-for-lawyers/
free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers
Cyber Risk Management for Lawyers
Lawyers hold some of their clients’ most private communications, which makes them a top target of all hackers. As technology competence becomes the required norm, lawyers need to understand not only how to protect their clients’ information but how to react if a cyber attack does happen. On this episode of Digital Detectives, Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek invite Steven Chabinsky to discuss cyber-risk management for lawyers.
Steven Chabinsky is senior vice president of legal affairs, general counsel, and chief risk officer for the cyber-security-technology firm CrowdStrike. He is also is an adjunct faculty member of George Washington University and the cyber columnist for Security Magazine. Prior to joining CrowdStrike, Chabinsky had a distinguished 17-year career with the FBI, during which he was the top cyber lawyer, then the head of the Cyber Intelligence Section, and ultimately deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division.
Tune in to hear the major threats law firms are facing, what lawyers should do if their systems are hacked, and the future of cyber threats and cyber security.
Thanks to our sponsor, The Digital WarRoom.
Steven Chabinsky is senior vice president of legal affairs, general counsel, and chief risk officer for the cyber-security-technology firm CrowdStrike. He is also is an adjunct faculty member of George Washington University and the cyber columnist for Security Magazine. Prior to joining CrowdStrike, Chabinsky had a distinguished 17-year career with the FBI, during which he was the top cyber lawyer, then the head of the Cyber Intelligence Section, and ultimately deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division.
Tune in to hear the major threats law firms are facing, what lawyers should do if their systems are hacked, and the future of cyber threats and cyber security.
Thanks to our sponsor, The Digital WarRoom.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2013/09/cyber-risk-management-for-lawyers
Child Sexual Abuse Litigation in the Los Angeles United School District
School should be a safe environment for our children, but in a shocking case in Los Angeles, California, Forrest Stobbe, a teacher at Queen Anne Elementary School, pleaded no contest to continuous sexual abuse of a child. As multiple other claims involving Latino children are revealed in LAUSD, calls for further investigation are underway In this podcast, Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen along with co-host, Manny J. Valdez, Jr. and guest, Stephen J. Estey, founding partner of Estey & Bomberger LLC, and a legal champion for sexually abused children, take a look at these disturbing cases, the school district's liability and the quest to protect our children.
legal legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon
Monday, December 30, 2013
Bombs Away: Erasing Information in the Big Data Era
In this April edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, joins Barclay Blair, founder of ViaLumina an information governing consulting service, to talk about the idea of digital data being erased. We know that simply putting it in the trash can on our desktop isn’t enough, but can it be done? They will also discuss mobile apps which claim they immediately erase data like Snapchat: Does this data actually self destruct? And is using apps like this a liability in court because it looks like there is something to hide?
The iPad Practice
Do you use an iPad in your legal practice? On The Un-Billable Hour, host Attorney Rodney Dowell, chats with Tom Mighell, the author of three books about the use of iPads, iPad in One Hour For Lawyers, iPad Apps in One Hour For Lawyers, and soon to be released, iPad in One Hour for Litigators, about the explosive growth of the use of iPads in the legal profession, and Tom’s favorite productivity and entertainment apps for the legal iPad.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2012/08/the-ipad-practice/
defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney
How To Take Advantage of LinkedIn's New Interface
LinkedIn had a major interface overhaul in 2013. With so many changes to the graphics, connection management, and new ways for lawyers to take advantage of this important tool, the ABA just released a second edition of LinkedIn in One Hour for Lawyers. Authors Dennis Kennedy and Allison Shields monitored the developments and began conducting new experiments to uncover new ways to utilize lawyers’ top social media platform. In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss how LinkedIn has changed, its continuing importance for lawyers, and practical ways lawyers can enhance the benefits of the LinkedIn platform. The second half of the episode will cover Tom’s upcoming trip to China and what security precautions travelers should take to protect their data.
Africa leaders meet for summit to end fighting in South Sudan
[JURIST] African leaders met Thursday in South Sudan for closed-door talks [BBC report] about ending the fighting that began in the country earlier this month. Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta [official website] and Ethiopia Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn met with South Sudan President Salva Kiir [BBC profile] in the capital city of Juba with a focus on ending the armed conflict that has now spread to half the country. The violence began after ethnic Dinka, loyal to President Kiir, and Nuer...
criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers
Tenth Circuit Finds that Jury Must Determine Whether “Notes Are Securities” in a Securities Fraud Action
In United States v. McKye, No. 12-6108, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17297 (10th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the conviction of Brian William McKye for securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). The Tenth Circuit held that in a criminal action for securities fraud, the jury must be permitted to determine whether a “security” actually exists. The Tenth Circuit held that the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma erred in not leaving this issue for the jury to decide and instead giving the jury an instruction that “notes” are “securities.”
The United States charged McKye with eight counts of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Heritage Estate Services, LLC (“Heritage”), an entity owned or operated by McKye, prepared revocable trusts for its clients. Clients of Heritage who were unable to afford its trust preparation services were given an option to finance the costs and sign a promissory note agreeing to pay the balance due over a thirty-six-month period (the “trust loan”). Heritage also marketed certain investment notes titled “Premium 60 Accounts.” These notes guaranteed an annual return of between 6.5% and 19.275% for five years. Investors were told their investment notes were “backed by real estate and secured by liens that would be perfected by Global West.” Witnesses testified that some of the money received from the investment notes were used to pay investors, and Heritage and McKye’s personal and business expenses.
At trial, McKye requested the district court to instruct the jury that they must decide whether the investment notes at issue constituted “securities” under the applicable statutes. The district court rejected McKye’s request. It reasoned that “a note [is] considered a security, unless there are certain features to it.” The district court found that the notes at issue met the definition of “securities” and no evidence was presented to conclude otherwise. The jury convicted McKye on conspiracy and seven of the eight securities fraud counts. McKye appealed.
The Tenth Circuit reversed McKye’s conviction, holding that the trial court erred in rejecting McKye’s jury instruction request. The Tenth Circuit reasoned that under Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 63 (1990), not all “notes” are “securities” and certain factors — e.g., motivation, distribution, expectation and risk — determine whether a “note” is a “security.” Thus, “the question of whether a note is a security has both factual and legal components” and is not necessarily automatically outside the province of the jury. However, the presence of a mixed question of law and fact is not sufficient to require a jury instruction. In relying on United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S 506, 511-13 (1995), the Tenth Circuit noted that “mixed questions of fact and law must only be submitted to the jury if they implicate an element of the offense.” An element of securities fraud is the existence of a “security.” Therefore, since not all notes are securities and the existence of a security is an element of a securities fraud case, the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the investment notes at issue actually constituted “securities.”
