criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Transvaginal Mesh Complications and Litigation
Serious complications stemming from transvaginal mesh prompted an FDA warning and lawsuits by women against device manufacturers. On this Ringler Radio podcast, host Larry Cohen joins co-host, Heather Anderson and guest, Attorney Leigh O'Dell from the Beasley Allen law firm, to discuss the dangers, litigation, physical complications, Leigh’s role on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and next steps.
Lincoln's religion
Abraham Lincoln, born in February, said: "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion." How simple and eloquent.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/-otkRtiwTII/
Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana
Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana.
Full decision: BNSF Railway v. Feit (Montana 07/06/2012)
Feit got a ruling from the Montana Department of Labor that BNSF Railway discriminated against him by refusing to hire him because BNSF regarded him as being disabled due to his obesity.
BNSF then went to federal court to get a review of whether it violated the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) by refusing to hire Feit because of his obesity.
The federal court then asked the Supreme Court of Montana to decide how to rule, asking this question: Is obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological condition a "physical or mental impairment" as it is used in Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a)?
The Montana Supreme Court answered with a qualified yes. The court answered: Obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological disorder or condition may constitute a "physical or mental impairment" within the meaning of Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a) if the individual's weight is outside the "normal range" and affects "one or more body systems" as defined in 29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)(2011).
The federal court laid out these facts:
1. BNSF offered Eric Feit a conditional offer of employment as a conductor trainee. The employment was conditioned upon successful completion of a physical examination, drug screening, background investigation, proof of employment eligibility, and BNSF’s Medical History Questionnaire.2. On February 6, 2008, BNSF informed Feit he was not qualified for his “safety sensitive” position because of the “significant health and safety risks associated with extreme obesity.”
3. BNSF told Feit he would not be considered for the job unless he either lost 10% of his body weight, or successfully completed additional physical examinations at his own expense. Regardless of the test results, BNSF did not guarantee Feit a job.
4. With the exception of a sleep study test, Feit successfully completed the additional physical exams BNSF requested. The sleep test cost at least $1,800, and Feit could not afford the test.
5. Because BNSF informed Feit that it would not consider him for the conductor trainee position unless he completed the sleep study, Feit set out to lose 10% of his weight.
6. A genuine dispute exists regarding whether BNSF received documentation of Feit’s weight loss.
The Montana Supreme Court noted that the EEOC Interpretive Guidance distinguished between conditions that were impairments and conditions that were simply physical characteristics, which suggested that a person with normal weight required a physical condition to qualify as an impairment. The court referred to the ADAAA which instructed courts that they were interpreting the statute too restrictively and expressed its specific intent that determination of disability not demand extensive analysis (122 Stat. at 3553-54).
The DISSENT noted that the definition of a "physical and mental impairment" included "any physiological disorder, or condition" that affects a major system of the human body (29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)), and argued that the plain meaning required a physiological condition be present before an impairment existed.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/07/obesity_can_be.html
litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney
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/
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/
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
Command Prompt
Radley Balko picks up yet another incredibly sad story borne of the inherent conflict between protect and serve out of Hillsborough County, Florida. From the Tampa Bay Times:
© 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.
Allen Daniel Hicks Sr., 51, was found stopped in his car on the side of Interstate 275 by a sheriff's deputy and a Florida Highway Patrol trooper the morning of May 11, 2012. Passers-by had called 911 after they saw Hicks' Chevy Cavalier swerving west into a guardrail, records of the incident show.
Speaking incoherently and unable to move his left arm, Hicks was arrested on a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer when he did not respond to commands to exit his car. Just after noon, he was booked into the Orient Road Jail.
As police approached Hicks' car on the side of the interstate, one of two things could have happened. They could have sought to determine if he was okay or the could have acted in a way that enforced the First Rule of Policing without regard to why a car was stopped on the side of the road. They chose the latter.
Police always invoke their "life and death decision-making" as a justification to cut them some slack in the performance of their duties. It's a cop-meme upon which they can rely to rationalize a poor outcome from a wrong choice. The approach to Allen Hicks' car reflects the fallacy of the rationalization.
Hicks wasn't approached because he was thought to be a bad guy, a criminal, a person who threatened anyone, police officer included, with harm. He was there, on the side of the road, where he shouldn't be in the ordinary course of affairs. Something was amiss. What that something was, however, was an unknown.
Dealing with an unknown is very much a part of the police function, but that doesn't turn every unknown into a threat to police safety and a violation of The First Rule. There was nothing about Hicks to suggest any threat to police. Rather, it was the initial choice made, to approach as if a threat existed and issue a command, that gave rise to a hostile and fearful attitude by police.
