Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/law/video/306783319?client_source=feed&format=rss
Friday, May 31, 2013
Accelerate Your Use of Metrics
Corporate law departments want to improve their use of data and reporting to make smarter, more strategic business decisions - the question is, "how?" In this edition of Tech Experts, join Rashad Porter, Director of Business Intelligence Strategy & Solutions at Datacert, for a discussion of the Legal Business Intelligence Maturity Model. Rashad uses this tool to help you realistically evaluate where your department’s reporting stands now and outline actionable steps you can take towards becoming more strategic in your use of metrics to manage.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2012/08/accelerate-your-use-of-metrics/
legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
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
Senators Tussle Over Proposal To 'Unpack' Key D.C. Court
GOP Sen. Charles Grassley has floated legislation that would cut three seats from the important D.C. Circuit appeals court — just as President Obama prepares to announce his nominees for those jobs. The court is now evenly balanced with four appointees each from Republican and Democratic presidents.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney
Thursday, May 30, 2013
BU School of Law’s Semester-in-Practice Program
Boston University School of Law’s Semester-in-Practice Program has provided some great opportunities to law students who are looking to prepare themselves for the legal world. Host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, talks with Professor Sean J. Kealy, director of the Government Lawyering program in Washington D.C, and Michael Greenwald, an alum of BU School of Law, who spent a semester in Washington working for the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Sean and Michael talk about the benefits of the program, the hands-on training, and share their personal experiences.
divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer
2012 Legal Tech Surveys Say . . .
We hear a lot of stories about lawyers using (and not using) technology. It’s always been difficult to get good data on what is actually happening in the ground. The release of results from two major annual surveys about the use of technology by lawyers gives us some data to assess trends and draw conclusions. In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell take a look at highlights of the 2012 ILTA / Inside Legal Technology Purchase Survey and the 2012 Legal Technology Survey Report from the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center, the trends the surveys show, and some practical implications of the survey results.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/10/2012-legal-tech-surveys-say/
Solo Is Found in Contempt for 'Flagrant Flouting' of Court Orders
An Eastern District judge has ordered a Brooklyn solo practitioner to be held in contempt of court and referred him for possible discipline after the attorney repeatedly ignored a magistrate judge's orders and failed to pay a previously imposed fine.
criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys
Cuccinelli softens stance on public records law
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he will no longer routinely advance the contention that his office is not subject to the state Freedom of Information Act.
Cuccinelli had included a disclaimer in recent FOIA responses stating that a 2011 Supreme Court of Virginia opinion could be interpreted to exclude his office from the public records law. A spokesperson confirmed to two newspapers the AG’s position that the FOIA did not apply to him.
The same spokesperson provided a somewhat different response from Cuccinelli Monday evening:
“I have always instructed my staff to fully abide by FOIA. Several staff members are assigned to work on FOIA requests, we have always complied with all FOIA requests and we will continue to respond to every one of the hundreds of requests we get each year,” Cuccinelli said.
“The attorneys who work on FOIA requests were diligently attempting to preserve any potential legal arguments this office may have based on a 2011 Supreme Court case. However, I have instructed my staff to remove the recently inserted footnote referencing Christian v. SCC because it has created confusion and it does not comport with the office’s practice of fully complying with FOIA,” Cuccinelli’s statement read.
Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, welcomed Cuccinelli’s less strident approach.
“Taking the offending footnote out of future letters is certainly a step in the right direction,” Rhyne said in an email. “A better step would have been for the Attorney General to distance himself from the footnote altogether by confirming that his office is now and has always been subject to Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act,” Rhyne said.
Waldo Jaquith, an open government advocate who received one of the “footnoted” letters, also praised the change in stance.
“While I do wish that the attorney general had confirmed that his office is legally obliged to comply with FOIA, I’m happy to see that he’s taken a big step in the right direction. Ken Cuccinelli deserves credit for correcting his mistake promptly and transparently,” Jaquith said in an email.
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/vlwblog/2013/05/20/cuccinelli-softens-stance-on-public-records-law/
Dayton asks Senate to remove Tax Court Judge George Perez
Editor’s note: This story was first published in Politics in Minnesota, Minnesota Lawyer’s sister publication.
by Mike Mullen 
Judge Perez
Published: May 19th, 2013
Gov. Mark Dayton is asking the Senate to remove Tax Court Judge George Perez before its adjournment.
With two days left to take up a variety of major bills, including a significant overhaul of the state tax code, Gov. Mark Dayton is trying to put one more item on the Senate’s plate. This morning, Dayton submitted a letter to Senate Taxes Committee Chair Rod Skoe, DFL-Clearbrook, calling on Skoe to begin Senate proceedings to remove Chief Tax Court Judge George Perez. Perez, an appointee of Gov. Arne Carlson who has served on the tax court since 1997, was the subject of a disciplinary ruling from a three-judge panel earlier this month.
Following a lengthy investigation into Perez’s conduct, a three-judge panel found that Perez had engaged in a pattern of delaying his judicial rulings long beyond allowed deadlines, as well as falsifying the dates on a number of his cases in an attempt to keep himself in compliance with deadline statutes.
Perez, who became the court’s chief judge in 2001 and served in that role until the allegations surfaced, has been reappointed to his position four times, most recently by Dayton in 2011. Later that year, the state Board of Judicial Standards brought initial allegations of misconduct against Perez, alleging that he had missed mandatory three month deadlines in a series of cases dating back to 2002. The board also accused Perez of having repeatedly adjusted the filing dates on cases to make it appear that he had ruled swiftly, when, in fact, Perez had taken as much as 18 months to decide cases before him.