The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the government’s argument that the failure to give McKye’s requested jury instruction was harmless error. McKye presented testimony at trial that there was insurance that ameliorated the risk to investors, which is one of the factors for determining whether a “note” is a “security,” and that the Premium 60 Accounts were partially secured by the trust loans. This evidence demonstrated that the issue of whether the investment notes constituted “securities” for the purposes of securities fraud was, in fact, contested.
The Tenth Circuit thus makes clear that in an action for securities fraud a jury, and not the court, must determine whether the “notes” at issue constitute “securities.” The Tenth Circuit reasons that not all “notes” are “securities,” and the presence of a “security” is a necessary element of securities fraud. It is the responsibility of the party alleging securities fraud to establish all of the elements of securities fraud, including the existence of a security. Consequently, the court may no longer direct a jury in such cases that the existence of a “note” is per se the existence of a “security.”
For further information, please contact David Geneson at (202) 218-0030, John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Mercedes Cook at (213) 617-4190.
An Incredible Sale At Macy’s – You Want That? It’s $5!
So you didn’t hear about the sale at Macy’s where, for a very limited time, everything was $5? Well, there is a catch. There’s always a catch. As reported by wpbf.com:
Vasthi Marseille and Marline Santelus were arrested Thursday on charges of grand theft and organized scheme to defraud.
Wait. You’re arresting them for buying things on sale?
Police said the women [Macy's employees] selected almost $1,000 worth of merchandise that they manually marked down to $5 apiece while working at the Macy’s in the Town Center at Boca Raton.
Yeah. Who would ever figure that out? It’s not like it would be in the computer or anything. The back story of this brilliant crime is truly fascinating:
According to the arrest report, Marseille said she knew of another sales associate “who had done unauthorized price adjustments for other employees in the past,” so she figured “why not?”
Or not. Here’s the source, with photos of the ladies.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/zpLf6yfQAro/q-7.html
private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney
Dayton appoints Vandelist to bench in Le Seur County
Gov. Mark Dayton on Monday appointed Mark C. Vandelist as District Court Judge in Minnesota’s 1st Judicial District. Vandelist will be replacing Edward I. Lynch, who retired earlier this year. The judgeship will be chambered at Le Center in Le Sueur County.
“I am pleased to appoint Mr. Vandelist to serve the people of the First Judicial District,” said Governor Dayton in a press release announcing the appointment. “Mr. Vandelist has proven himself to be astute in the law, and a leader in his community. I have great confidence that he will execute his duties as judge with excellence and integrity.”
Vandelist is a trial attorney and partner at Vandelist & Vandelist where he primarily handles personal injury cases and provides pro bono services in criminal areas. He previously served as a trial attorney at Heuer & Vandelist and Cousineau McGuire Chartered. Mr. Vandelist earned his B.A. from American University in Washington, D.C. and his J.D. from the Hamline University School of Law.
Additionally, Mr. Vandelist is a certified civil trial specialist, serves as an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association. He lives with his family in Lakeville.
Minnesota’s 1st Judicial District consists of Carver, Dakota, Goodhue, Le Sueur, McLeod, Scott and Sibley counties.
It's Not Easy Being Weev (Update)
Appellants and amici briefs are now in at the Third Circuit on the appeal of Andrew Auernheimer's conviction for somehow violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I say "somehow" as the government was never pinned down on whether it was exceeding authorized access or unauthorized access. But they were clear that what he did was wrong, wrong enough to get him convicted and sentence to 41 months imprisonment.
Weev didn't help himself. Whether he wanted to be a martyr to the cause of geekdom or just unwilling to win except on his terms isn't clear. But his lawyer, Tor Eckland, couldn't control him, and had enough on his hands trying to defend Weev in what I believe to be his first trial*. While the prosecution was huge within the computer hacker community, it didn't garner the attention of Lori Drew's prosecution, lacking a dead child. But make no mistake, Weev's prosecution raises issues of monumental significance for all computer users.
Orin Kerr, who joined the defense team on appeal, gives a summary of the case.
Here are the basic facts. When iPads were first released, iPad owners could sign up for Internet access using AT&T. When they signed up, they gave AT&T their e-mail addresses. AT&T decided to configure their webservers to “pre load” those e-mail addresses when it recognized the registered iPads that visited its website. When an iPad owner would visit the AT&T website, the browser would automatically visit a specific URL associated with its own ID number; when that URL was visited, the webserver would open a pop-up window that was preloaded with the e-mail address associated with that iPad.
The basic idea was to make it easier for users to log in to AT&T’s website: The user’s e-mail address would automatically appear in the pop-up window, so users only needed to enter in their passwords to access their account. But this practice effectively published the e-mail addresses on the web. You just needed to visit the right publicly-available URL to see a particular user’s e-mail address. Spitler realized this, and he wrote a script to visit AT&T’s website with the different URLs and thereby collect lots of different e-mail addresses of iPad owners. And they ended up collecting a lot of e-mail addresses — around 114,000 different addresses — that they then disclosed to a reporter. Importantly, however, only e-mail addresses were obtained. No names or passwords were obtained, and no accounts were actually accessed.
Or to put it a bit more succinctly, Weev and Spitler stumbled on pages that were publicly accessible, but AT&T figured no one would find because there was no way to access them other than to have its iPad or, as stumble on them. They then did what geeks do, and exploited their discovery to see how far they could go. Rather than hand it over nicely to AT&T so it could cover its tracks and deny its screw-up, they gave it to a reporter to publish. AT&T was pissed, and the government was happy to prosecute as payback for quick and easy disclosure of your cellular communications the heinous crime of publicly embarrassing AT&T for being a computer idiot.
The appellant's brief, after a disturbing opening to the main argument that repeats the conventional wisdom from 1986 analogizing computers to physical trespass, takes the view that this just isn't a crime. As the pages were public, it cannot be unlawful access. The brief reads more academic than advocate, but does an admirable job of making its points.
There are two amici briefs, one arguing that this is how everybody uses the internet, and the other arguing that this is how sophisticated internet security experts use the internet, both reaching the same conclusion that affirmance of Weev's conviction would criminalize normal and lawful practices.
As everybody else involved relies on analogies, it seems appropriate despite my view that it's critical to stop using real world analogies to explain digital world conduct, to do the same. The prosecution's argument is that just because someone leaves their door unlocked doesn't mean a person can walk in and take what he wants. The defense argument is that when someone leaves their stuff in front of a picture window, passersby commit no crime by looking in and seeing what the person put on display. Neither analogy strikes me as fully satisfying.
The question for the rest of us is where the line is drawn between lawful and unlawful conduct based on a law crafted at the birth of public computer use and before there was any world wide web to consider. The language of the CFAA fails miserably to provide an answer, and there is certainly no "originalist" view since there was no internet in existence. What we are left with is empty, meaningless language being shoehorned into technology that didn't exist. It might have seemed like a good idea back in 1986, but we're paying for it now.
