Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/02/digital-cameras-in-law/
business law business lawyer civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
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.
Defending Big Data
On this October edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, chats with Mark Melodia, partner at Reed Smith and Antony Kim, a partner at Orrick, to discuss the Law Technology News October cover story, Defending Big Data.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2012/10/defending-big-data/
Former Guantanamo detainee Khadr to appeal terrorism conviction
[JURIST] A former Canadian Guantanamo prisoner is planning to appeal his US terrorism conviction, his lawyer said Sunday. Omar Khadr [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who spent 10 years in Guantanamo, is currently imprisoned [AP report] in a maximum security prison in Ontario serving out six years of an eight-year sentence for war crimes. Khadr was born in Toronto and is the son of alleged al Qaeda financier Ahmed Said Khadr [CBC profile]. In 2010 Khadr pleaded guilty to a...
lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys
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.
Shareholder Activism
In this BU Law podcast, host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, welcomes David H. Webber, associate professor of law at BU Law, to talk about his interesting research in the area of shareholder activism and his paper "The Plight of the Individual Investor in Securities Class Actions," which will soon be published in the Northwestern University Law Review. Together they look at the forces that are driving shareholder activism, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, corporate governance reform and how to remedy conflicts between institutional and individual investors in class actions.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/boston-university-school-of-law/2012/04/shareholder-activism/
personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney power of attorny private attorney
When You've Only Got 100 Years To Live
Adam Liptak, in his New York Times Sidebar column, raises what at first blush seems like a ridiculous question: If life without parole is unconstitutional for juveniles, is it permissible to sentence a child to 100 years in prison? Isn't the point that children should not be sentenced to die in prison?
Except they never quite said so, and have since taken a pass on the opportunity to clear up the confusion they invariably leave behind.
While it seems to obvious for argument that a sentencing court can't do one way what would be unconstitutional another, so that if life without parole violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, so too would a 100 year sentence. To suggest otherwise is sophistry of the Alito sort.
And yet the Supremes weren't sufficiently concerned with Bunch's homecoming at age 95 to take the case and refine their message, leaving circuit courts hanging as to whether Graham means what it says or says what it means.
The reason seems most like to be Judge Griffins question: if a term of years that serves as a de facto life sentence is no good, then what is acceptable? How many years is acceptable under the 8th and when does a sentence cross the line? If a defendant is younger than 18, can you add the difference in years to the end of the sentence since his life expectancy will be longer? Okay, that last one seems a bit too trial, but still it's part of the equation, and it's one of many smaller question that have and will arise:
If it were up to me, the answer would be that any sentence imposed on a juvenile that's long than it takes for a police officer's pension to vest would be unconstitutional. But then, I've yet to get a call from my senator informing me that my name has been put in the mix for the next Supreme Court opening. For me, 100 years is a lot of life to lose. Too much.
© 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.
That sounds straightforward enough. But there are two ways to understand the decision, Graham v. Florida.Alito said it was fine in his dissent, but that's Alito and it was only said in dissent, so who cares?One is formal. The court may have meant only to bar sentences labeled “life without parole.” On that understanding, judges remained free to impose very long sentences — 100 years, say — as long as they were for a fixed term rather than for life.
The other way to understand the decision is practical. If the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment requires that young offenders be left with a glimmer of hope that they may someday be released, it should not matter whether they were sentenced to life in so many words or as a matter of rudimentary actuarial math.Whether it's called "life" or a term of years in excess of any remote chance of ever getting out is form over substance. Sure, everyone thought the Supreme Court's Graham decision meant something for juveniles, reflecting its rejection of the overly harsh "child predator" myth and a recognition that children haven't developed the maturity and responsibility sufficient to be held so accountable, and punished so severely, that their life was over. That's what we thought.
Except they never quite said so, and have since taken a pass on the opportunity to clear up the confusion they invariably leave behind.
“Some courts have held that such a sentence is a de facto life without parole sentence and therefore violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Graham,” Judge John M. Rogers wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. “Other courts, however, have rejected the de facto life sentence argument, holding that Graham only applies to juvenile non-homicide offenders expressly sentenced to ‘life without parole.’ ”The Supremes denied cert to Chaz Bunch, who was 16 when convicted and sentenced to 89 years in prison, making him eligible for parole at 95, after the 6th Circuit affirmed his sentence.
Applying the reasoning of the Graham decision to long fixed sentences, Judge Rogers added, “would lead to a lot of questions.” An appeals court in Florida last year listed some of them in upholding a 76-year sentence meted out to Leighdon Henry, who was 16 when he committed rape.“At what number of years would the Eighth Amendment become implicated in the sentencing of a juvenile: 20, 30, 40, 50, some lesser or greater number?” Judge Jacqueline R. Griffin wrote for the court.
While it seems to obvious for argument that a sentencing court can't do one way what would be unconstitutional another, so that if life without parole violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, so too would a 100 year sentence. To suggest otherwise is sophistry of the Alito sort.
And yet the Supremes weren't sufficiently concerned with Bunch's homecoming at age 95 to take the case and refine their message, leaving circuit courts hanging as to whether Graham means what it says or says what it means.
The reason seems most like to be Judge Griffins question: if a term of years that serves as a de facto life sentence is no good, then what is acceptable? How many years is acceptable under the 8th and when does a sentence cross the line? If a defendant is younger than 18, can you add the difference in years to the end of the sentence since his life expectancy will be longer? Okay, that last one seems a bit too trial, but still it's part of the equation, and it's one of many smaller question that have and will arise:
Could the number vary from offender to offender based on race, gender, socioeconomic class or other criteria?” Judge Griffin asked.While the words "sporting chance" may be a bit flip, the point remains. These are children, and there should be some hope of redemption and return to society, if only for the last few years of a life in being. But putting that concept into action is hard work, and it appears the Supremes, having opened the door to the question, have no answer. So rather than finish the job they've started, they will spend their time ironing their robes while Chaz Bunch's 89 year sentence goes unreviewed.That is a reasonable question. But Bryan Stevenson, the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Ala., said it was the wrong one. “The idea isn’t to get the person as close to death as possible before you deal with the possibility of their release,” he said. It is, rather, to give juvenile offenders a sporting chance, perhaps after decades in prison, to make the case that they deserve to get out, he said.