In its harshly worded ruling, the three-judge panel highlighted individual cases where Perez had lapsed on his duties. In one instance from 2002, a taxpayer whose case was before Perez was informed that the judge had come down with an illness. The defendant was led to believe that the ruling would be delayed a matter of days while Perez recovered.
“Judge Perez,” wrote the three-judge panel, “did not issue his decision in the next couple of days, or in the next couple of weeks, or even in the next year. He did not issue a decision until January 14, 2004, more than 14 months after the decision was due.”
In light of Perez’s conduct, the panel recommended that he be suspended without pay for nine months, and removed from his position as chief judge. Attorney Frederick Finch, who represented Perez in the proceedings, told the Star Tribune last week that Perez planned to appeal the ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which has received the panel’s recommendations and now has jurisdiction on the case.
Dayton is now prepared to go one step further than the panel’s recommendation, pushing for the immediate removal of Perez from the court. In his letter to Skoe, which was also sent to Senate leadership, Dayton wrote, “Had I known about the Board’s findings, I would not have reappointed him to the Tax Court.” Dayton’s message requests that Skoe make a motion on the Senate floor to call for a confirmation vote of Perez, and that the Senate then vote to reject the motion, writing that the Senate should take up the issue before its adjournment deadline of midnight on Monday.
“I believe that Judge Perez’s reported misconduct violates the integrity of our state’s judicial system, and that his continued service is not in the best interest of Minnesota citizens,” Dayton wrote. “Please reject the confirmation so that I may appoint a new Tax Court Judge to better serve the interest of Minnesotans.”
Complete URL: http://politicsinminnesota.com/2013/05/dayton-asks-senate-to-remove-tax-court-judge-george-perez/
attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
The Legal End of Affirmative Action?
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear "Fisher v. University of Texas." This case could bring about the end of college admissions policies based on race. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, along with Huffington Post Supreme Court Correspondent Mike Sacks and UCLA School of Law Professor Richard Sander, examine the possible fate of affirmative action in college admissions.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/02/the-legal-end-of-affirmative-action/
BP Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
In March of 2012, BP Oil reached a proposed class action settlement with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee which BP has valued at about $7.8 billion. The court will consider final approval of the settlement at a Fairness Hearing scheduled for November 8, 2012. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen and Ringler colleague, Wayne Wagner join guest, Attorney Paul Sterbcow from the firm Lewis, Kullman, Sterbcow & Abramson, to give a behind the scenes look at the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee and provide updates on a potential settlement for the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer
Nothing Beats Luck - Just Ask This Woman ...
This Florida woman has never been luckier. Actually, her estranged husband was lucky too. What is The Juice talking about? Check this out, from the Hillsborough County [Florida] Sheriff's Office:
On May 19, 2013 at approximately 1:27 a.m., the defendant, Julio Villanueva-Vasquez used a tool to puncture the tires of a friend who was visiting the defendant’s estranged wife. The defendant then went to the main entry of the residence and used a tool to attempt to pry the door open. The victim heard strange noises at the door and observed the defendant through the window crouched down. The victim opened the door to take a picture as proof of the defendant being there. The defendant rushed in uninvited.Here's where the luck comes in.
The defendant and the victim engaged in a physical struggle before the defendant pulled a semi-auto handgun from his waist area. He then pulled the trigger after pointing the gun at the victim’s chest. The gun did not fire so he racked the slide twice and fired twice more, but the gun malfunctioned. The defendant fled on foot.Three misfires? That's some serious luck.
The victim sustained a small laceration to the face. She positively identified Villanueva-Vasquez as her attacker. A domestic violence injunction was in effect against the defendant. He was located at his residence and arrested without incident.You'll find the source, including a mug shot, here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/drlH0vjBokQ/nothing_beats_luck_just_ask_th.html
SU Discoverlaw.org PLUS
Suffolk University Law School Dean Camille Nelson and Keren Zuniga McDowell, director of the Office of Academic Affairs at Suffolk University, discuss the SU Discoverlaw.org PLUS program. Learn more about SU Discoverlaw.org PLUS at http://bit.ly/yZhpOL.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/03/suplus/
international law international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney
Gone Clio with Attorney Michael J. P. Schewe
On this edition of Gone Clio, Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Attorney Michael J. P. Schewe of Schewe Law LLC. Michael talks about his passion for employment-related issues, the pros and cons of starting your own law firm, and how Clio makes him confident when a malpractice issue comes up.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/08/gone-clio-with-attorney-michael-j-p-schewe/
Defendant runs from courthouse, jumps in river
A cocaine-possession defendant was so distraught over his court hearing Tuesday he apparently ran from the Danville courthouse and jumped into the Dan River.
As the Danville Register & Bee reports, Anthony Falden was rescued from the chilly water and taken for a mental evaluation.
Online records indicate Falden was scheduled to go on trial on the drug charge at 9 am Tuesday.
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/vlwblog/2013/05/21/defendant-runs-from-courthouse-jumps-in-river/
family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
OMG! Lawyers Are Texting?
Twenty years ago, lawyers were debating whether to use email in their practices. It's now impossible to imagine lawyers practicing without using email. Studies indicate that eight trillion text messages were sent in 2011. Will we see texts and IMs becoming as integral to law practice as email has become? In this episode, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss the growing use of texts and IMs by everyone, how these technologies are starting to play a role in the everyday practice of law, and how lawyers should prepare for the use of these technologies in the future. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennis’ co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/04/omg-lawyers-are-texting/
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/
company law conservator copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer
In Tricky Prosecutions, Judges Play Peacemakers
The U.S. Supreme Court could soon clarify the scope of a rule that discourages federal courts from allowing criminal settlement conferences.