Nonetheless, Congress can't be bothered to do its job of crafting a law that might apply, and the court is left with trying to decipher criminality from inapt words and their limited grasp of how the tubes work (or that of their kids, their law clerks, or maybe the kid down the street).
The prosecution has a huge glaring hole that needs answering: Is there any middle ground for a URL that can be accessed without hacking a password but is otherwise not intended to be found, accessed or used except by a discrete, chosen group of users? The government wants the crime to depend on the subjective and transitory intent of the website owner, where "unauthorized" is defined as undesired. The defense wants a brightline test that says if it can be publicly accessed, then there can be no crime.
The government's position is not only untenable, but presents a threat to users that can't be tolerated. And indeed, it's so highly subjective, and selective, that it ignores that Google et al. violate it constantly with impunity. Do we want cookies and bots crawling all over us, capturing our personal info to feed back to people so they can sell us crap? I don't think so. But it prevailed below anyway.
The problem now is that the burdens shift on appeal, and it's the appellant's position that will be subject to scrutiny. Is there no limit to what we can access on the internet, as long as we don't hack the password? What if all the surrounding circumstances leave us with no doubt that the website owner doesn't want anybody coming in uninvited, so that no reasonable person can not be aware that he's entering a URL where he isn't welcome? Is that still okay?
Since the lines are drawn at polar extremes, and the arguments remain couched in poor analogies, and the judges will have a terrible time getting into the mindset of sophisticated computer users who think nothing of screwing around with user agents to see what they can find, and Weev felt compelled to handle himself in the typical, snarky, computer whizkid way that tends to just piss the crap out of everybody who isn't a snarky computer whizkid, this is going to be a tough fight.
But there remains one detail that I would have pounded hard, far harder than either the appellant or amici. Fair notice requires that the language of the CFAA, for smarter or stupider, state clearly what constitutes criminal conduct so that a person will know what not to do. By the Rule of Lenity, the failure of the law to adequately define a crime given the state of technology as it currently exists must resolve all ambiguities in favor of the defendant.
While no one knows what Congress might do if it is forced to recraft the CFAA, and they could make it even worse, what seems clear now is that it is far too unclear to imprison anyone whose conduct falls within that middle ground of not hacking a password and breaking through a brick wall. Maybe they would criminalize what happened here, but until the law makes clear where the line is drawn, the government can't just make it up at will. And the Third Circuit should not be so activist as to give a 2013 meaning to a 1986 law that the government pulls out of its butt to nail Weev.
Weev's conviction must be reversed, despite his attitude and mouth, because the rest of us used the internet too and if Weev is a criminal, so too are we all.
* I hasten to add, lest anyone think otherwise, that I think Tor did an exceptional job with this case, even the more remarkable given the circumstances.
Update: Via Volokh, the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has just become available. While I'm still going through it, my initial impression is that it's excellent, and fills in some of the gaps in the other briefs. Notably, putting them all together, the argument on behalf of Weev is overwhelming.
© 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/2013/07/09/its-not-easy-being-weev.aspx?ref=rss
estate attorney family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer
Sunday, December 29, 2013
The iPad for Litigators and Life After Google Reader
Learn why iPads are a valuable resource in the courtroom for their portability, presentation capabilities, and apps catered specifically to case intake, jury verdict, and more. Hosts Dennis and Tom elaborate further to outline why litigators especially can benefit from an iPad and Tom’s upcoming book iPad in One Hour for Litigators. The second half of the show mourns the approaching death of Google Reader, the significance and utility of an RSS reader, and what other options are out there.
Here Comes the Next Round of E-Discovery Rules
In this May edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, invites Mark Michels, a director in Deloitte Financial Advisory Services, and Henry Kelston, senior counsel at Milberg, to discuss the proposed changes in federal e-discovery rules. Kelston’s article, "Are We on the Cusp of Major Changes to E-Discovery Rules?", was recently published in Law Technology News.
Mark Michels is a director at Deloitte Financial Advisory Services. As a former in-house counsel, he specializes in advising on electronic discovery management. Mark has more than 13 years of experience in devising multi-faceted corporate discovery programs, including developing discovery compliance processes and requirements, evaluating and implementing solutions for collection, processing, review, and production of diverse corporate data, and applying continuous process improvement methodologies.
Henry Kelston is senior counsel at Milberg, specializing in complex litigation and electronic discovery. Henry is a member of the firm's e-discovery practice group and The Sedona Conference's Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production. He is a frequent writer and speaker on e-discovery issues.
Listen in on the roundtable discussion of the future of e-discovery.
Mark Michels is a director at Deloitte Financial Advisory Services. As a former in-house counsel, he specializes in advising on electronic discovery management. Mark has more than 13 years of experience in devising multi-faceted corporate discovery programs, including developing discovery compliance processes and requirements, evaluating and implementing solutions for collection, processing, review, and production of diverse corporate data, and applying continuous process improvement methodologies.
Henry Kelston is senior counsel at Milberg, specializing in complex litigation and electronic discovery. Henry is a member of the firm's e-discovery practice group and The Sedona Conference's Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production. He is a frequent writer and speaker on e-discovery issues.
Listen in on the roundtable discussion of the future of e-discovery.
patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer
Passing the Tech Skills Competency Audit
Casey Flaherty, corporate counsel at Kia Motors America, has gotten a lot of attention recently with a basic technology competency audit he administers to outside law firms and the failing grades lawyers at those firms have received. There has always been an ongoing conversation of what basic technology skills lawyers need. The ABA’s Ethics 2020 recommendation that a basic knowledge of common software techniques be a part of the definition of “competence,” has also shined the spotlight on this issue. In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss Flaherty’s technology audit approach, the responses it has prompted, and how this may or may not change the ways lawyers deal with technology skills. The second half of the episode will cover Apple’s much-rumored “iWatch” and the future of watch technology.
criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer
Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana
Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana.
Full decision: BNSF Railway v. Feit (Montana 07/06/2012)
Feit got a ruling from the Montana Department of Labor that BNSF Railway discriminated against him by refusing to hire him because BNSF regarded him as being disabled due to his obesity.
BNSF then went to federal court to get a review of whether it violated the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) by refusing to hire Feit because of his obesity.
The federal court then asked the Supreme Court of Montana to decide how to rule, asking this question: Is obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological condition a "physical or mental impairment" as it is used in Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a)?
The Montana Supreme Court answered with a qualified yes. The court answered: Obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological disorder or condition may constitute a "physical or mental impairment" within the meaning of Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a) if the individual's weight is outside the "normal range" and affects "one or more body systems" as defined in 29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)(2011).
The federal court laid out these facts:
1. BNSF offered Eric Feit a conditional offer of employment as a conductor trainee. The employment was conditioned upon successful completion of a physical examination, drug screening, background investigation, proof of employment eligibility, and BNSF’s Medical History Questionnaire.2. On February 6, 2008, BNSF informed Feit he was not qualified for his “safety sensitive” position because of the “significant health and safety risks associated with extreme obesity.”