If it were up to me, the answer would be that any sentence imposed on a juvenile that's long than it takes for a police officer's pension to vest would be unconstitutional. But then, I've yet to get a call from my senator informing me that my name has been put in the mix for the next Supreme Court opening. For me, 100 years is a lot of life to lose. Too much.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/30/when-youve-only-got-100-years-to-live.aspx?ref=rss
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
NSSTA’s Leadership
Whether you are a member or just someone interested in structures, National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) is the voice of the industry. Ringler Radio host, Larry Cohen joins colleagues, Randy Dyer, the current President of NSSTA and John Machir, President‑elect of NSSTA, to talk about the bigger issues that are facing the structured settlement industry today and some of the leading items on their agenda for 2012.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/09/nsstas-leadership/
Monday, April 29, 2013
Law Firm's Arguments Are 'Not Enough' to Show Cybersquatting
In a decision finding premature a New York law firm's attempt to prove a computer programmer violated a cybersquatting law, a federal judge has laid out the standards of proof under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The law firm, which handles cybersquatting cases for its clients, discovered its own domain name was being imitated last year, the firm's founder said in an interview.
green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers
Egypt rights group criticizes proposed NGO restrictions
[JURIST] The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) [advocacy website] on Wednesday denounced [press release] draft legislation restricting the financial autonomy of civic associations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The draft law gives government "security bodies" the power to monitor the finances of domestic NGOs by requiring that any funding be placed into government accounts for a 60 day approval process. In addition, all international NGOs working in Egypt would be required to qualify for government licenses, requiring consent to...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/04/egypt-rights-group-criticizes-proposed-ngo-restrictions.php
Stepson Shows His Displeasure With Upcoming Eviction In A Novel Way
This young man may have done his stepfather a favor by expediting his own eviction, albeit in a mean and uncool manner. As reported by The Tampa Bay Times:
Jorge Jonathan Cruz-Blanco [19 years old] was mad because he knew the eviction notice was coming, his stepfather told deputies, according to a Pasco County Sheriff's Office report.
Kenneth Pangborn said his stepson didn't have a job and wasn't going to school, so he was kicking him out.Mr. Cruz-Blanco was not pleased.
The report said Cruz-Blanco threw things around the house and shoved 72-year-old Pangborn to the ground. Cruz-Blanco stepped outside to wait for deputies when he heard Pangborn calling 911.
When they arrived, Cruz-Blanco explained that he had to use the bathroom while he was waiting, so he pulled down his pants and left the mess on the porch.He pooped on the porch. That's just not cool.
Cruz-Blanco, of New Port Richey, was arrested on a charge of battery on a person over 65. He remained Tuesday at the Land O'Lakes jail without bail.That'll make the eviction a whole lot easier. Here's the source, including a mug shot.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/bnn5uAIEDpc/post_659.html
electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer
Supreme Court Watch: Employment law cases
We will be watching three pending cases at the US Supreme Court as the Court's session opens today:
Kloeckner v. Solis
Oral argument on October 2.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears appeals by federal employees regarding certain adverse actions, such as dismissals. If the employee asserts that the challenged action was the result of unlawful discrimination, that claim is referred to as a "mixed case."
Question Presented: If the MSPB decides a mixed case without determining the merits of the discrimination claim, is the court with jurisdiction over that claim the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a district court?
Vance v. Ball State Univ
Oral argument on November 26.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) held that under Title VII, an employer is vicariously liable for workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim’s co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence.
Question Presented: Whether the Faragher and Ellerth “supervisor” liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.
Genesis HealthCare v. Symczyk
Oral argument December 3.
Symczk sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. This was a section 216(b) collective action. The defendants extended an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in full satisfaction of her alleged damages, fees, and costs - prior to her moving for conditional certification and prior to other potential plaintiffs opting in.
Question Presented: Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/10/supreme_court_w_11.html
EEOC can use Teamsters-style pattern-or-practice theory under Title VII § 706
Serrano sued in a class action claiming sex discrimination and the EEOC intervened. The trial court ruled for the employer on a number of issues; the 6th Circuit reversed. Serrano and EEOC v. Cintas Corp (6th Cir 11/09/2012).
The main issue was whether EEOC could pursue a pattern-or-practice style claim pursuant to § 706 of Title VII.
The employer argued that under § 706 the EEOC is limited to proving its allegations of discrimination pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 US 792 (1973), burden-shifting framework, and cannot use the pattern-or-practice framework announced by the Supreme Court in Teamsters v. United States, 431 US 324 (1977). The court rejected that argument. Even though the Teamsters case arose under § 707, the theory of that case can be used under § 706.
The trial court erred in holding that the employer was entitled to judgment on the pleadings in light of the EEOC's failure to plead its intent to rely on the Teamsters framework. Although the EEOC's complaint "is not a model of good lawyering," a plaintiff need not indicate at the pleading stage which circumstantial evidentiary framework it plans to use.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/11/eeoc_can_use_te.html
civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law
Heirs Sue to Recover Stolen Artworks
An April 19 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit represented the latest test of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in cases involving art and other property seized by foreign governments.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202597760029&rss=rss_nlj
Lawyer2Lawyer: A Retrospective
We started Lawyer2Lawyer back in August of 2005 with the idea of providing quality content and discussion of timely legal news and information for the legal profession with regularly published podcasts and often videos too. Since our inception, we have set the precedent for legal podcasting in numbers of listeners globally, but more importantly, we’ve been one of the leaders in great content - our priority over the past 7 years. On this final edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, talk about their personal experiences over the years with this legal podcast.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/lawyer2lawyer-a-retrospective/
mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Can You Get Jail Time For Watching A Cartoon?
So do you think someone can get jail time for watching a cartoon? Would it make any difference if the cartoons were sexual? Decide for yourself, after reading this from stuff.co.nz:
Ronald Clark downloaded the Japanese anime cartoons three years ago, setting in train events that would see him in court in Auckland and jailed for three months for possessing objectionable material, and sparking debate as to what harm is caused by digitally created pornography.That's a yes. Perhaps a little background will assist you, perhaps not.
Clark has previous convictions for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and has been through rehabilitation programmes, but the video nasties he was watching in this case were all cartoons and drawings. He says the videos came from an established tradition of Japanese manga and hentai (cartoon pornography), a massive, mainstream industry in that country.
They weren't even depictions of people - Clark's lawyer Roger Bowden described them as "pixies and trolls" that "you knew at a glance weren't human". Bowden said the conviction for possessing objectionable material was "the law gone mad".