How Medical Apology Programs Harm Patients
Gabriel Teninbaum, Associate Professor of Legal Writing at Suffolk Law, discusses his May 2012 Boston Globe editorial and recent article on how medical apology programs harm patients. Read the article at http://bit.ly/qEUwjh.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/06/how-medical-apology-programs-harm-patients/
stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney
The Fiscal Cliff: Impact of the Deal
Before the New Year, we did a show on how the fiscal cliff and how it could potentially impact the structured settlement industry and legal clients. Since then, a deal was reached averting a financial crisis for now and has been signed into law by President Obama. In this podcast, Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen and co-host, Bill Wakelee, follow-up with Dr. Christopher Coyne, Economist and Associate Professor of Finance at St. Joseph’s University, on the specifics on the fiscal cliff deal, general reaction and its overall impact on Americans and the structured settlement industry.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2013/01/the-fiscal-cliff-impact-of-the-deal/
Monday, May 27, 2013
Second Circuit Holds that Allegations of Direct Fraudulent Representations Are Necessary for Market Manipulation Claims Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
In Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., No. 09-4414-cv, 2013 WL 1876534 (2d Cir. May 7, 2013), a 2-1 majority of a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs’ failure to plead direct misrepresentations from defendant to plaintiffs was fatal to their market manipulation claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. This is the first decision from a Court of Appeals applying the strict limitations on the scope of primary liability set in recent decisions by the Supreme Court to claims involving market manipulation.
From 1992 through 1996, a now-defunct broker-dealer, A.R. Baron (“Baron”), executed a “pump and dump” scheme involving high pressure “cold calls” to potential customers, aimed at inducing the customers to purchase securities in initial public offerings of small, unknown companies with negligible profits. Baron’s salespeople would represent deceptively that such stocks were part of an active, rising market in which prices were fairly set by arms-length transactions. In reality, the “market” was a result of a series of artificial trades arranged by Baron to generate the façade of a rising market. These practices defrauded customers out of millions of dollars, and eventually led to the criminal convictions of a number of its former officers, directors and key employees.
Plaintiffs, a group of individual investors, alleged that Baron and its clearing broker, Bear, Stearns & Co, Inc. (“Bear Stearns”), falsely represented the market surrounding the securities at issue, and that defendant Isaac R. Dweck (“Dweck”) enabled Baron, through short-term cash infusions and financing, to “park” securities in his accounts, for which he was rewarded with ownership in companies on a preferential basis and returns on the parking arrangements. Plaintiffs also alleged that Dweck’s providing of funds to Baron prolonged Baron’s fraudulent activity. Plaintiffs made no claim for recovery from Dweck for damages caused by the parking of specific securities, but instead sought to impose liability on Dweck for all of Baron’s deceptive activities; in other words, plaintiffs made no attempt to connect particular trades to Dweck’s parking.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the plaintiffs’ broad allegations that Dweck was substantially funding and participating in Baron’s fraudulent transactions did not show how plaintiffs relied upon misrepresentations or omissions by Dweck, and therefore, failed to state a claim against Dweck under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The district court noted that plaintiffs had asserted that Dweck made investments in Baron securities, assisted in the parking transactions and allegedly introduced new co-conspirators to the fraud, and that the plaintiffs claimed generally that the parking transactions and overall fraud caused the price of Baron’s securities to artificially inflate, creating damage to plaintiffs when they purchased the eventually worthless stock. However, the district court held, none of those items satisfied the requirement under Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008) (see blog article here), that plaintiffs allege a false material misrepresentation or omission, and reliance thereupon. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the claim for misrepresentations or omissions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Dweck. The district court likewise dismissed plaintiffs claim for market manipulation against Dweck due to a lack of alleged reliance on Dweck’s fraudulent behavior.
The Second Circuit affirmed. As the district court had noted, the absence of allegations of communications between the plaintiffs and Dweck was problematic. The Second Circuit observed that in plaintiffs’ claim against Dweck for all damages caused by Baron, plaintiffs did not made any claim for Dweck’s liability under respondeat superior or another common law theory of vicarious liability. Because aiding and abetting liability is not available in private actions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the Court held, Dweck could only be liable as a primary violator. The Second Circuit recognized that under Stoneridge “an allegation of acts facilitating or even indispensable to a fraud is not sufficient to state a claim if those acts were not the particular misrepresentations that deceived the investor.” Plaintiffs were required to allege actions by Dweck that were more than knowing participation in, or facilitation of, Baron’s fraudulent scheme. Looking further to Supreme Court precedent in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S. Ct. 2296 (2011) (see blog article here), the Court held that “only the person who communicates the misrepresentation is liable in private actions under Section 10(b),” even in a market manipulation case.
Here, although plaintiffs alleged that Dweck was part of a group that engaged in phony trading activity, they did not and could not allege “that any plaintiff was told of Dweck’s artificial trading, or purchased securities in specific reliance on such trading.” Rather, Baron and Bear Stearns were the only parties that had directly given the plaintiffs representations about the phony market. Plaintiffs alleged that Dweck had knowledge of some artificial trades, that he participated in them and that he actively facilitated Baron’s fraudulent scheme. But because only Baron or Bear Stearns — but not Dweck — communicated the artificial price information to plaintiffs, and their allegations were insufficient to state a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Dweck.