3. BNSF told Feit he would not be considered for the job unless he either lost 10% of his body weight, or successfully completed additional physical examinations at his own expense. Regardless of the test results, BNSF did not guarantee Feit a job.
4. With the exception of a sleep study test, Feit successfully completed the additional physical exams BNSF requested. The sleep test cost at least $1,800, and Feit could not afford the test.
5. Because BNSF informed Feit that it would not consider him for the conductor trainee position unless he completed the sleep study, Feit set out to lose 10% of his weight.
6. A genuine dispute exists regarding whether BNSF received documentation of Feit’s weight loss.
The Montana Supreme Court noted that the EEOC Interpretive Guidance distinguished between conditions that were impairments and conditions that were simply physical characteristics, which suggested that a person with normal weight required a physical condition to qualify as an impairment. The court referred to the ADAAA which instructed courts that they were interpreting the statute too restrictively and expressed its specific intent that determination of disability not demand extensive analysis (122 Stat. at 3553-54).
The DISSENT noted that the definition of a "physical and mental impairment" included "any physiological disorder, or condition" that affects a major system of the human body (29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)), and argued that the plain meaning required a physiological condition be present before an impairment existed.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/07/obesity_can_be.html
Gone Clio with Attorney Anthony Reeves
On this edition of Gone Clio, Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Anthony Reeves of the Reeves Law Firm. Anthony talks about cloud computing and security, flexibility of using Clio for his practice and the role Internet access plays in serving his clients.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/10/gone-clio-with-attorney-anthony-reeves/
free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid
Uruguay president signs bill legalizing production and sale of marijuana
[JURIST] Uruguayan President Jose Mujica [official profile, in Spanish] has signed into law a controversial plan to oversee the production and sale of marijuana in Uruguay. The Uruguayan Senate passed the measure [JURIST report] to legalize the production, sale and consumption of marijuana earlier this month. The bill makes Uruguay the first country to have a system that regulates marijuana production and sale, as the use of cannabis was already legal in Uruguay. The bill allows [AFP report] individuals over...
Cyber Threats to Law Firms and Businesses: How Do We Defend Ourselves?
Digital Detectives hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek, president and vice president of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., welcome Stewart Baker of Steptoe & Johnson to discuss the 2013 Verizon Data Breach Report, cybersecurity legislation, and more.
• Stewart Baker has been described by The Washington Post as “one of the most techno-literate lawyers around.” His long list of experience includes serving as the first Assistant Secretary for Policy for the Department of Homeland Security and the General Counsel of the National Security Agency. His current law practice covers homeland security matters, travel and foreign investment regulation, international trade, cybersecurity, and data protection.
Tune in to hear Baker explain the difference between active defense against cyber-defense and vigilantism, the meaning of the Attribution Revolution, and what President Obama Cybersecurity Executive Order means and how it may be amplified by pending legislation.
• Stewart Baker has been described by The Washington Post as “one of the most techno-literate lawyers around.” His long list of experience includes serving as the first Assistant Secretary for Policy for the Department of Homeland Security and the General Counsel of the National Security Agency. His current law practice covers homeland security matters, travel and foreign investment regulation, international trade, cybersecurity, and data protection.
Tune in to hear Baker explain the difference between active defense against cyber-defense and vigilantism, the meaning of the Attribution Revolution, and what President Obama Cybersecurity Executive Order means and how it may be amplified by pending legislation.
criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney
Saturday, December 28, 2013
2013 Year in Review: E-discovery Embraces its Roots
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Although the French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr certainly didn’t have legal technologies in mind when he wrote this famous epigram, his sentiments ring true to the current state of e-discovery. While 2012 was the battle ground in which the “disruptive” technology-assisted review and its early adopters emerged victorious, 2013 provided something of a “back to basics” approach as courts applied the fundamental tenets of e-discovery to the newer, more efficient technologies and methodologies that are revolutionizing e-discovery. In this edition of ESI Report, host and Director of Thought Leadership for Kroll Ontrack Michele Lange invites e-discovery expert Phil Favro to highlight this year’s key e-discovery cases, analyze key trends, and explore the predictions for the e-discovery realm of 2014.
Currently providing independent litigation counsel, Favro is a recognized expert in e-discovery, information governance, and data protection. He has advised technology companies and other enterprises regarding complex business disputes, and he has written over 50 byline articles and several law review pieces that have appeared in reputable publications such as the ACC Docket, Law Technology News, and the Michigan State Law Review.
Currently providing independent litigation counsel, Favro is a recognized expert in e-discovery, information governance, and data protection. He has advised technology companies and other enterprises regarding complex business disputes, and he has written over 50 byline articles and several law review pieces that have appeared in reputable publications such as the ACC Docket, Law Technology News, and the Michigan State Law Review.
Defending a Serial Killer
What is it like to defend one of America’s most infamous serial killers? Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join retired judge and lawyer, Sam L. Amirante, and retired lawyer, Daniel J. Broderick, to discuss their new book, John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster, and the constitutional right to a defense.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/defending-a-serial-killer/
patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer
2013 Year in Review: E-discovery Embraces its Roots
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Although the French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr certainly didn’t have legal technologies in mind when he wrote this famous epigram, his sentiments ring true to the current state of e-discovery. While 2012 was the battle ground in which the “disruptive” technology-assisted review and its early adopters emerged victorious, 2013 provided something of a “back to basics” approach as courts applied the fundamental tenets of e-discovery to the newer, more efficient technologies and methodologies that are revolutionizing e-discovery. In this edition of ESI Report, host and Director of Thought Leadership for Kroll Ontrack Michele Lange invites e-discovery expert Phil Favro to highlight this year’s key e-discovery cases, analyze key trends, and explore the predictions for the e-discovery realm of 2014.
Currently providing independent litigation counsel, Favro is a recognized expert in e-discovery, information governance, and data protection. He has advised technology companies and other enterprises regarding complex business disputes, and he has written over 50 byline articles and several law review pieces that have appeared in reputable publications such as the ACC Docket, Law Technology News, and the Michigan State Law Review.
Currently providing independent litigation counsel, Favro is a recognized expert in e-discovery, information governance, and data protection. He has advised technology companies and other enterprises regarding complex business disputes, and he has written over 50 byline articles and several law review pieces that have appeared in reputable publications such as the ACC Docket, Law Technology News, and the Michigan State Law Review.