However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.So what do you think? If you're uncertain, you can read more (a fair amount) here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/hSIltXhi0Q8/post_653.html
Legal Issues Created by Story World Communities and Transmedia
The rise of interactive story world communities and transmedia marketing campaigns has brought about scores of intellectual property, copyright law and creation rights issues. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, bring together Esther Lim, the Founder of The Estuary and Scott Walker, the President of Brain Candy, for an in-depth analysis of the questions and concerns generated by collaborative entertainment and multi-platform interactive engagement.
free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers
Revisiting Voter ID Laws
Since our program spotlighting Voter ID Laws and Voter Purges across the country, there have been big developments in Arizona, Tennessee and key battleground state, Ohio. Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams chat with Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and Lawrence Norden, Deputy Director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, about this how the upcoming election might be impacted.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/revisiting-voter-id-laws/
Will Lawyers Always Be Late Adopters?
Lawyers are known as notorious late adopters of technology. Is that a fair characterization? Of course it is. What makes lawyers so cautious about new technologies? Will lawyers always be late adopters? In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss some recent experiences that have reinforced the idea that lawyers are late adopters, the reasons people do and do not adopt new technologies, and practical ways for lawyers to think about moving to new technologies.
Constitutionality of Prop 8 and the Future of Gay Marriage
Just this month, after a long three year legal battle, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s Proposition 8, which is the ballot measure that banned gay marriage, is unconstitutional. The question remains-will this case now head to the U.S. Supreme Court? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams, join Jennifer C. Pizer, Legal Director at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and Vikram David Amar, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, to take a look at this ruling and what this means for the future of gay marriage in America.
statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer
United States Supreme Court Holds that Class Action Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Need Not Prove the Materiality of the Alleged False Statements or Omissions to Support Certification of a Class, Resolving Circuit Split
In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, 2013 WL 691001 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that a securities fraud plaintiff need not prove that the alleged false statements made by defendants were material in order to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established by Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), at the class certification stage of the proceedings. The 6-3 majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, resolved a split in the Circuits, which had pitted the First, Second, Fifth and, to a certain extent, Third Circuits against the Seventh and Ninth Circuits on this point. The Supreme Court’s decision deprives securities fraud defendants a means of limiting or effectively defeating a securities class action lawsuit at an early stage in the case before the bulk of fact discovery has begun.
Lead plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds alleged that defendant Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) artificially inflated the market price for Amgen stock by making misrepresentations and misleading omissions regarding the safety of two Amgen products. More specifically, plaintiff alleged that Amgen made misrepresentations and omissions about (1) the subject matter of a May 2004 advisory committee meeting of the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), (2) clinical trials involving one of the products, (3) the safety of on-label uses of both products and (4) its marketing of the products. Plaintiff alleged that these purported misrepresentations and omissions constituted securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Amgen stock from April 22, 2004, through May 10, 2007. The start of this period corresponded to a public statement by Amgen regarding the May 2004 FDA advisory committee meeting. Plaintiff alleged that Amgen misrepresented that the meeting would not focus on the safety of one of the products at issue. The end of the class period corresponded with a later meeting of the same FDA committee. Plaintiff alleged that this meeting constituted a corrective disclosure, revealing information about the safety of the products.
Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). That rule conditions certification on, among other things, a finding by the district court that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” As with most securities fraud claims, the predominance inquiry turned on the element of plaintiff’s reliance.
In Basic, the Supreme Court recognized that securities fraud plaintiffs could not proceed with a class action if they were required to prove direct individual reliance on the misrepresentation by each class member, because individual questions would overwhelm common ones, thereby precluding certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court, however, endorsed a rebuttable presumption of reliance by every class member in cases in which the “fraud-on-the-market” theory applies. That theory states that if a security trades in an efficient market, all public material information is reflected in the price of the security. Purchasers or sellers who rely on the integrity of the market price therefore also rely, indirectly, on any material misrepresentations which would be reflected in that price. The Court in Basic also held that the presumption of reliance can be rebutted by “[a]ny showing that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation” and “the price received (or paid) by the plaintiff.”
In support of its motion for class certification, plaintiff argued that the putative class members were entitled to Basic’s fraud-on-the-market-based presumption of class-wide reliance. Plaintiff submitted expert evidence to establish the efficiency of the market for Amgen stock. It made no evidentiary showing, however, about the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misstatements.
Amgen opposed class certification principally on the ground that plaintiff did not and could not establish that the alleged misrepresentations were material. Amgen showed through analyst reports and public documents that the market was aware of all the information that plaintiff claimed was omitted during the class period. Proof of market efficiency alone, Amgen argued, without any corresponding proof of the materiality of the alleged misrepresentations, was not sufficient to invoke a presumption of class-wide reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory. Amgen also sought to affirmatively rebut any such presumption, again by showing that the market already was “privy to the truth,” and accordingly that no alleged misrepresentation had any impact on the price of Amgen stock.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification, holding that proof of materiality was not necessary to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance and, accordingly, that it would not consider Amgen’s rebuttal evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. See Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen, Inc., 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged the Circuit split regarding both of these issues. See In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig., 639 F.3d 623 (3d Cir. 2011); Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2010); In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig., 544 F.3d 474 (2d Cir. 2008); Oscar Private Equity Invs. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2007); In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that while plaintiff certainly must prove the materiality of the alleged misstatements or omissions to prevail on the merits of its Rule 10b-5 claim, such proof is not required for class certification. As the Court explained, “[b]ecause materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions is a question common to all members of the [putative] class . . . .” Plaintiff was not required to answer that common question at the class certification stage; the existence of the common question itself supported class certification. The Court went on to hold that its earlier decision in Basic could not be read to require proof of materiality at the class certification stage to trigger the fraud-on-the-market presumption, a point contested by Justices Scalia and Thomas in their dissenting opinions.
As noted above, this decision deprives securities fraud defendants of the ability to raise at the class certification stage, before the bulk of fact discovery, an issue that could be dispositive of the case. This effectively gives plaintiffs more leverage in settlement negotiations in the event the district court denies a motion to dismiss. One intriguing issue going forward stems from references throughout the majority and dissenting opinions to questions regarding the continued efficacy of the fraud-on-the-market theory and the strengths and weaknesses of the decision in Basic. It is fair to say that at least three (and perhaps more) of the Justices seem willing to reconsider the four-justice majority opinion in Basic. Were the Court to do so, it would have a profound impact on the entire securities class action litigation industry.
For further information, please contact Steven Kramer at (213) 617-5548, John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or John Landry at (213) 617-5561.