The dissent disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that Supreme Court precedent required a direct communication of false information to the plaintiffs in the context of a claim for market manipulation. Further, the dissent argued the majority ignored that Dweck was insider of Baron with primary liability under Section 10(b) for engaging in a manipulative scheme.
The Fezzani majority opinion is significant because it is the first decision from a Court of Appeals to apply the strict limitations on the scope of primary liability set in Stoneridge and Janus to claims involving market manipulation. In light of the dissenting opinion on this important issue, we expect plaintiffs to make a strong request for rehearing en banc and/or petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Tyler Baker at (212) 634-3048.
dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law
American Bar Association Updates Technology Ethics Rules
In this August edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, joins attorney Michael Arkfeld, principal of Arkfeld and Associates, and John Barkett a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, to discuss pending changes to the ABA’s Model Code of Professional Conduct, addressing technology, and lawyers’ responsibilities to understand and use technology to best serve clients. Monica continues the discussion with attorney Bob Ambrogi, who focuses on social media.
IP Industries: Part Two
Professor David L. Lange, Melvin Shimm Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, concludes his two-part discussion on IP Industries. Learn more about Professor Lange at http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/lange.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/06/ip-industries-part-two/
legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information legal news
Management Shakeup at King & Wood Mallesons
Pacific Rim law firm King & Wood Mallesons has appointed real estate lawyer Sue Kench as managing partner for its Australian arm, capping a management shakeup that emerged earlier this week.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/05/23/management-shakeup-at-king-wood-mallesons/?mod=WSJBlog
My "Styles" Audition for the New York Times
Having already taken charge of the op-ed page of the Times, I needed a new challenge. What better for a cutting edge guy like me than the Style Section? Do I not know that the Louis Vuitton store is on 57th Street? Come on.
And so, I tackle the hard questions posed to Philip Galanes in today's paper, since he obviously isn't really cut out for this style stuff.
© 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.
And so, I tackle the hard questions posed to Philip Galanes in today's paper, since he obviously isn't really cut out for this style stuff.
My husband and I are preparing our wills. We have two adult children: a daughter who is more successful than we are, and a son, who has been down on his luck for years. He also has three young children to educate. Everyone, including our lawyer and close friends, tells us that we should leave our money to them in equal shares to avoid hurt feelings. But that doesn’t seem right. Our son needs the money. Still, we don’t want to hurt our daughter. What would you do?
Anonymous, ChicagoStop listening to everyone. It’s your money, and they’re your children. Who better to walk this perilous tightrope than you, especially if we set up cushiony nets beneath you (unlike Burt Lancaster in “Trapeze”)?
Burt Lancaster in "Trapeze"? Seriously. When I was a kid, that movie was so old it was on the 4 O'Clock Movie five days a week. Come on, Philip, strap on those sock garters and spats and get out once in a while. But I digress.
So is your irony detector going crazy like mine? The anon questioner, who hasn't bothered to make a will until her children were old and half-losers, has already raised their issue with the people who know them, know their financial sitch, maybe even knows their kids, and so they've decided to ignore people with knowledge in favor of a guy who writes for a newspaper and doesn't know them from Adam. Minus 1.
And what does the newspaper guy say? Stop listening to everyone. Oh, the irony alarm is deafening. Don't listen to them. Listen to me? Anybody home?
Naturally, what caught my eye about this question was that it stands at the crossroads of law and feelings. So the old folks who never thought to make a will before are now struggling with how to take care of their loser son. Does it dawn on them, or Philip, that leaving him more than a half share might not be a helpful way to deal with it at all. How about a good smack in the face, a la Moonstruck? Remember the old give a man a fish allegory?
So they feel guilty about having failed their baby boy. With good reason, apparently, and so their parting message to their daughter, who worked hard and accomplished something with her life, is we don't love you as much as your brother.
Bequests to children aren't rational, even if the daughter says she gets the reason. It's a matter of legacy. If you hate one of your kids and want to get in the final smack, screw him in the will. Just remember that there is no going back afterward, so you better really, really hate the kid because the kid is for sure going to hate you.
The point of advice isn't to confirm what the person asking wants to hear anyway. It's to help them despite whatever really dumb thing they want to do. When it comes to something like a will, there are a wealth of concerns that would never occur to a Style guy because he's never sat in a room with the children of dead parents, trying to figure out why they did what they did. Experience suggests that things nobody wants to believe will happen will happen. They get greedy and needy. They get angry. They get spiteful and hateful. They shouldn't, and the testator didn't think they would. But they do.
How do we know such things? Because this isn't the first person who ever made a will. Now the big question: Is she leaving behind any Louis Vuitton bags?
So when should I move my stuff into Philip's old desk?
© 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/2013/05/19/my-styles-audition-for-the-new-york-times.aspx?ref=rss
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/
The Amy Bishop Inquest
Suffolk Law Professor Chris Dearborn discusses the Amy Bishop case in Massachusetts and Alabama and both parties' reasons for keeping the inquest sealed or unsealed. Read more about Professor Dearborn at http://bit.ly/rafZ9N.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/02/the-amy-bishop-inquest/
letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Taking Control of Your Mobile Apps
There’s an app for everything. As we all discover how effectively we can use apps to connect with social media, as our work task managers, to find user-friendly news, and much more, they begin to accumulate on our smartphones and devices. Our hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell share tips on how to organize those apps to be the most efficient, aesthetically pleasing, and space conserving - making room for more apps. We will also learn how to sync all of their devices so that we always have access to our apps. The second portion of the show will discuss the pros and cons of having an iPad, an iPad Mini, or how to utilize both. And stay tuned until the end to hear each host’s tech tip, one will surely save you some time on your computer.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/02/control-your-mobile-apps/
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.
legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
Lawyer faces 20 months in prison for drugs
A Wise County lawyer accused of using and sharing illegal drugs with former clients – and getting them to lie about it under oath – has pleaded guilty to four federal felony charges and faces 20 months in prison.