HRW urges China to drop charges against rights activist
[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] on Thursday urged [press release] the Chinese government to drop all politically motivated charges against Xu Zhiyong [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and release the rights activist from prison. Xu, a prominent critic of China's one-party system and founder of the nongovernmental New Citizen's Movement [WSJ backgrounder], was arrested in April and faces five years in prison for organizing a series of small-scale protests to disrupt public order. HRW Asia Director Brad Adams...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/12/hrw-urges-china-to-drop-charges-against-rights-activist.php
green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers
LawBiz® Legal Pad On the Road!: The Virtual Law Office
In this technology-driven age, a lot of lawyers' work can be moved online. Today Ed discusses the virtualization of law offices to help you consider whether or not that move makes sense for you.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/qqtbd4WPH_g/
Getting to Yes: Advice for Legal Entrepreneurs from a Venture Capitalist
In the September edition of Law Technology Now, attorney Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM's Law Technology News, interviews Robert Siegel, general partner at Xseed Capital about how Silicon Valley is becoming a hot bed of legal technology startups. With two major Bay Area universities — Stanford and the University of California Berkeley, both with strong synergies among their law schools and computer, engineering, and design departments — innovative law firms and venture capitalists are ready to collaborate, and the sky is the limit, says Siegel.
He explains how these dynamics combine to create opportunities for legal technology lawyers and vendors, and financiers, and how collaborations can result in companies like Lex Machina. They are creating technology products that ultimately help not just the legal community (lawyers, government, academia, and business) do better, faster, and cheaper work, but benefit consumers and businesses, as well. And for innovators and entrepreneurs, he offers concrete advice about how to best approach venture capitalists to successfully get them to yes.
He explains how these dynamics combine to create opportunities for legal technology lawyers and vendors, and financiers, and how collaborations can result in companies like Lex Machina. They are creating technology products that ultimately help not just the legal community (lawyers, government, academia, and business) do better, faster, and cheaper work, but benefit consumers and businesses, as well. And for innovators and entrepreneurs, he offers concrete advice about how to best approach venture capitalists to successfully get them to yes.
real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor solicitors statute law
Law Librarians at the Front Lines of Change
In the June edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, an attorney and Editor-in-Chief of ALM's Law Technology News invites her American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) co-presenters, Steven Lastres and D. Casey Flaherty to chat about the recent and upcoming changes in technology affecting law librarians and legal research. Bay, Lastres, and Flaherty will be presenting at AALL’s annual conference this month in Seattle. Learn how librarians are leading the charge for faster, better, and cheaper legal services!
• Lastres, an attorney, is director of library and knowledge management for Debevoise and Plimpton. He is responsible for the firm’s information and knowledge management initiatives. He is the co-founder of the OnFirmerGround blog — a collaborative effort of international law library associations seeking to promote the value that law firm librarians bring to the business and practice of law.
• Flaherty is corporate counsel of Kia Motors America. He manages all legal matters from transactional to litigation. Before moving in-house he worked at BigLaw where he focused his practice in commercial litigation and e-discovery. Flaherty is known for his meticulous auditing system made specifically for law firms, on which he regularly speaks and writes about.
Tune in for a sneak preview of their upcoming presentation and the future of legal research.
• Lastres, an attorney, is director of library and knowledge management for Debevoise and Plimpton. He is responsible for the firm’s information and knowledge management initiatives. He is the co-founder of the OnFirmerGround blog — a collaborative effort of international law library associations seeking to promote the value that law firm librarians bring to the business and practice of law.
• Flaherty is corporate counsel of Kia Motors America. He manages all legal matters from transactional to litigation. Before moving in-house he worked at BigLaw where he focused his practice in commercial litigation and e-discovery. Flaherty is known for his meticulous auditing system made specifically for law firms, on which he regularly speaks and writes about.
Tune in for a sneak preview of their upcoming presentation and the future of legal research.
FCPA Compliance — A Case for Integrated Technology Solutions
This podcast focuses on how technology can help companies strengthen their FCPA compliance programs and make them more effective and defensible. Learn the importance of a technology solution that is configurable to address a company’s specific business needs that include: regulatory intelligence, policy management, monitoring and ongoing auditing of controls, and investigation of incidents and allegations.
solicitors statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney
Friday, December 27, 2013
Judge Scheindlin’s Collection Case and Florida E-Discovery Amendments
One of the attributes that makes for a great e-discovery lawyer is the ability to wade through the digital mire that separates preservation from collection. The ESI Report’s Michele Lange, Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership at Kroll Ontrack joins e-discovery expert David Kearney, Director of Technology Services at Cohen & Grigsby, to discuss Judge Shira Scheindlin’s recent opinion in the case, National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al. v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al. On the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent, Elliot Westman analyzes recent e-discovery amendments to the Florida Civil Procedure Rules.
Zimmerman: No Appeal From The Court of Public Opinion (Update)
George Zimmerman was acquitted on a Saturday night. Keyboards were pounded. Reporters reported. Pundits opined. And the jury in the court of public opinion rendered its verdict.
Almost no criminal lawyer, prosecution or defense, saw a second degree murder conviction coming. Education and experience condemns us to view evidence and law with detached logic, so there is no emotionalism, no reliance on "common sense," to fudge the proof.
While juries regularly reach verdicts that bear little relation to the facts, evidence and applicable law, mostly because it's a deeply flawed system, that didn't happen here. The best discussion of what happened that has been produced thus far comes from the Unwashed Advocate, Eric Mayer, who succinctly lays it out.
Acquittal was the right verdict in this case, no matter how much you feel Zimmerman acted out of prejudice, or how terrible it is that a young man was killed.
But the court of public opinion rendered its opinion on twitter following the verdict. For those who embrace the "wisdom of crowds," consider its holding:
1. Trayvon Martin's family should appeal the verdict, up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
2. On appeal, they can make George Zimmerman testify.
3. Then, George Zimmerman will be convicted because a young man is dead.
It's not that people intentionally determined that the Constitution should be ignored. It's that the crowds have no clue. Maybe they slept through civics class. Maybe they don't remember. Maybe they don't care. But less than ten days after we celebrated the independence of this nation, the court of public opinion has decided they don't like them.
There will be no appeal because of the double jeopardy clause, which precludes it. Zimmerman did not have to testify, and will never have to testify in a criminal prosecution, because he has the right not to testify. And most sadly, the fact that a young man is dead does not compel the conclusion that someone be convicted of a crime.
So much for the adoration of crowdsourcing, or the desiderata that the public can be entrusted with the handling of the law. In the court of public opinion, assumption runs rampant, as people get their own "feel" for right and wrong, and then become so entrenched in their own bias that they refuse to consider the hard details of evidence and proof. People need no trial to tell them what happened. They hear a story and whatever gut reaction they have to it becomes their reality.
As it turns out, much of what was told about the death of Trayvon Martin is either false or mired in mystery. When left with the proposition that we will never know what "really" happened, the significance is that the prosecution then lacks evidence to prove its case. But Trayvon is dead, so it's unfair since he can't tell his side of the story? True, but that doesn't change the requirement that a defendant be proven guilty. The rule is not proof if its available, assumption if it's not. Except in the court of public opinion.