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/
criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Boldfacing Around Tsarnaev (Update)
My pal, Tamar Birckhead, successfully defended shoe bomber Richard Reid. By successfully, I mean that she kept him alive. When it comes to defending accused terrorists, even ones as ridiculously incompetent at their mission as Reid, success is defined differently.
When the media needed meat to grind out its media sausage, Tamar was an obvious choice. She knew what she went through, what the experience of defending someone under the microscope of terrorism was like. And having gone from federal defender to UNC clinical lawprof, she had the opportunity and curriculum vitae to do the job.
In the Boston Herald's initial salvo of handicapping the defense, Tamar led the quote parade with some thoughtful words:
Following Tamar is Stephen Jones, who defended Timothy McVeigh. His defense was less successful, as reflected in McVeigh's execution. Still, he offered a realistic assessment.
But the Boston Herald piece then devolves to where the angry and cynical expect it to go, and where the media is at its worst. The next two bold face names used to flesh out the piece come from the handful of lawyers always available for comment, no matter what the subject, no matter what they have to offer. And it shows.
First comes Geoffrey Fieger, who can never be sure which chair to sit in when he enters the well, and whose justification for offering his half cent is that his "clients have included assisted-suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian." And Kevorkian has what to do with terrorism or this case?
Whenever there is a big criminal case that captures the public's imagination, there is a chance to be in the limelight. There will be some lawyers, like Tamar and Stephen, who are knowledgeable about what the defense is about to go through, and can help enlighten the public.
And then there are those who desperately want to see their names in print despite the utter lack of anything to contribute. They say outrageous things. They say stupid things. They only care if their name is spelled correctly, and don't give a hoot about the silliness they contribute to the story.
At this point, there may very well be a worthwhile trial ahead, where this kid's defense will be that he was a vulnerable youth, manipulated into serving as an acolyte to his adored older, but hateful brother. It may be the truth, despite the havoc he caused. I don't know what drove him to do this. You don't know. Clearly, neither does Feiger or Dershowitz, but that won't stop them from spewing nonsense. And if a reporter calls them for comment, they will answer.
And they won't be the only lawyers or lawprof with nothing to offer who will be readily available for a quote or TV appearance. Not by a long shot.
Update: While there's little doubt that other newspapers, other new reports, will bring out a wealth of media sluts to promote their brand, the damage being done by a couple of scholars by reducing anything remotely resembling thought to its most base instinct may be the nadir.
Via Gideon at A Public Defender, this post has to be read to be believed.
© 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.
When the media needed meat to grind out its media sausage, Tamar was an obvious choice. She knew what she went through, what the experience of defending someone under the microscope of terrorism was like. And having gone from federal defender to UNC clinical lawprof, she had the opportunity and curriculum vitae to do the job.
In the Boston Herald's initial salvo of handicapping the defense, Tamar led the quote parade with some thoughtful words:
“We know he’s 19 years old, we don’t think he has a criminal record or been in trouble before. There are a lot of people out there that seem to have warm, positive things about him,” said Tamar Birckhead, whose client, Richard Reed, tried to blow an airliner out of the sky but got life by copping a plea. “To predict he’ll get a life sentence is not unreasonable.”Bereft of hyperbole, the worst that will come of it is the blind hatred of those who can't bear any word, any thought, about Tsarnaev that isn't a cry for blood. Ironically, that's largely the message, that the defense of the most hated man in America, at least this week, will spend an awful lot of time fending off the rage that comes with the job.
Following Tamar is Stephen Jones, who defended Timothy McVeigh. His defense was less successful, as reflected in McVeigh's execution. Still, he offered a realistic assessment.
... the baby-faced Tsarnaev can pin the Boston Marathon and last week’s deadly final rampage on his slain big brother and seek mercy as a kid who was easily swayed.While the public will read these words as manipulative, lawyers will read them as pragmatic. This is the job we do, the life we've chosen. We make the best of the worst situation, and as McVeigh's execution shows, it doesn't always work, so don't get too worked up about it.
“If the younger brother can shed any light on the circumstances of the older brother’s alleged involvement,” said Jones, “that’s valuable information that the government would want.”
But the Boston Herald piece then devolves to where the angry and cynical expect it to go, and where the media is at its worst. The next two bold face names used to flesh out the piece come from the handful of lawyers always available for comment, no matter what the subject, no matter what they have to offer. And it shows.
First comes Geoffrey Fieger, who can never be sure which chair to sit in when he enters the well, and whose justification for offering his half cent is that his "clients have included assisted-suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian." And Kevorkian has what to do with terrorism or this case?
“Nothing about the outcome is assured.”Cool story, bro.
“This case is ripe for somebody who’s got the courage to stand up and talk about the system and the railroading of criminal defendants,” Fieger said. “He’s been denied the right to a fair trial. And America’s ...cheering like it was some kind of sporting event. That wasn’t a very flattering image to the rest of the world. Cheering like they won the World Series.”Huh? What the heck is he talking about. Did anybody tell him the interview was about Tsarnaev? Does he know who this kid is, what this case is about? The railroading of criminal defendants? Lest we get too down on Feiger, then comes the Big Kahuna of perpetual availability when it comes to a quick and easy quote. none other than the Harvard Lawprof with a home on Sutton Place and a finger in the latest misbegotten lawyer start-up vulture biz, Viewabill:
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of OJ Simpson’s “dream team,” said, “The case will go down one of two ways. Either plea bargain ... or he’ll want to become a martyr and he’ll admit everything, boast about the crime, seek to justify it and demand the death penalty.”Two ways, Dersh? Really? Not three or seven? So it's impossible that he will follow the sound advice of his counsel and assist in his vigorous defense? It's impossible that the government will not offer a plea to life imprisonment and he will be forced to trial? It's impossible that he won't want to become a martyr?" Because you know stuff from being the weak link on the OJ team?
Whenever there is a big criminal case that captures the public's imagination, there is a chance to be in the limelight. There will be some lawyers, like Tamar and Stephen, who are knowledgeable about what the defense is about to go through, and can help enlighten the public.
And then there are those who desperately want to see their names in print despite the utter lack of anything to contribute. They say outrageous things. They say stupid things. They only care if their name is spelled correctly, and don't give a hoot about the silliness they contribute to the story.
At this point, there may very well be a worthwhile trial ahead, where this kid's defense will be that he was a vulnerable youth, manipulated into serving as an acolyte to his adored older, but hateful brother. It may be the truth, despite the havoc he caused. I don't know what drove him to do this. You don't know. Clearly, neither does Feiger or Dershowitz, but that won't stop them from spewing nonsense. And if a reporter calls them for comment, they will answer.