Lunsford and Guzman became worried when Hicks did not obey commands to show his hands and exit the car. Seeing that Hicks' left hand was drooping into the side pocket of the driver's door, the officers pulled their handguns.
Hicks still acted befuddled, saying to Lunsford, "that's a 9-millimeter semiautomatic gun that you have," the report states. After ascertaining Hicks was unarmed, Lunsford and Guzman pulled him out of the car through the passenger door and handcuffed him.
When an officer commands a deaf man to do something, he won't comply. He can't hear. There is absolutely nothing the deaf man can do about it, as not even the command of a police officer enables a deaf man to hear. He attempts to alert the officer to his inability to hear, which is later characterized as "erratic" or "threatening."
The officer doesn't "know" the man is deaf, and thus assumes the noncompliance to reflect a threat and challenge to the officer's authority, which (as the officer is trained) is an intolerable situation that is most likely to result in harm befalling the officer. The officer acts upon the perceived threat. On a lucky day, the deaf man is merely tased, beaten and cuffed. On a bad day, he ends up like Hicks.
The initial perception that Hicks was, in some inexplicable way, acting criminally pervaded the perception of him in what followed:
Hicks did not receive a medical screening, but was put in a cell where he lay facedown on the floor or tried to crawl using the one working side of his body. On the night of May 12, soaked in his own urine, his brain choked of blood, he was at last taken to Tampa General Hospital and diagnosed with an ischemic stroke. He slipped into a coma and died within three months.
The Hillsborough County Sheriff's office didn't deny they blew it, and their failure resulted in Hicks' death. It would have been hard (though not impossible) to do otherwise. They announced a plan to train their deputies better to discern the symptoms of a stroke.
But that covers a tiny aspect of what went horribly wrong here. They can retrain cops to be more aware of a stroke, or of a deaf person, or of mentally ill person, but they will never be capable of providing such exacting training for every ailment, situation, circumstance that life will put in their way. The fault isn't lack of specific training to identify a stroke, but of the approach, the attitude, that every unknown is assumed to be a threat to their safety such that they will shoot first, tase first, beat first, arrest first, under The First Rule of Policing.
But what of their safety, you ask? Is it not reasonable for a police officer to operate under the default assumption that everything they don't know constitutes a potential threat? Is it not reasonable for a police officer to ground his conduct in his desire to make it home that night unharmed?
Yes. And no. It is not unreasonable for a cop to want to live, and not want to risk his life. It is similarly not unreasonable for a deaf man or a stroke victim to want to survive. It is not unreasonable for either to believe that being deaf or suffering a stroke will not result in their execution, whether quickly by bullet or prolonged by subsequent neglect. And if we're forced to make a choice between who bears the risk of death, the risk must fall on the person who deliberately chose to wear a shield with the knowledge that he selected a job that was potentially dangerous.
Yet Allen Daniel Hicks Sr, is dead for nothing. Feeling badly about it afterward isn't a solution. Neither is the money his family will get from the lawsuit. He should have lived.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/16/command-prompt.aspx?ref=rss
Paralegal Proofreading Tips
In this episode of The Paralegal Voice, Paralegal Mentor Vicki Voisin chats with Kathy Sieckman about the importance of proofreading and specific proofreading tips for paralegals.
Kathy Albrecht Sieckman, PLS, PP, ACP developed an interest in proofreading when she sat for a certification exam. Since then she has become known by her family and her co-workers as the go-to person when they have grammar questions. She has worked as a paralegal and a secretary for more than 30 years, where she can apply her extra curricular interest in grammar – You’ll find tips on her blog: www.proofthatblog.com. She is also the marketing director for NALS.
Learn from the experts: Voisin and Sieckman discuss why proofreading is difficult, which proofreading tools you can rely on and those that are unreliable, approaches to proofreading on your own, and common proofreading errors paralegals should avoid.
A special thanks to our sponsor, NALA.
Kathy Albrecht Sieckman, PLS, PP, ACP developed an interest in proofreading when she sat for a certification exam. Since then she has become known by her family and her co-workers as the go-to person when they have grammar questions. She has worked as a paralegal and a secretary for more than 30 years, where she can apply her extra curricular interest in grammar – You’ll find tips on her blog: www.proofthatblog.com. She is also the marketing director for NALS.
Learn from the experts: Voisin and Sieckman discuss why proofreading is difficult, which proofreading tools you can rely on and those that are unreliable, approaches to proofreading on your own, and common proofreading errors paralegals should avoid.
A special thanks to our sponsor, NALA.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/paralegal-voice/2013/08/paralegal-proofreading-tips/
bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law
In Light of NSA Surveillance, Should Lawyers Encrypt?