Is there nothing left to do? There is the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death by Trayvon Martin's family, just as Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued O.J. The standard of proof is lower, "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the outcome will be money damages at worst, not conviction of a crime and imprisonment.
There is also the possibility of a prosecution in federal court for violating Trayvon Martin's civil right to live by shooting him, under the dreaded dual sovereignty that allows the feds a shot if the state fails to convict. That's what happened to LAPD Sgt. Stacey Koon in the Rodney King beating.
Will either of these happen? Time will tell. The former seems far more likely than the latter, but Trayvon's family may be more legally sophisticated by this point, such that they realize the difficulty that exists with providing evidence to prove their claim. It's not that they can't believe, but they can't prove.
As show trials go, this one has generated plenty of fodder for television heads to fill the empty minutes between commercials. But it has also shown that the court of public opinion can't be trusted. Americans still don't understand their own system. They don't get that the rights they want for themselves have to be given to people they despise as well. They refuse to accept that someone they feel with absolute certainty is guilty can be properly acquitted.
Did George Zimmerman have hate in his heart? Who knows. I don't. Neither do you, no matter how strongly you believe you do. But he wasn't proven to have killed Trayvon Martin because of his ill will toward a young black man, and when that happens under our system, acquittal must follow. Yet the court of public opinion refused to accept the verdict, instead pushing its million member jury deeper into ignorance.
There is one truth that neither conviction nor acquittal can change:
Update: Already this morning, television news has broadcast the twits of New York City politicians and candidates following the verdict. They have the potential to enlighten, to calm, to inform. Instead, they are pandering and inflaming the passions and ignorance of the public, playing the confirmation bias card.
Whether they too lack a working grasp of our legal system, or know better and just don't care, is unclear. Either way, a million people could end the day stupider than it began. Is it worth a vote? Don't answer.
© 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.
Almost no criminal lawyer, prosecution or defense, saw a second degree murder conviction coming. Education and experience condemns us to view evidence and law with detached logic, so there is no emotionalism, no reliance on "common sense," to fudge the proof.
While juries regularly reach verdicts that bear little relation to the facts, evidence and applicable law, mostly because it's a deeply flawed system, that didn't happen here. The best discussion of what happened that has been produced thus far comes from the Unwashed Advocate, Eric Mayer, who succinctly lays it out.
Acquittal was the right verdict in this case, no matter how much you feel Zimmerman acted out of prejudice, or how terrible it is that a young man was killed.
But the court of public opinion rendered its opinion on twitter following the verdict. For those who embrace the "wisdom of crowds," consider its holding:
1. Trayvon Martin's family should appeal the verdict, up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
2. On appeal, they can make George Zimmerman testify.
3. Then, George Zimmerman will be convicted because a young man is dead.
It's not that people intentionally determined that the Constitution should be ignored. It's that the crowds have no clue. Maybe they slept through civics class. Maybe they don't remember. Maybe they don't care. But less than ten days after we celebrated the independence of this nation, the court of public opinion has decided they don't like them.
There will be no appeal because of the double jeopardy clause, which precludes it. Zimmerman did not have to testify, and will never have to testify in a criminal prosecution, because he has the right not to testify. And most sadly, the fact that a young man is dead does not compel the conclusion that someone be convicted of a crime.
So much for the adoration of crowdsourcing, or the desiderata that the public can be entrusted with the handling of the law. In the court of public opinion, assumption runs rampant, as people get their own "feel" for right and wrong, and then become so entrenched in their own bias that they refuse to consider the hard details of evidence and proof. People need no trial to tell them what happened. They hear a story and whatever gut reaction they have to it becomes their reality.
As it turns out, much of what was told about the death of Trayvon Martin is either false or mired in mystery. When left with the proposition that we will never know what "really" happened, the significance is that the prosecution then lacks evidence to prove its case. But Trayvon is dead, so it's unfair since he can't tell his side of the story? True, but that doesn't change the requirement that a defendant be proven guilty. The rule is not proof if its available, assumption if it's not. Except in the court of public opinion.
Is there nothing left to do? There is the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death by Trayvon Martin's family, just as Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued O.J. The standard of proof is lower, "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the outcome will be money damages at worst, not conviction of a crime and imprisonment.
There is also the possibility of a prosecution in federal court for violating Trayvon Martin's civil right to live by shooting him, under the dreaded dual sovereignty that allows the feds a shot if the state fails to convict. That's what happened to LAPD Sgt. Stacey Koon in the Rodney King beating.
Will either of these happen? Time will tell. The former seems far more likely than the latter, but Trayvon's family may be more legally sophisticated by this point, such that they realize the difficulty that exists with providing evidence to prove their claim. It's not that they can't believe, but they can't prove.
As show trials go, this one has generated plenty of fodder for television heads to fill the empty minutes between commercials. But it has also shown that the court of public opinion can't be trusted. Americans still don't understand their own system. They don't get that the rights they want for themselves have to be given to people they despise as well. They refuse to accept that someone they feel with absolute certainty is guilty can be properly acquitted.
Did George Zimmerman have hate in his heart? Who knows. I don't. Neither do you, no matter how strongly you believe you do. But he wasn't proven to have killed Trayvon Martin because of his ill will toward a young black man, and when that happens under our system, acquittal must follow. Yet the court of public opinion refused to accept the verdict, instead pushing its million member jury deeper into ignorance.
There is one truth that neither conviction nor acquittal can change:
A young man named Trayvon died. He didn’t need to die. That is both tragic and sad.And there is another truth that twitter cannot change. For all the vast information that has become available to us by virtue of the internet, there is no wisdom of the crowds.
Update: Already this morning, television news has broadcast the twits of New York City politicians and candidates following the verdict. They have the potential to enlighten, to calm, to inform. Instead, they are pandering and inflaming the passions and ignorance of the public, playing the confirmation bias card.
Whether they too lack a working grasp of our legal system, or know better and just don't care, is unclear. Either way, a million people could end the day stupider than it began. Is it worth a vote? Don't answer.
© 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.
injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer injury lawyers international law
Judge Posner Refuses to Seal Settlements
The concealment of civil settlements is a common and longstanding practice within the legal system. But that doesn't mean it's always a good idea, says Judge Richard Posner.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/12/26/judge-posner-refuses-to-seal-settlements/?mod=WSJBlog
A State Judge’s Perspective On E-Discovery
The Honorable John M. Tran uses the terms digital natives and digital immigrants when referring to judges. Coined by author Marc Prensky, digital natives are those born into technology and digital immigrants are learning the field as they go. It’s not uncommon for judges to be digital immigrants, forcing them to confront issues on the bench that they have never experienced. In this edition of Digital Detectives, hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek invite long-time friend Judge Tran to discuss how his colleagues keep up to date on technology, his views on cooperative discovery as both a judge and a past litigator, and what he’s seen as the best way to address discovery in the courtroom.