And they won't be the only lawyers or lawprof with nothing to offer who will be readily available for a quote or TV appearance. Not by a long shot.
Update: While there's little doubt that other newspapers, other new reports, will bring out a wealth of media sluts to promote their brand, the damage being done by a couple of scholars by reducing anything remotely resembling thought to its most base instinct may be the nadir.
Via Gideon at A Public Defender, this post has to be read to be believed.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/23/boldfacing-around-tsarnaev.aspx?ref=rss
Can You Get Jail Time For Watching A Cartoon?
So do you think someone can get jail time for watching a cartoon? Would it make any difference if the cartoons were sexual? Decide for yourself, after reading this from stuff.co.nz:
Ronald Clark downloaded the Japanese anime cartoons three years ago, setting in train events that would see him in court in Auckland and jailed for three months for possessing objectionable material, and sparking debate as to what harm is caused by digitally created pornography.That's a yes. Perhaps a little background will assist you, perhaps not.
Clark has previous convictions for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and has been through rehabilitation programmes, but the video nasties he was watching in this case were all cartoons and drawings. He says the videos came from an established tradition of Japanese manga and hentai (cartoon pornography), a massive, mainstream industry in that country.
They weren't even depictions of people - Clark's lawyer Roger Bowden described them as "pixies and trolls" that "you knew at a glance weren't human". Bowden said the conviction for possessing objectionable material was "the law gone mad".
However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.So what do you think? If you're uncertain, you can read more (a fair amount) here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/hSIltXhi0Q8/post_653.html
local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer
Screw The Jury (and pass the Taser)
Richard Pacheco was having a bad day. First, he suffered a couple of seizures in his Bronx apartment. That was no fun. Then his girlfriend tried to help by calling 911 for an ambulance to get him to the hospital for medical treatment. That's where Pacheco's day got really bad.
From the Appellate Division, First Department decision:
But regardless, Pacheco was tased into compliance, despite the fact that he had committed no crime, suffered an unknown medical condition making him an extremely poor candidate for tasing in any event, and the police were there only because of a call for medical assistance.
A Bronx jury awarded Pacheco more than $2 million for the use of excessive force. The Appellate Division not only reversed the award, but dismissed the action.
Jury? Feh. Just something cases have to pass through on the way to the important decision-makers on the appellate bench, whose assessment of what constitutes excessive force is not only guided by the law, but the Patrol Guide. After all, if the cop book says it's cool, then it's cool. What would a jury have to do with it.
But even reliance on the Patrol Guide is misplaced. This was not a case where Pacheco went out on the street of his own volition to harm anyone. He was in his own apartment, where no one was threatened with harm if they had just left him alone. To the extent harm was threatened to the cops, it was at the cops' instigation, not Pacheco's. If the Patrol Guide said cops could have put a bullet in his head for his own good, would that have been similarly fine with the court?
More importantly, Pacheco was not a "suspect" but an ill man. Reference to procedures to subdue a criminal is an outrageous conflation of responsibility when the only justification for the police to be present in Pacheco's apartment was to aid someone suffering from a medical issue. He wasn't "resisting arrest," but sick. Yes, that makes a difference.
But the cops tased him anyway. And the court disregarded the jury. And the new rule of the Bronx is that cops can tase a person who has committed no crime and poses no threat of harm to anyone except the cop who is there supposedly to help him. Ultimately, it appears that the police can employ force at will as long as there is a section in the Patrol Guide to approve it, and the Appellate Division has elevated it to the status of law.
And the next time you get a jury summons in the Bronx, don't bother showing. It's not like the judges think enough of your time and effort to make it worth your while anyway.
H/T Appellate Squawk and Andrew Stoll
© 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.
From the Appellate Division, First Department decision:
The evidence adduced at trial disclosed that, in response to an emergency 911 call from plaintiff's girlfriend that he had suffered one or more seizures, two police officers, two emergency medical technicians, two paramedics, and several fire fighters arrived at plaintiff's apartment to aid him. After the EMTs examined plaintiff and informed him that he needed to be hospitalized, he became uncooperative. His girlfriend testified that this was the result of another seizure. The police officers testified and other evidence indicates that plaintiff refused to go to the hospital, became extremely violent and agitated, and attacked the personnel trying to help him. The officers further testified that, while kicking out at them, plaintiff broke a dresser in the room.Whether Pacheco's reaction was due to his medical condition or that he didn't want to go to the hospital isn't clear. But there were more than six (since it can't be determined how many "several" fire fighters were present) for a guy who was in need of medical care in the apartment, which is a testament to how little crime there is in the Bronx these days. What the broken dresser has to do with this is anyone's guess.
Thereafter, six or seven responders were needed to restrain plaintiff, handcuff him behind his back, and strap him across his lap and chest into an EMT transport chair. The officers testified that while strapped in the chair, plaintiff still kicked out at them, tried to stand, and bit one officer's arm and broke his skin. After the officers called for additional assistance, a police sergeant arrived who, after unsuccessfully trying to calm plaintiff down with words, subdued him with a Taser. Thereafter, EMTs were able to transport plaintiff from his upstairs apartment into an ambulance on the street.Bearing in mind that this was a call for medical aid, one has to wonder why the cops didn't just leave if Pacheco refused care. He's allowed. One also has to wonder whether the sergeant tried to "calm" him down by ordering him to stop or be tased, the usual method.
But regardless, Pacheco was tased into compliance, despite the fact that he had committed no crime, suffered an unknown medical condition making him an extremely poor candidate for tasing in any event, and the police were there only because of a call for medical assistance.
A Bronx jury awarded Pacheco more than $2 million for the use of excessive force. The Appellate Division not only reversed the award, but dismissed the action.
"Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and according [him] the benefit of every reasonable inference . . . we find that it was insufficient as a matter of law to permit the jury to find that the officers used excessive force" (Koeiman, 36 AD3d at 453). Here, given plaintiff's repeated outbursts and the police officers' testimony that he was emotionally disturbed, it was reasonable to taser him so that he could be hospitalized. Since the Patrol Guide of the New York City Police Department permits an officer to use a Taser to restrain an emotionally disturbed person who threatens injury to himself or others (Procedure No. 216-05 at 5), the officer's action comported with acceptable police practice.Not only is it remarkable that the panel of judges thought so little of the determination of the trial judge to submit the case to the jury, but of the jury itself who found in favor of the plaintiff and gave him such a substantial award, but that they did so on the strength of the Patrol Guide.