In this edition of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss encryption. The recent news coverage of the NSA surveillance has everyone talking about who can access their data, and this is especially relevant to practicing attorneys, who have to consider both their own data as well as that of their clients. According to your hosts, 30% of lawyers are using encryption to secure files and only 24% are using it to send email. This poses the question: Has the time for lawyers using encryption arrived?
The second segment of the show will talk about Tom’s switch from the iPhone to the Android smartphone. Learn how and why he made the decision to make the change and his review, so far.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Transporter.
The second segment of the show will talk about Tom’s switch from the iPhone to the Android smartphone. Learn how and why he made the decision to make the change and his review, so far.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Transporter.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Technology-Enhanced Television
As rumors of a game-changing new Apple TV begin to swirl, we wonder whether technology will start to change the way we watch television. Or maybe it already has. Does technology always need to have "productive" uses? In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell turn to a "non-serious" technology topic for the end of summer, explore ways technology, especially tablets, can enhance your TV viewing experience, and find some surprisingly serious conclusions about where technology is taking us.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/08/technology-enhanced-television/
company law conservator copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer
What to Expect for the 2013-2014 Supreme Court Term
We saw a number of high-profile cases in the last Supreme Court term. With the nation currently alert to gay rights and Obamacare, some say this new term has fallen under the radar. But take note – as the spotlight shifts to campaign finance laws, free speech, and the president’s power to make recess appointments – the upcoming docket could have some monumental decisions in store. On this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams invite the editor of the SCOTUSblog Amy Howe and LA Times Supreme Court correspondent David Savage to discuss the new term.
• Amy Howe has been with SCOTUSblog since 2003. She has served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and has argued two cases there. Howe has also co-taught Supreme Court litigation courses at Stanford and Harvard law schools.
• David Savage has been covering the court for nearly three decades. In addition to his work with the LA Times, he also writes a monthly column for the ABA Journal and is regularly featured on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. In 1992 he published Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court, outlining the efforts of the Reagan and first Bush administrations to remake the high court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
• Amy Howe has been with SCOTUSblog since 2003. She has served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and has argued two cases there. Howe has also co-taught Supreme Court litigation courses at Stanford and Harvard law schools.
• David Savage has been covering the court for nearly three decades. In addition to his work with the LA Times, he also writes a monthly column for the ABA Journal and is regularly featured on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. In 1992 he published Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court, outlining the efforts of the Reagan and first Bush administrations to remake the high court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
Demythologizing the Mythical Paperless Office
For many years, lawyers have chased after the holy grail of the paperless office. While the basic techniques and strategies have largely stayed the same and the technology and tools have gotten better, most lawyers and firms have not attained the elusive goal of a “paperless” office. Is the goal simply unachievable or is it just too hard to execute on what it takes to achieve the goal? In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss the history and current state of paperless office efforts, approaches that might (or might not) work for you, and whether the end of paper is within sight. The second half of the episode will cover Georgetown University's new "Iron Tech" Contest where students create a new application, platform, or system to improve access to justice and/or legal representation.
real estate lawyer solicitor solicitors statute law statutory law
OPINION: Residencies Offer Cure for Associate Problem
Law firms can save money by replacing 'Cravath' model of lawyer hiring with short-term try outs.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202625154534&rss=rss_nlj
David Merchant steps down as chief appellate defender
David Merchant, chief appellate public defender, will step down as chief on Nov. 1 but will remain in the office practicing law, said State Public Defender John Stuart today.
Cathryn Middlebrook will serve as acting chief.
Stuart said that Merchant’s main interest is in working on cases with clients. His appointment was controversial because the defenders felt he lacked experience. See, “Wolf out at public defenders” and “After support and criticism, Merchant re-appointed as chief of appellate PDs.”
Information about applying for the position is available at the public defense board’s website.
getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law
Defining the ObamaCare Essential Health Benefits
On this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, your host J. Craig Williams speaks with Dr. Shana Alex Lavarreda and David Cusano, Esq., two health-insurance industry professionals, on the implementation of the Essential Health Benefits within the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare. There are ten Essential Health Benefits that all states are required to include, but the missing element is the lack of definitions for these benefits – which leaves us all wondering how to confirm the 50 states are correctly implementing them.
• Dr. Shana Alex Lavarreda is the director of health insurance studies for the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Her research focuses on discontinuous health insurance, under insurance, as well as the political issues surrounding healthcare reform, at the state and federal level.