The plea by Stuart Collins follows a judge’s rejection of his contention that some of the charges against him were based on witness statements protected by the attorney work product doctrine.
Collins, 42, was accused of snorting cocaine at his office conference room table with a former client, in an account recited in an FBI affidavit. Other charges involved the use of fraud in obtaining prescription painkillers.
Collins also was charged with having former clients give sworn testimony before a court reporter that he was not involved with drugs. Those allegations apparently led to charges against the court reporter, Ernie Benko, who now faces six counts related to allegedly false testimony.
In his plea agreement Monday, Collins admitting obtaining controlled substances by fraud. If the court accepts the deal, Collins will be sentenced to 20 months, a sentence higher than the normal guideline range for those crimes.
The above-guidelines sentence reflects the prosecution’s “insistence that Collins’ obstructive conduct be taken into account in determining the appropriate punishment,” said U.S. Attorney Tim Heaphy in a news release.
Collins argued the recorded witness statements – never used by him – were attorney work product and should not form the basis of criminal charges.
The statements were not recorded by any of Collins’ attorneys, the government responded. “A defendant who happens to be an attorney cannot use the veil of ‘attorney work product’ to hide his own attempts to obstruct justice and coach witnesses,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Zachary T. Lee in opposition.
U.S. District Judge James P. Jones denied Collins’ motion to dismiss charges based on the false witness statements on May 16. Collins’ guilty plea followed four days later.
Sentencing is set for Sept. 10 in Abingdon federal court.
Abingdon attorney David Scyphers, who represents Collins, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/vlwblog/2013/05/20/lawyer-faces-20-months-in-prison-for-drugs/
Gone Clio with Attorney Bruce Godfrey
Listen as Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Attorney Bruce Godfrey. Bruce covers everything from the similarities between his dad’s fishing tackle artisan shop and running his law practice, to Clio’s intuitive design, to the perks of going with a unified system for your practice.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/06/gone-clio-with-attorney-bruce-godfrey/
attorney definition attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder attorney law
Inside Midnight Regulations
Back in June of 2012, the Administrative Conference of the United States approved non-binding "Midnight Rules" guidelines. Midnight rulemaking involves the pushing through of rules by a President, in the last few months of their administration. Host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, chats with consultant for the Administrative Conference of the United States, Professor Jack M. Beermann, about Midnight Regulations, the new recommendations and the potential impact on current and future administrations.
Actos Litigation
The Type II Diabetes drug, Actos has received a black box label, has had a label change warning of a 40% increase in the risk for bladder cancer, and has been banned in France and Germany. Yet, Actos still remains on the market in the United States. Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen joins colleague Martin C. Blount and Attorney Michael J. Miller, from The Miller Firm LLC, to discuss the side effects of the diabetes medication Actos, including its connection to bladder cancer, reaction of the FDA, and recent litigation.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/05/actos-litigation/
legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel
A Lot of Misjudgment of Suspicion
Without a doubt, Judge Shira Scheindlin has a way with understatement. During closing arguments in Floyd v. New York, the stop and frisk trial finishing up in the Southern District, the court said the obvious aloud.
Observing that only about 12 percent of police stops resulted in an arrest or summons, Judge Scheindlin, who is hearing the case without a jury, focused her remarks on Monday on the other 88 percent of stops, in which the police did not find evidence of criminality after a stop. She characterized that as “a high error rate” and remarked to a lawyer representing the city, “You reasonably suspect something and you’re wrong 90 percent of the time.”
“That is a lot of misjudgment of suspicion,” Judge Scheindlin said, suggesting officers were wrongly interpreting innocent behavior as suspicious.
Yes. Yes it is. To the untrained eye, this might have been a foregone conclusion, Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner's adoration of the tactic notwithstanding. And yet, the City remains adamant that the massive failure of a 90% error rate in what they contend to be reasonable suspicion is protected under the ancient legal doctrine of stercus accidit.
The problem is that despite the fact that the individuals stopped were almost invariably black or Hispanic, there has been no evidence introduced of racial slurs during the course of the stops, which the City argues reflects the absence of profiling or racial animus. Judge Scheindlin wasn't entirely persuaded.
In the absence of overt racial slurs, Judge Scheindlin repeatedly asked a city lawyer, would it be appropriate to infer that a police encounter was racially motivated if an officer stopped a black man with no apparent basis? “If the court were to conclude there was no fair basis for the stop, but the stop was made, there has to be a reason,” Judge Scheindlin said, suggesting it might be a fair inference to find that it was a race-based stop.
No, no, no, the City responded. Never, because that would be wrong.
Much of the statistical testimony revolved around a single, stark fact: black and Hispanic people represent an overwhelming majority of people stopped, more than 85 percent most years. The city has long argued that this reflects crime patterns. City lawyers claim that the percentage of stops involving black individuals either mirrors, or is lower than, the percentage of violent crimes committed by black suspects.
After all, is it the fault of New York Police Officers that blacks are more "criminally"? Except, of course, for the fact that 90% of the time the black and Hispanic young men stopped aren't "criminally" at all. Most people would think that's a problem, but not New York City:
Heidi Grossman, the city’s lead lawyer, cautioned Judge Scheindlin, “You’re speculating what the reason is.” She noted that an improper stop could have been a mistake or based on an officer’s misunderstanding of the law, rather than a racial motivation.