Jury? Feh. Just something cases have to pass through on the way to the important decision-makers on the appellate bench, whose assessment of what constitutes excessive force is not only guided by the law, but the Patrol Guide. After all, if the cop book says it's cool, then it's cool. What would a jury have to do with it.
But even reliance on the Patrol Guide is misplaced. This was not a case where Pacheco went out on the street of his own volition to harm anyone. He was in his own apartment, where no one was threatened with harm if they had just left him alone. To the extent harm was threatened to the cops, it was at the cops' instigation, not Pacheco's. If the Patrol Guide said cops could have put a bullet in his head for his own good, would that have been similarly fine with the court?
In determining whether the use of force was reasonable, the trier of fact must allow for police officers' frequent need to make "split-second" judgments about how much force is necessary "in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" (Graham, 490 US at 396-397). Other important considerations include whether the suspect actively resisted arrest and posed an immediate threat to the officers' safety (Vizzari v Hernandez, 1 AD3d 431, 432 [2d Dept 2003], citing Graham, 490 US at 396).The emptiness of the decision is best reflected here, where there was no "split-second" judgment to be made, one of the regular fall-back excuses for cops to escape responsibility for their monumentally poor judgment. They had all the time in the world. Indeed, they could have just as well walked away. Better still, why did the police respond when the call was for an ambulance?
More importantly, Pacheco was not a "suspect" but an ill man. Reference to procedures to subdue a criminal is an outrageous conflation of responsibility when the only justification for the police to be present in Pacheco's apartment was to aid someone suffering from a medical issue. He wasn't "resisting arrest," but sick. Yes, that makes a difference.
But the cops tased him anyway. And the court disregarded the jury. And the new rule of the Bronx is that cops can tase a person who has committed no crime and poses no threat of harm to anyone except the cop who is there supposedly to help him. Ultimately, it appears that the police can employ force at will as long as there is a section in the Patrol Guide to approve it, and the Appellate Division has elevated it to the status of law.
And the next time you get a jury summons in the Bronx, don't bother showing. It's not like the judges think enough of your time and effort to make it worth your while anyway.
H/T Appellate Squawk and Andrew Stoll
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/22/screw-the-jury-and-pass-the-taser.aspx?ref=rss
Say It Ain't So, Batman!
How bad are things in the UK? Even Batman has crossed to the dark side. As reported by
news.scotsman.com:
A man who handed his friend in to a police station while dressed as Batman has been charged with burglary.
Stan Worby, 39, made headlines around the world last month when pictures were released showing him taking Daniel Frayne to a police station in Bradford while wearing the Caped Crusader costume.Clearly Robin, er Mr. Worby, did not hold a grudge.
Worby and Frayne, 26, have now both been charged with burglary after police stopped a vehicle containing suspected stolen property.
The men were arrested shortly after 4am on Sunday on Milner Ing, in the Delph Hill area of Bradford.
Last month, Worby, a Chinese takeaway delivery driver, explained how he had returned from watching Bradford City play in the Capital One Cup final at Wembley in his Batman suit when Frayne asked him to accompany him to the police station in relation to other matters.Say what? Here's the source, including a still from that first trip to the police station.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/uX2fCfkxzdc/newsscotsmancom_a_man_who_hand.html
lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys
Nourishing Creativity with Constraints
Hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell are exploring a new social media outlet called Vine where users create videos, constricted to six-seconds in length. This inspired the discussion of nourishing creativity with a length constraint. Twitter limits users to 140 characters, Instagram allows only one photo per post, and Snapchat limits users to sending a photo for 10 seconds or less before it disappears from both the sender and the recipient’s device. On this episode of Kennedy Mighell report, your hosts will discuss how technology constraints can produce surprising results for lawyers, whether they participate in social media or not.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/2013/04/nourishing-creativity-with-constraints
Jane Kelly confirmed for 8th Circuit bench
A lot of hard work paid off today when the Senate confirmed the nomination of Jane Kelly of Iowa to be the next 8th Circuit judge by a vote of 96-0. Kelly will be only the second woman ever to serve on the Court of Appeals. She has served more than 20 years as a federal public defender. The vote is available here.
Kelly sailed through a friendly judiciary committee hearing, with Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley throwing her the softest of balls when he asked her if she thought judges should give up on the constitution. She said no, and Minnesota Sen. Al Franken said, “I was holding my breath to see how you’d answer that, “You did well.…The fact that you’re so heartily supported by both Senators speaks highly of you.” At the end of the hearing, Grassley told her he didn’t think she had to worry, and he turned out to be right.
Congratulations to Kelly and also to the Infinity Project, which has worked throughout the 8th Circuit to put another woman on the bench.
Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2013/04/24/jane-kelly-confirmed-for-8th-circuit-bench/
divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer
AIG, A.G. in Duel Over Impact of U.S. Settlement on State Case
The long-lingering civil fraud case against American International Group and its former CEO, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, has taken an unusual twist, with New York's attorney general and the AIG camp dueling over the impact of a federal court settlement in a parallel case, and whether it may affect an appeal slated for argument next month in New York state's high court.
Bed Bugs Litigation
All across America, from motels to five-star hotels, bed bugs are affecting people both physically and mentally, resulting in lawsuits. These tiny creatures are not only limited to hotels, but can be found virtually anywhere; from apartments, schools, and hospitals, to warehouses, box springs, and mattresses. Ringler Radio host, Larry Cohen joins Ringler colleague and co-host, Ross Duncan and guest, Attorney Daniel W, Whitney, managing partner of Whitney & Bogris, LLP, as they take a look at the impact of bedbugs, the preventive measures to help avoid them, as well as some of the litigation that's risen up to combat the problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/08/bed-bugs-litigation/
find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice
Friday, April 26, 2013
Pharma sales reps are FLSA exempt as outside salesmen (5-4)
This morning the US Supreme Court decided - on a 5-4 vote - that pharmaceutical sales representatives are "outside salesmen" and therefore exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court also unanimously held that the Department of Labor's recently-announced contrary interpretation was entitled to exactly zero deference.
Christopher v. SmithKline Beacham (US Supreme Ct 06/18/2012)
Christopher, a pharmaceutical sales representative, sued the employer for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging failure to pay overtime. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and denied Christopher's motion to amend the judgment based on the trial court's failure to consider an amicus brief filed by the Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL). The 9th Circuit affirmed. The US Supreme Court affirmed (5-4).