Judge John M. Tran started his career at a boutique litigation law firm in Virginia where he had extensive experience in e-discovery matters, in both the state and federal court. Now he is a state judge in the Fairfax Circuit Court, in the 19th judicial circuit of Virginia. He is a graduate of the George Washington University and the George Washington University Law School.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
Judge John M. Tran started his career at a boutique litigation law firm in Virginia where he had extensive experience in e-discovery matters, in both the state and federal court. Now he is a state judge in the Fairfax Circuit Court, in the 19th judicial circuit of Virginia. He is a graduate of the George Washington University and the George Washington University Law School.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
commercial law common law company law conservator copyright lawyer
Will Accused Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Get the Death Penalty?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother of the accused for the Boston marathon bombings, has become a face of the media lately. His prosecution and potential sentence raises many questions for both the public and the legal world. Attorneys and co-hosts Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi join Attorney Jack Cunha and Professor Douglas Berman to discuss the prosecution and trial of the suspect.
• Jack Cunha, of Cunha & Holcomb, is a practicing criminal attorney based in Boston, Massachusetts. A former instructor at Suffolk and Harvard Law Schools, Cunha lectures nationally for various associations and schools such as The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, Harvard Law, and CLE Programs mainly on criminal defense.
• Douglas Berman, Professor of Law at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, has taught a myriad of courses at Ohio State including criminal law, criminal punishment and sentencing, and the death penalty. He is co-author of a casebook, Sentencing Law and Policy: Cases, Statutes, and Guidelines. He also writes a popular blog titled Sentencing Law and Policy.
Tune in to hear what these experienced professionals have to say as they answer questions such as: Although Massachusetts outlawed the death penalty in 1984, will prosecutors use federal law to seek the death penalty for Tsarnaev? Will the fact that the suspect is only 19 call for mitigation? and more.
• Jack Cunha, of Cunha & Holcomb, is a practicing criminal attorney based in Boston, Massachusetts. A former instructor at Suffolk and Harvard Law Schools, Cunha lectures nationally for various associations and schools such as The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, Harvard Law, and CLE Programs mainly on criminal defense.
• Douglas Berman, Professor of Law at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, has taught a myriad of courses at Ohio State including criminal law, criminal punishment and sentencing, and the death penalty. He is co-author of a casebook, Sentencing Law and Policy: Cases, Statutes, and Guidelines. He also writes a popular blog titled Sentencing Law and Policy.
Tune in to hear what these experienced professionals have to say as they answer questions such as: Although Massachusetts outlawed the death penalty in 1984, will prosecutors use federal law to seek the death penalty for Tsarnaev? Will the fact that the suspect is only 19 call for mitigation? and more.
Settlement Talks Follow Jury Verdict
In the wake of the $3 million verdict returned by an Oklahoma City jury in a lawsuit involving the crash of a 2005 Camry that injured the driver and killed a passenger, lawyers on both side of the litigation hashed out a process to possibly settle the remaining 450 cases alleging sudden-acceleration defects.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202634307478&rss=rss_nlj
criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney
Straight From The Hole
It's far easier to wrap your head around torture when it involves the infliction of active pain. That doesn't make passive pain, the infliction of often unbearable psychological punishment, an less torturous. And it happens regularly, and many time arbitrarily, as explained in an op-ed by Wilbert Rideau, who served 44 years for manslaughter in Louisiana.
Before you dismiss Rideau as a killer who deserved whatever he got, bear in mind that stories from the inside aren't told by saints. Every once in a while, a former inmate emerges with the erudition necessary to put into words the world that most of us never knew existed. When this happens, it's a window through which we need to look. Rideau offers a view of solitary confinement, the hole.
© 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.
Before you dismiss Rideau as a killer who deserved whatever he got, bear in mind that stories from the inside aren't told by saints. Every once in a while, a former inmate emerges with the erudition necessary to put into words the world that most of us never knew existed. When this happens, it's a window through which we need to look. Rideau offers a view of solitary confinement, the hole.
I know something about solitary confinement, because I’ve been there. I spent a total of 12 years in various solitary confinement cells. And I can tell you that isolating a human being for years in a barren cell the size of a small bathroom is the cruelest thing you can do to a person.Deprived of all human contact, you lose your feeling of connectedness to the world. You lose your ability to make small talk, even with the guard who shoves your meal through the slot in the door. You live entirely in your head, for there is nothing else. You talk to yourself, answer yourself. You become paranoid, depressed, sleepless. To ward off madness, you must give your mind something to do. In 1970, I counted the 358 rivets that held my steel cell together, over and over. Every time the walls seemed to be closing in on me, I counted them again, to give my mind something to fasten on to.
Without having been there, it's likely inconceivable to understand what happens to a mind in isolation. Some of us have trouble being alone for an hour, an evening, a day. Add day upon day, year upon year. But not the way it is for us, where we still have access to television or internet, even if there is no other living person around. No, this is completely different.
But to add insult to injury, don't leap to the assumption that if a prisoner ends up in the hole, he must have done something pretty bad to deserve it.
In a world where authorities exercise absolute power and demand abject obedience, prisoners are almost always going to be on the losing side, and they know it.
The typical inmate doesn’t want trouble. He has little to gain and too much to lose: his job, his visits, his recreation time, his phone privileges, his right to buy tuna, ramen and stale bread at inflated prices in the commissary. The ways even a bystander to the most peaceful protest can be punished are limited only by the imagination of the authorities.
Punishment can be deserved or not. There's no due process in prison. There's no one to complain to about being punished based on a false accusation, a trumped up allegation, a guard pissed off by an attitude. Authorities own the lives of prisoners, and can be as harsh as they want to be, as arbitrary as they feel like. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
Rideau explains that the prison protests in California are an outgrowth of a system run amok and no other means of addressing their grievance.
And yet, sometimes things get so bad that prisoners feel compelled to protest, with work stoppages, riots or hunger strikes. On July 8, some 30,000 inmates in the custody of the California Department of Corrections went on a hunger strike to demand improvements in prison conditions. Their biggest complaint was the runaway use of solitary confinement, the fact that thousands of prisoners are consigned to this cruelty indefinitely, some for decades.
While prisoners are sentenced to incarceration, no judge sentences them to isolation for decades. There is no requirement that any neutral party review the decision to inflict this torture on another human being. It can be imposed for a sound reason or no reason at all. Who is to disagree? But no matter what the reason or nonreason, to put a person in the hole for years, for decades, is to impose psychological torture of a terrible kind on a human being. And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, the prisoner can do about it.