Though it apparently wasn't said, the foundation for the argument is Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. In other words, New York's Finest are too clueless and incompetent to be expected to recognize when reasonable suspicion doesn't exist or that the law precludes their unconstitutional conduct, and they should therefore be forgiven their millions of trespasses.
While it's called "Hanlon's Razor," the concept is also attributed to Robert A. Heinlein, whose 1941 short story "Logic of Empire" includes the quote, "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." This, of course, leads inexorably to another of Heinlein's quotes from his 1966 opus, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: TANSTAAFL.
It's time for the New York City Police Department to pay the lunch bill. Check please.
© 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/2013/05/21/a-lot-of-misjudgment-of-suspicion.aspx?ref=rss
The Controversial War on Drugs
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" claiming "America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse". Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-controversial-war-on-drugs/
Saturday, May 25, 2013
OPINION: Shield Law Not the Answer to AP Flap
Vague talk about 'protecting whistleblowers' obscures the fact that some leaks are criminal.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202601430396&rss=rss_nlj
2013's Trade Show Tech Trends
Your host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, joins Bob Ambrogi, lawyer, writer, and media consultant, to talk about the latest tech trends they’ve seen at the trade-show circuit this year. Ambrogi runs a solo law firm where he represents clients in cases that cover the intersection of law, media, and technology. He also writes multiple blogs covering technology in law and is co-host of Legal Talk Network’s Lawyer2Lawyer podcast.
Bay and Ambrogi discuss the legal tech trends they’ve seen at Legal Tech NY and the ABA Tech Show, such as the rise of practice management software in the cloud, what working in the cloud means for client data security, economization through technology, and more.
Bay and Ambrogi discuss the legal tech trends they’ve seen at Legal Tech NY and the ABA Tech Show, such as the rise of practice management software in the cloud, what working in the cloud means for client data security, economization through technology, and more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2013/04/2013s-trade-show-tech-trends-2/
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney
The Legal Trade Show Survival Guide
Learn how to make the most of your next legal trade show experience when The Legal ToolKit host and Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, Jared Correia, chats with Andrea Cannavina, the Founder and CEO of LegalTypist, Inc. Andrea and Jared explain how to decide which events to attend, how to network, the benefits of getting involved in conference planning, and much more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/07/the-legal-trade-show-survival-guide/
personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney
Civility as an Art Form in Diplomacy and the Law
Civility is a skill in the management of differences, disagreements and conflict and is good for the law profession. So how essential is civility to the legal profession? And is it practiced well by lawyers? Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Dick A. Semerdjian from the firm Schwartz Semerdjian Ballard & Cauley LLP and chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS), to discuss the status of civility in the legal profession.
SJC Ruling on Foreclosures
Kathleen C. Engel, law professor and Associate Dean for Intellectual Life at Suffolk Law School, discusses the Massachusetts foreclosure crisis and actions being taken against four major banks. Learn more about Dean Engel at http://bit.ly/hBaALX.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/03/sjc-ruling-on-foreclosures/
employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego
The Best Wrong Answers
At Techdirt, Tim Cushing does an excellent job of parsing the FBI's no-recording-of-interrogations policy. Tim always does an excellent job at spreading the word from the legal end of the internet to the geek side of life. But what gives rise to this post isn't Tim's post, but the comments thereto.
In the past, I've explained the proper response to police interrogation. I've repeated the explanation in subsequent posts. Other lawyers have written similar things, though perhaps the nuance is lost in translation. And yet, the message not only isn't getting through, but non-lawyers are "instructing" other non-lawyers how to deal with police interrogations in a way that will likely fail miserably.
Why? Why do you not pay attention? Why must you, clueless non-lawyer who reads crap in the interwebz of varying quality, inform others about how to deal with things when you have no idea what you're talking about? Why do you listen to the other idiot who has no clue what he's talking about? Why?
What am I talking about? This comment and this one. And then there are the plethora of "just shut up" comments. Actually, they really aren't so terrible, and there are some very good comments in there, but I'm exaggerating the problem in order to justify my repeating the stuff I've written in the past for those who weren't around then and keep offering advice that is, how do I say this kindly, is less than precise.
The problem is that silence (as in, just shut up), is not an invocation of either the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. Silence is an invitation for the police to persist in the interrogation until, maybe, the silence ends. Unfortunately, most people can't "just shut up." Even if they can, it's only for a brief period, after which the words of police interrogators cajoling them to help themselves, just clear a few things up so you can go home, whatever point in the Reid Technique they're at, overcomes the three word warning and out comes the confession.
It's not that just shut up isn't good advice, but that it's inadequate and takes your eye off the ball.
At the time police take you into custody, you have at least two (there are more, but that's for another day) constitutional rights at risk. You have the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment, and the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment. These are separate rights, even though they are put at risk at the same time.
In order to invoke your constitutional rights, you are required to do something: invoke your rights. What does that mean? You must make a clear and unequivocal statement to the police that you are exercising your rights under the Constitution.
Note that silence is no longer an invocation of rights, following the Supreme Court's decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins. There are so many things silence could mean, aside from, well, silence, and so just shutting up isn't good enough anymore. Besides, as the Berghuis case (and about a million others) have shown, even a fellow inclined to just shut up may eventually crack under pressure and cease his just shutting up. It happens. A lot.