The job of a pharmaceutical sales representative is to try to persuade physicians to write prescriptions for products in appropriate cases. For over 70 years DOL acquiesced in an interpretation that they were "outside salesmen" who are exempt from FLSA overtime requirements. In amicus briefs filed in Circuit courts DOL took the position that a "sale" requires a "consummated transaction." In Supreme Court briefing DOL's position was that there is no "sale" unless the employee "actually transfers title."
The Court said that the DOL's new interpretation is entitled to no deference at all because it would impose massive liability for conduct that occurred before the interpretation was announced, there had been no enforcement actions suggesting the industry was acting unlawfully, DOL gave no opportunity for public comment, and the interpretation is "flatly inconsistent" with the FLSA.
The FLSA definition of "sale" includes consignments, which do not involve a transfer of title. Although DOL regulations say that sales include the transfer of title, that does not mean a sale must include a transfer of title. The regulations also use the phrase "other disposition" which - in this unique regulatory environment - includes the work of pharmaceutical sales representatives. The representatives also bear all the exterior indicia of salesmen (average salaries exceeding $70,000, work that is difficult to standardize to a particular time frame, etc.)
The DISSENT reasoned that sales of drugs are made by pharmacists, not pharmaceutical sales representatives. The pharmaceutical sales representative neither make sales nor promote "their own sales." (The dissent agreed that the DOL's current views expressed in briefs are not entitled to any weight.)
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/06/pharma_sales_re.html
Jane Kelly confirmed for 8th Circuit bench
A lot of hard work paid off today when the Senate confirmed the nomination of Jane Kelly of Iowa to be the next 8th Circuit judge by a vote of 96-0. Kelly will be only the second woman ever to serve on the Court of Appeals. She has served more than 20 years as a federal public defender. The vote is available here.
Kelly sailed through a friendly judiciary committee hearing, with Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley throwing her the softest of balls when he asked her if she thought judges should give up on the constitution. She said no, and Minnesota Sen. Al Franken said, “I was holding my breath to see how you’d answer that, “You did well.…The fact that you’re so heartily supported by both Senators speaks highly of you.” At the end of the hearing, Grassley told her he didn’t think she had to worry, and he turned out to be right.
Congratulations to Kelly and also to the Infinity Project, which has worked throughout the 8th Circuit to put another woman on the bench.
Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2013/04/24/jane-kelly-confirmed-for-8th-circuit-bench/
family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney
The Impact of BU Law’s LL.M. Programs
BU Law has offered a post-graduate legal education leading to the Master of Laws degree for more than 125 years. In this BU Law podcast, host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, welcomes John N. Riccardi, BU Law’s assistant dean for Graduate and International Programs and director of the Office of Graduate and International Programs, to take a look at the School’s graduate programs for international lawyers. Later in the program, David is joined by former student Johan S. Ellefsen, who talks about his experience with the LL.M. program and where he is today.
Lawyer2Lawyer: A Retrospective
We started Lawyer2Lawyer back in August of 2005 with the idea of providing quality content and discussion of timely legal news and information for the legal profession with regularly published podcasts and often videos too. Since our inception, we have set the precedent for legal podcasting in numbers of listeners globally, but more importantly, we’ve been one of the leaders in great content - our priority over the past 7 years. On this final edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, talk about their personal experiences over the years with this legal podcast.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/lawyer2lawyer-a-retrospective/
local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer
Online Reputation Management for Lawyers
What are people saying about you online? What if the comments are negative? How can you protect your good name? In an environment where online reviews are common, Legal Toolkit host Jared Correia, Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP,, and Conrad Saam, Vice President of Marketing at Urbanspoon, discuss online reputation management for lawyers. Conrad and Jared cover the importance of tracking online mentions, and the methods for doing so. They also address the rising vitality of local search and the usefulness in dominating vanity search.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/02/online-reputation-management-for-lawyers/
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.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/new-solo/2012/02/helpful-tips-for-women-solo-practitioners/
legal information legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney
Lawyer2Lawyer: A Retrospective
We started Lawyer2Lawyer back in August of 2005 with the idea of providing quality content and discussion of timely legal news and information for the legal profession with regularly published podcasts and often videos too. Since our inception, we have set the precedent for legal podcasting in numbers of listeners globally, but more importantly, we’ve been one of the leaders in great content - our priority over the past 7 years. On this final edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, talk about their personal experiences over the years with this legal podcast.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/lawyer2lawyer-a-retrospective/
Thursday, April 25, 2013
LawBiz Legal Pad: What Are Clients Looking For Anyway?
Ed talks about lawyers who provide solutions and who communicate effectively and often with their clients.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/TGQa4_ke6R4/
attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder
Legal Talk Network Live at LegalTechNY 2012- Bob Ambrogi on Why LegalTechNY is a Top Show for Lawyers
Bob Ambrogi, co-host of Lawyer2Lawyer and longtime legal technologist, travels to LegalTechNY and explains why it is one of the pre-eminent legal technology shows. This year’s emphasis is on e-discovery, case management and cloud computing. Bob also tells us why he’s looking forward to seeing all the new and exciting tech products targeting the legal community. Be sure to watch the interview, hosted by Legal Talk Network producer, Kate Kenney.
When Teachers Eat Their Own
At the New York Times editorial notebook, Brent Staples offers three lessons from the cheating scandal in Atlanta.
While denying that there was any value to empty praise, it didn't diminish the desire for praise at all. I saw his position as "unprincipled," as he wanted it both ways but refused to admit that was what he sought. Thousands of words were murdered in explaining why this wasn't so, each paragraph sinking the argument deeper into a hole of no return.
In Atlanta, the teachers found themselves in a similar conundrum. Their worth, and consequently their jobs, are gauged solely by test outcomes. There are three ways to achieve good test outcomes. One is to teach to the test. Two is to fix the results. Three is to be an excellent teacher. Of these options, the third is by far the hardest.
But as the second and third lessons offered by Staples suggests, teachers, particularly young ones, are being set up for failure. Bennett informs me that the Praise Sandwich is "perhaps an effective tool" as it has become a social convention. While it's certainly true that it has been widely embraced as a teaching tool, is that because students like it, students much prefer being praised when being taught?
The argument that it's effective is largely based on the fact that it doesn't scare away those who do poorly in the beginning, who need positive reinforcement to persist in the educational process. This goes to the "novice" versus "expert" aspect of the Praise Sandwich, which I suspect Bennett and Justin misunderstood.