• David Cusano, Esq., works in Georgetown’s State Health Reform Assistance Network to provide technical assistance to state officials on implementing the Essential Health Benefits and the Affordable Care Act. He has previously worked as in-house counsel for insurance providers where he advised them on how to implement the ACA’s new requirements and on their day-to-day health care plan operations.
• Dr. Shana Alex Lavarreda is the director of health insurance studies for the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Her research focuses on discontinuous health insurance, under insurance, as well as the political issues surrounding healthcare reform, at the state and federal level.
• David Cusano, Esq., works in Georgetown’s State Health Reform Assistance Network to provide technical assistance to state officials on implementing the Essential Health Benefits and the Affordable Care Act. He has previously worked as in-house counsel for insurance providers where he advised them on how to implement the ACA’s new requirements and on their day-to-day health care plan operations.
Paralegal Career Opportunities in Litigation Support
On The Paralegal Voice co-host Vicki Voisin welcome’s guests Ann L. Atkinson, ACP, NALA President, Michael Potters, CEO/Managing Partner of Glenmont Group, Inc. and Patrick Oot, co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Institute for a lively discussion about career opportunities for paralegals in the area of litigation support, particularly eDiscovery and technology.
statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer
2013 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report: Has Virtual Lawyering Declined?
This year’s ABA Legal Technology Survey Report found a slight (from seven to five percent) decline in virtual lawyering. This spurred the discussion of: What, exactly, is virtual lawyering? What is the growth potential in this type of practice? and, Is it a viable business model for lawyers? On this episode of The Digital Edge, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and Jim Calloway chat with Bob Ambrogi about the survey results, virtual and online lawyering, and how although clients may be ready for these e-services, lawyers may not be.
Bob Ambrogi is the co-host of Legal Talk Network’s legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer. He authors the blog LawSites, where he posts new and intriguing websites and e-tools for the legal profession, and the blog Media Law, covering freedom of the press. He is a Massachusetts lawyer, writer, and media consultant.
Bob Ambrogi is the co-host of Legal Talk Network’s legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer. He authors the blog LawSites, where he posts new and intriguing websites and e-tools for the legal profession, and the blog Media Law, covering freedom of the press. He is a Massachusetts lawyer, writer, and media consultant.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
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.
letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors
The iPad Practice
Do you use an iPad in your legal practice? On The Un-Billable Hour, host Attorney Rodney Dowell, chats with Tom Mighell, the author of three books about the use of iPads, iPad in One Hour For Lawyers, iPad Apps in One Hour For Lawyers, and soon to be released, iPad in One Hour for Litigators, about the explosive growth of the use of iPads in the legal profession, and Tom’s favorite productivity and entertainment apps for the legal iPad.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2012/08/the-ipad-practice/
You’re Not Really Looking For The Sympathy Vote For This, Are You?
If something bad happens to a candidate, some voters will feel sympathy for him/her, and will vote accordingly. Nevertheless, it’s crass to play the play the sympathy card even in the event of something serious. But this? Not cool. As reported at HighlineTimes.com (Burien, WA):
Campaign signs for Des Moines Municipal Court Judge Veronica Galvan were vandalized twice over the weekend. The signs, placed along Des Moines Memorial Drive, were cut off their stakes with a blade or sharp implement. Galvanʼs signs were initially vandalized sometime Friday evening. The culprit cut one side off each sign, so only half of each sign was left on the stake. A campaign volunteer replaced the damaged signs on Saturday. Then, on Saturday night, the signs were hit again. This time, both sides of the signs were cut off, leaving only the stakes.
Yeah, this is probably the only case of political signs being vandalized. But what you clearly fail to understand is that this was not any old vandalism. Take it away judge.
Galvan noted that the manner in which the signs were taken down feels threatening. “This is more than a mere knocking down of signs,” said Judge Galvan. “Someone went to extra effort to send a message.”
Really? You’re going there? The message is that they don’t like you! Maybe you put the person in jail. Who knows, but please, don’t pander for votes off of this. Here’s the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/j-enOujyizM/sfd.html
patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer
Affirmative action ban in state constitution violates US constitution (8-7)
Michigan voters adopted a state constitutional amendment that prohibits "all sex- and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting."
The 6th Circuit (8-7) held this provision - as it relates to education - violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Univ of Michigan (6th Cir 11/15/2012)
(Plaintiffs limited their challenge to racial discrimination in public education.)
The court said that a black applicant could seek adoption of a constitutionally permissible race-conscious admissions policy only through the "lengthy, expensive, and arduous process" of amending the state constitution. On the other hand, someone wishing to change any other aspect of a university's admissions policy has four options - lobby the admissions committee, petition the leadership of the university, seek to influence the school's governing board, or initiate a statewide campaign to alter the state's constitution.