Now for another nuanced detail that seems to confuse so many people. The police do not have to read you Miranda rights for you to be lawfully arrested, but you already know that. What may not be as clear is that the police do not have to read you Miranda rights until you are subject to a custodial interrogation. In other words, it doesn't kick in until you are in custody.
What does that mean? Custody means that a reasonable person would understand that he is not free to leave. To the Supreme Court, a reasonable person is one who has no fear of saying to police officers, "Gentlemen, as much as I enjoy your company and pleasant conversation, I no longer feel like engaging with you, so I will now be on my way," without concern that they will thereupon be beaten, tased, tackled, kicked in the head a few times until their orbital socket is fractured beyond repair, or shot. I have yet to meet this reasonable person.
Nonetheless, you have these rights even if the police have failed to tell you so, whether because they will claim you weren't yet in custody or they simply don't want to. By realizing this up front, you will be empowered to assert your rights regardless of whether the police give you Miranda warnings. They are yours to use or lose.
The invocation of these two crucial rights must be made clearly and unequivocally. That means that there can be no doubt, from the words that leave your mouth, that you are invoking your rights. This is how you do so:
One last tip is that it is wise to repeat the invocation of your constitutional rights each time a new officer comes to say "hi," so that everyone is aware of your invocation and no one can later claim that you offered up the statements freely. Yes, the police may think you're a repetitive bore, but they weren't going to invite you to a party anyway, so no loss.
And if all of this is way too hard to remember, or fear overcomes your sound discretion when the time comes to utter the magic words, then the fall back position is just shut up. No, it's not the same as an invocation of rights. No, it is not the right way to handle the situation. But it beats the hell out of spewing your guts out and hanging yourself.
© 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.
In the past, I've explained the proper response to police interrogation. I've repeated the explanation in subsequent posts. Other lawyers have written similar things, though perhaps the nuance is lost in translation. And yet, the message not only isn't getting through, but non-lawyers are "instructing" other non-lawyers how to deal with police interrogations in a way that will likely fail miserably.
Why? Why do you not pay attention? Why must you, clueless non-lawyer who reads crap in the interwebz of varying quality, inform others about how to deal with things when you have no idea what you're talking about? Why do you listen to the other idiot who has no clue what he's talking about? Why?
What am I talking about? This comment and this one. And then there are the plethora of "just shut up" comments. Actually, they really aren't so terrible, and there are some very good comments in there, but I'm exaggerating the problem in order to justify my repeating the stuff I've written in the past for those who weren't around then and keep offering advice that is, how do I say this kindly, is less than precise.
The problem is that silence (as in, just shut up), is not an invocation of either the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. Silence is an invitation for the police to persist in the interrogation until, maybe, the silence ends. Unfortunately, most people can't "just shut up." Even if they can, it's only for a brief period, after which the words of police interrogators cajoling them to help themselves, just clear a few things up so you can go home, whatever point in the Reid Technique they're at, overcomes the three word warning and out comes the confession.
It's not that just shut up isn't good advice, but that it's inadequate and takes your eye off the ball.
At the time police take you into custody, you have at least two (there are more, but that's for another day) constitutional rights at risk. You have the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment, and the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment. These are separate rights, even though they are put at risk at the same time.
In order to invoke your constitutional rights, you are required to do something: invoke your rights. What does that mean? You must make a clear and unequivocal statement to the police that you are exercising your rights under the Constitution.
Note that silence is no longer an invocation of rights, following the Supreme Court's decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins. There are so many things silence could mean, aside from, well, silence, and so just shutting up isn't good enough anymore. Besides, as the Berghuis case (and about a million others) have shown, even a fellow inclined to just shut up may eventually crack under pressure and cease his just shutting up. It happens. A lot.
Now for another nuanced detail that seems to confuse so many people. The police do not have to read you Miranda rights for you to be lawfully arrested, but you already know that. What may not be as clear is that the police do not have to read you Miranda rights until you are subject to a custodial interrogation. In other words, it doesn't kick in until you are in custody.
What does that mean? Custody means that a reasonable person would understand that he is not free to leave. To the Supreme Court, a reasonable person is one who has no fear of saying to police officers, "Gentlemen, as much as I enjoy your company and pleasant conversation, I no longer feel like engaging with you, so I will now be on my way," without concern that they will thereupon be beaten, tased, tackled, kicked in the head a few times until their orbital socket is fractured beyond repair, or shot. I have yet to meet this reasonable person.
Nonetheless, you have these rights even if the police have failed to tell you so, whether because they will claim you weren't yet in custody or they simply don't want to. By realizing this up front, you will be empowered to assert your rights regardless of whether the police give you Miranda warnings. They are yours to use or lose.
The invocation of these two crucial rights must be made clearly and unequivocally. That means that there can be no doubt, from the words that leave your mouth, that you are invoking your rights. This is how you do so:
I do not want to answer questions.This is how you do not assert your rights:
I want to speak with my lawyer.
Do I have to answer questions?Or this:
Do I need a lawyer?
I don't think I should answer your questions.Or even this:
I think I should speak with a lawyer first.
<crickets>But it's not over yet. Oh no. Even if you have effectively invoked your right to remain silent, you can blow it when, feeling confident and bold in having outsmarted the police by speaking the magic words, you then choose to vomit words in the absence of provoking questions. In other words, if after the invocation of your right to remain silent, you voluntarily make statements without having been provoked into doing so by the police, you have in essence un-invoked your rights and your statements can be used against you.
One last tip is that it is wise to repeat the invocation of your constitutional rights each time a new officer comes to say "hi," so that everyone is aware of your invocation and no one can later claim that you offered up the statements freely. Yes, the police may think you're a repetitive bore, but they weren't going to invite you to a party anyway, so no loss.