They argued that third year law students aren't "experts," and thus fell in the category for whom the Praise Sandwich was critical. I don't think that's what is meant by "experts," and it's a facile rationale for perpetuating and enabling people who should be determined to achieve mastery of their subject to instead hide behind the third-grader within them. What is missed is that the Praise Sandwich, by definition, requires praise to be given first and last, regardless of whether there is anything praiseworthy to say. Make it up. Do whatever you have to do to be encouraging. But praise. That is the tool: there must be praise.
I am similarly unpersuaded that it's necessarily a bad thing that people who lack the chops to excel shouldn't be scared away. Not everybody can grow up to be President, despite our popular belief to the contrary. Nor be a lawyer. Nor a teacher. This isn't a bad thing. What is a bad thing is to enable those who should have been weeded out to continue under the false security of praise and competence.
If you have a student in the Atlanta school system, are you more concerned about your child's teacher feeling good about himself or his ability to teach your child? Bear in mind that teachers, unlike lawyers, are not compelled to attend a three year, post-graduate, course of study directed solely to becoming a member of the legal profession. They are certainly no more experts than new lawyers, having not had those extra three years to gain greater "expertise."
And yet, no parent is more concerned with the teacher's self-esteem than the child's education. Nor should they be. But the parents will not have a first-rate teacher corps unless there is a mechanism to teach them how to be great. Will the Praise Sandwich accomplish that goal?
At some point, we need to stop enabling the child within to demand praise and reach a higher metacognitive level. No doubt, teachers, like law students, want to be told how well their doing. Perhaps it's effective for making them feel good about themselves and encouraging them to continue their pursuit. But when do they shift from the need for validation to the desire to achieve excellence? It is this desire that's meant be "expert."
The alternative, as happened in Atlanta, is that we continue to enjoy the social convention of tummy rubbing that so many crave and enjoy, and just cheat our way to success. Because no amount of tummy rubbing will make anyone a first-rate teacher. Or trial lawyer. Or anything else, for that matter.
What happened in Atlanta was the by-product of a widely embraced pedagogy. It failed and dozens of teachers and administrators were indicted for cheating. They better hope their lawyers weren't the products of the same pedagogy, or they're doomed.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
The first is that overemphasizing scores is a mistake.Methods of teaching, pedagogy, have been on my mind a lot recently. After I questioned the limits of the Praise Sandwich, the Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett, was unconvinced.
The second is that teacher evaluation systems — now under development in most states — will be of little use unless they include mechanisms for showing teachers who receive average ratings how to become great, or at least good, at what they do.
And finally, the country will not build a first-rate teacher corps solely by threatening to fire people who are less than perfect early in their careers.
The Sandwich Theory has become social convention because it works. It works because most human beings—not just law students—are fragile; by sandwiching constructive criticism between slices of praise, the teacher sends the message that the criticism is not personal.After a prolonged discussion with a commenter named "Justin" to Bennett's post, two points became abundantly clear: students want to be taught effectively, but effectively from their perspective. In other words, it's not that they want empty praise in lieu of meaningful instruction, but they still want to be praised even if it comes at the expense of meaningful instruction.And yes, criminal-defense lawyers should be tougher than that. But the Sandwich Theory is a teaching tool—perhaps an effective one—and if you want to teach people you’ll use whatever tools come to hand.
While denying that there was any value to empty praise, it didn't diminish the desire for praise at all. I saw his position as "unprincipled," as he wanted it both ways but refused to admit that was what he sought. Thousands of words were murdered in explaining why this wasn't so, each paragraph sinking the argument deeper into a hole of no return.
In Atlanta, the teachers found themselves in a similar conundrum. Their worth, and consequently their jobs, are gauged solely by test outcomes. There are three ways to achieve good test outcomes. One is to teach to the test. Two is to fix the results. Three is to be an excellent teacher. Of these options, the third is by far the hardest.
But as the second and third lessons offered by Staples suggests, teachers, particularly young ones, are being set up for failure. Bennett informs me that the Praise Sandwich is "perhaps an effective tool" as it has become a social convention. While it's certainly true that it has been widely embraced as a teaching tool, is that because students like it, students much prefer being praised when being taught?
The argument that it's effective is largely based on the fact that it doesn't scare away those who do poorly in the beginning, who need positive reinforcement to persist in the educational process. This goes to the "novice" versus "expert" aspect of the Praise Sandwich, which I suspect Bennett and Justin misunderstood.
They argued that third year law students aren't "experts," and thus fell in the category for whom the Praise Sandwich was critical. I don't think that's what is meant by "experts," and it's a facile rationale for perpetuating and enabling people who should be determined to achieve mastery of their subject to instead hide behind the third-grader within them. What is missed is that the Praise Sandwich, by definition, requires praise to be given first and last, regardless of whether there is anything praiseworthy to say. Make it up. Do whatever you have to do to be encouraging. But praise. That is the tool: there must be praise.
I am similarly unpersuaded that it's necessarily a bad thing that people who lack the chops to excel shouldn't be scared away. Not everybody can grow up to be President, despite our popular belief to the contrary. Nor be a lawyer. Nor a teacher. This isn't a bad thing. What is a bad thing is to enable those who should have been weeded out to continue under the false security of praise and competence.
If you have a student in the Atlanta school system, are you more concerned about your child's teacher feeling good about himself or his ability to teach your child? Bear in mind that teachers, unlike lawyers, are not compelled to attend a three year, post-graduate, course of study directed solely to becoming a member of the legal profession. They are certainly no more experts than new lawyers, having not had those extra three years to gain greater "expertise."
And yet, no parent is more concerned with the teacher's self-esteem than the child's education. Nor should they be. But the parents will not have a first-rate teacher corps unless there is a mechanism to teach them how to be great. Will the Praise Sandwich accomplish that goal?
At some point, we need to stop enabling the child within to demand praise and reach a higher metacognitive level. No doubt, teachers, like law students, want to be told how well their doing. Perhaps it's effective for making them feel good about themselves and encouraging them to continue their pursuit. But when do they shift from the need for validation to the desire to achieve excellence? It is this desire that's meant be "expert."
The alternative, as happened in Atlanta, is that we continue to enjoy the social convention of tummy rubbing that so many crave and enjoy, and just cheat our way to success. Because no amount of tummy rubbing will make anyone a first-rate teacher. Or trial lawyer. Or anything else, for that matter.
What happened in Atlanta was the by-product of a widely embraced pedagogy. It failed and dozens of teachers and administrators were indicted for cheating. They better hope their lawyers weren't the products of the same pedagogy, or they're doomed.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/17/when-teachers-eat-their-own.aspx?ref=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)