In California, inmates did the only thing left for them to do, protest. Not too many of us care about what happened to "criminals." After all, bad dudes who did bad things to other people. A pox on them. They get what they deserve and their out of sight, out of mind. But there is good reason to give them just a little bit of though. For one thing, they are still people, and we are still purportedly a civilized society that doesn't condone the needless brutal treatment of people. But if you lack anything remotely resembling empathy, than do it for your own sake:
Why should you be concerned about the inhumane conditions of prolonged solitary confinement, with all the social, emotional and mental deterioration that it entails? Well, every year men from California’s Pelican Bay and other supermax prisons around the nation are released directly from the vacuum of their cells into free society, to live and work among you and your loved ones. As a matter of self-preservation, maybe we should all join the prisoners’ request for rehabilitative opportunities that will improve the mental health of those in solitary.
Go say "hi" to the guy who moved in down the block kids. So what if he spent the last two decades in the hole and seems a bit odd. I'm sure he'll get over it.
© 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/2013/07/17/straight-from-the-hole.aspx?ref=rss
Back to Private Practice for New York City’s Top Attorney
For more than a decade, Michael A. Cardozo managed one of the largest teams of lawyers in New York City. As the city's corporation counsel, he dealt with a relentless flow of litigation in a city that gets sued an average of 200 times a week.
criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Handling and Preventing Shoulder Injuries
“There has been a dramatic rise in shoulder injuries in the last five to ten years,” Doctor Michael Ackland says, maybe we’ve just gotten better at diagnosing them. On this episode of Workers’ Comp matters, your host, Attorney Alan Pierce, will chat with Dr. Ackland, an examining physician who has worked with a fair amount of attorneys and insurers on shoulder injuries.
Dr. Ackland is an orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist. He focuses in arthroscopic reconstruction of the shoulder and the knee. What he considers to be the most gratifying cases are revision surgeries after a patient has had a failed shoulder surgery.
Tune in to hear the basics of shoulder injuries, why they happen, preventative exercises, and how to handle a work-related injury.
Dr. Ackland is an orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist. He focuses in arthroscopic reconstruction of the shoulder and the knee. What he considers to be the most gratifying cases are revision surgeries after a patient has had a failed shoulder surgery.
Tune in to hear the basics of shoulder injuries, why they happen, preventative exercises, and how to handle a work-related injury.
Communicating with Clients
On The Paralegal Voice host Vicki Voisin welcomes guest Beverly Michaelis, president of Oregon Law Practice Management, to talk about the changes in lawyer-client communication since the Internet, and how lawyers can best communicate with their clients. Michaelis is a member of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, Oregon State Bar, and American Bar Association. She also has more than experience in the legal field as a lawyer and legal assistant.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/paralegal-voice/2013/03/communicating-with-clients/
criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney
Digital Cameras in Law: Are Smartphones Good Enough?
These days, the camera in your pocket (your smartphone camera) is powerful enough to meet all of your 'good-enough' photo needs. So what are the pros and cons as well as legal precedents involved with opting for your smartphone the next time you need to take a photo? What are the evidence handling and discovery implications? In this episode, Dennis and Tom share their experience with digital photography, smartphone cameras and applications to manage these files. In the second half of the show, our hosts suggest reaching for your tablet if you're looking for better ways to present and also offer some great general tips on presenting PowerPoint and Keynote slideshows.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/02/digital-cameras-in-law/
Roberta Gelb on Technology Training
Roberta Gelb, president of Chelsea Office Systems, talks about how trends such as cloud computing and bring your own device (BYOD) have law firms realizing the importance of training in the adoption of new technologies.
The Importance of Civility in the Courtroom
Join the panel discussion on the importance of civility in the courtroom. Attorney Jill Mariani hosts a roundtable of these influential members in law:
• The Honorable James Holderman: The Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois joined the court in 1985 after he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. He became Chief Judge in 2006. Holderman is also chair of the ABA’s Commission on the American Jury Project, which focuses on the implementation of the ABA Principles on Juries and Jury Trials into the courtroom and reaching out to the public about the importance of jury service and jury reform. • Dick A. Semerdjian: Attorney Semerdjian is chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS). TIPS is the knowledge and leadership hub for trial practice and issues of justice that involve tort insurance and law. • MaryGrace Schaeffer: As vice president of DecisonQuest, Schaeffer has been a trial consultant for more than 22 years. Her expertise includes strategy and theme development, mock trials, witness evaluation and preparation, shadow juries, post-trial interviews and more. Listen to their thoughts on why legal professionals need to be cognizant of civility in the courtroom, the strategies they use to implement it, changes they’d like to see in the legal world regarding civility, and more.
• The Honorable James Holderman: The Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois joined the court in 1985 after he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. He became Chief Judge in 2006. Holderman is also chair of the ABA’s Commission on the American Jury Project, which focuses on the implementation of the ABA Principles on Juries and Jury Trials into the courtroom and reaching out to the public about the importance of jury service and jury reform. • Dick A. Semerdjian: Attorney Semerdjian is chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS). TIPS is the knowledge and leadership hub for trial practice and issues of justice that involve tort insurance and law. • MaryGrace Schaeffer: As vice president of DecisonQuest, Schaeffer has been a trial consultant for more than 22 years. Her expertise includes strategy and theme development, mock trials, witness evaluation and preparation, shadow juries, post-trial interviews and more. Listen to their thoughts on why legal professionals need to be cognizant of civility in the courtroom, the strategies they use to implement it, changes they’d like to see in the legal world regarding civility, and more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/aba-tips/2013/04/the-importance-of-civility-in-the-courtroom
civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law
Time Management for Lawyers
Meg Spencer Dixon pulled three consecutive all-nighters before she began pursuing time management as a career. Now, she is a consultant in task management for legal professionals. In this edition of The Digital Edge hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway invite Dixon to discuss her top tips for legal professionals looking to master project management, how to stop procrastinating, and more.
Founder of Spencer Consulting, Dixon has been working as a time-management consultant for more than a decade. Her company focuses on providing seminars on time management, project management, stress management, and how to run effective meetings for law firms, CLE providers, government agencies, and corporate law departments.
Founder of Spencer Consulting, Dixon has been working as a time-management consultant for more than a decade. Her company focuses on providing seminars on time management, project management, stress management, and how to run effective meetings for law firms, CLE providers, government agencies, and corporate law departments.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-edge/2013/12/time-management-for-lawyers
The Internet of Things and Our Virtual Lives
The Internet of Things explains the virtual representation of objects on the web — like turning your car’s AC on from a smartphone app. Is it possible that soon the internet will be able to control our daily lives, down to resetting our alarm based on the train schedule we take to commute to work? Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell talk about the possibilities and implications of the internet of things in our daily lives and in the legal field. The second portion of the show explains The Human Genome Project, and what Kennedy learned after sending in his DNA.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/03/the-internet-of-things/
employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney family law family lawyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)