And if all of this is way too hard to remember, or fear overcomes your sound discretion when the time comes to utter the magic words, then the fall back position is just shut up. No, it's not the same as an invocation of rights. No, it is not the right way to handle the situation. But it beats the hell out of spewing your guts out and hanging yourself.
© 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/2013/05/22/the-best-wrong-answers.aspx?ref=rss
Friday, May 24, 2013
Japan lawmakers approve international child abduction treaty
[JURIST] The Japanese parliament [official website, in Japanese] approved a bill on Wednesday adopting the Hague convention on resolving cross-border abductions of children. Parliament unanimously passed [BBC report] the treaty in response to international pressure for Tokyo to address concerns that Japanese mothers from broken international marriages can take children away from foreign fathers, leaving the fathers without any recourse for the children's return. Countries that are party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction...
letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors
Competitive Branding and Website Development for Lawyers
Clients have an abundance of options when hiring an attorney. Often, it is a firm’s website that determines who they ultimately hire. On this episode of The Legal Toolkit, hosts Jared Correia and Heidi Alexander talk to Jeff Lantz about building an Internet brand and website that differentiates you from your competitors and attracts clients.
Jeff Lantz is the founder and CEO of Esquire Interactive. His company is an attorney-run marketing firm that specializes in website development, Internet marketing, and branding for law firms and attorneys. Lantz was a practicing attorney for more than 12 years before he delved into Internet marketing. He has authored two books: The Essential Attorney Handbook for Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, and Website Development Management, referred to as “The bible for building law firm websites,” by host Alexander, and Internet Branding for Lawyers: Building the Client-Centered Website published by the ABA Law Practice Management Section.
Tune in to hear from the author of Internet Branding for Lawyers on the basics of branding, website development, and marketing for attorneys.
Jeff Lantz is the founder and CEO of Esquire Interactive. His company is an attorney-run marketing firm that specializes in website development, Internet marketing, and branding for law firms and attorneys. Lantz was a practicing attorney for more than 12 years before he delved into Internet marketing. He has authored two books: The Essential Attorney Handbook for Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, and Website Development Management, referred to as “The bible for building law firm websites,” by host Alexander, and Internet Branding for Lawyers: Building the Client-Centered Website published by the ABA Law Practice Management Section.
Tune in to hear from the author of Internet Branding for Lawyers on the basics of branding, website development, and marketing for attorneys.
2013's Trade Show Tech Trends
Your host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, joins Bob Ambrogi, lawyer, writer, and media consultant, to talk about the latest tech trends they’ve seen at the trade-show circuit this year. Ambrogi runs a solo law firm where he represents clients in cases that cover the intersection of law, media, and technology. He also writes multiple blogs covering technology in law and is co-host of Legal Talk Network’s Lawyer2Lawyer podcast.
Bay and Ambrogi discuss the legal tech trends they’ve seen at Legal Tech NY and the ABA Tech Show, such as the rise of practice management software in the cloud, what working in the cloud means for client data security, economization through technology, and more.
Bay and Ambrogi discuss the legal tech trends they’ve seen at Legal Tech NY and the ABA Tech Show, such as the rise of practice management software in the cloud, what working in the cloud means for client data security, economization through technology, and more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2013/04/2013s-trade-show-tech-trends-2/
free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers
Law School Offers A Second Chance for Rejected Students
The Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law has introduced 'Admission Through Performance,' allowing rejected applicants to enroll in a free, four-week course on the Federal Rules of Evidence taught by Duncan faculty. If the applicants do well, they can earn a spot in next year's 1L class.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202601247356&rss=rss_nlj
Tech Circuit: The LegalTech California Shuttle
Tech Circuit: LegalTech West Coast wraps up with Cisco's transparent ethics guides and Lex Machina's big venture capital news; Thursday it's Tech Day in San Francisco.
free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney
Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation
Hormone replacement therapy, also known as HRT, was prescribed to women to treat the symptoms of menopause for years. Then in 2002, a comprehensive women's health study was published. The study connected HRT to increasing incidences of breast cancer. Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen turns to Attorney Ted Meadows from the Beasley Allen Law Firm, for more details on hormone replacement therapy, ongoing litigation and the various plaintiffs involved in these cases.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/06/hormone-replacement-therapy-litigation/
Thursday, May 23, 2013
New Bolivia law allows president to run for third term
[JURIST] Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera signed into law Tuesday a constitutional amendment that will allow President Evo Morales [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] to run for a third term. The Bolivian Constitution [text, in Spanish] only allows a president to serve two terms. However, last month the Bolivian Constitutional Tribunal ruled [JURIST report] that the two consecutive term limit should not be applied retroactively, and because the country's constitution was amended [JURIST report] after Morales began his term,...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/05/bolivia-law-allows-president-to-run-for-third-term.php
financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney find lawyer
SAC Executives Received Subpoenas in Probe
Three senior executives at SAC Capital Advisors LP, including the firm's president and chief compliance officer, received subpoenas as part of the government's insider-trading investigation, according to people familiar with the matter.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/05/23/sac-executives-received-subpoenas-in-probe/?mod=WSJBlog
The Argument For Stop-And-Frisk
Arguments in a court challenge against New York's stop-and-frisk policy wrapped up earlier this week. Critics say the policy promotes racial profiling. But host Michel Martin speaks with Heidi Grossman, New York City's lead attorney in the trial, to hear the Police Department's side of the story.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=186023458&ft=1&f=1070
legal legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)