"The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change."
Seven judges wrote five DISSENTING opinions. Six said that the majority relied on two US Supreme Court cases that "have no application here," and one said that the majority relied on "an extreme extension" of those cases. The cases are Hunter v. Erickson, 393 US 385 (1969), and Washington v. Seattle Sch Dist, 458 US 457 (1982).
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/11/affirmative_act.html
Continuance Does Not County for ‘Speedy Trial’
Although defendant claims the lawyer originally appointed as stand-by counsel was not empowered to seek a continuance, the record supports the trial court finding that the lawyer represented defendant and the period of the continuance does not count under the Virginia speedy trial statute; the Court of Appeals affirms defendant’s conviction of assault and battery ...
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/10/29/continuance-does-not-county-for-speedy-trial/
criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney
Russia lower house approves strict new anti-terrorism legislation
[JURIST] The Russian State Duma [official website] voted in favor [press release, in Russian] of strict new anti-terrorism legislation on Friday. The bill [legislative materials, in Russian] increases prison time for setting up a terrorist entity from 15 to 20 years in prison, and individuals convicted for participation in a terrorist group could now spend up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the new bill allows the government to collect damages [AP report] from the relatives of the perpetrator of...
Petters Admits ‘Horrible Mess,’ Seeks Shorter Sentence
While attention is on the criminal trial of the former employees of the biggest Ponzi-scheme operator of all time, Bernard Madoff, the mastermind behind another fraud is quietly---and tearfully---fighting to avoid dying in prison.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/10/24/petters-admits-horrible-mess-seeks-shorter-sentence/?mod=WSJBlog
copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer
PlentyofFish CEO Blasts Texas AG Over Blocked Sale
The founder of online-dating site PlentyofFish lashed out at the attorney general of Texas for torpedoing his company's plans to purchase True.com.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/10/24/plentyoffish-ceo-blasts-texas-ag-over-blocked-sale/?mod=WSJBlog
Monday, October 28, 2013
Woman And Children Stabbed; Five Die In Brooklyn Attack
Four children were killed in a stabbing attack that took place in Brooklyn Saturday night, New York officials say. Police have taken a person of interest into custody.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer injury lawyers international law
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/
Parents Fight To Reopen Case After Questioning Son's Death
Georgia teen Kendrick Johnson was found dead in a wrestling mat at school earlier this year. Authorities ruled it an accident but his parents and neighbors think there was foul play. For more, host Michel Martin speaks with reporter Fred Rosen.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=240749018&ft=1&f=1070
lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice legal advice online
IRS Issues Guidance Regarding Tax Treatment of Married Same-Sex Couples
The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor (see prior blog article here) invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The ruling greatly expands the estate and tax planning techniques available for married same-sex couples who live in a state like California that recognizes same-sex marriage.
On August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17, which provides technical guidance for the federal tax treatment of married same-sex couples in light of the Windsor decision. The Revenue Ruling provides the following guidance:
- Gender neutral terms in the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code) which refer to marital status include individuals in same-sex marriages. Terms such as “spouse” and “marriage”, include persons in same sex marriages if the couple is lawfully married. The terms “husband” and “wife” include same-sex spouses.
- Marital status is based on the laws of the state where marriage was entered into. The IRS will recognize the marriages of individuals of the same sex who were married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, even if the couple lives in a state that does not.
- The term “marriage” does not include registered domestic partnerships. This rule applies to same-sex and opposite sex couples.
While this Revenue Ruling may be relied upon for the purpose of filing tax returns, married same-sex couples should consult with their tax advisor regarding whether to file amended or protective income, gift and estate tax returns. The Revenue Ruling indicates that the IRS intends to issue additional guidance on the application of the Windsor decision to Federal tax administration, including the application of the ruling to employee benefit plans and arrangements.
Even if the Windsor decision does not apply to you, it is important that you review your estate plan in light of the “permanent” transfer tax relief passed by Congress earlier this year.
Choosing a Law Firm Entity Structure
On this October edition of The Legal Toolkit, Jared Correia, Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, joins Chiara LaPlume, principal of LaPlume Law, LLC and Sofia Lingos, principal of Lingos Law, to address entity choice for lawyers and law firms. Chiara and Sofia run down the options for law firms and solo lawyers (including d/b/a’s and limited liability entities), talk about why it’s essential to have a partnership agreement and relay why it may useful for an attorney to hire another lawyer to help them get incorporated.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/10/choosing-a-law-firm-entity-structure/
best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney colleges for lawyers
Gone Clio with Attorney Anthony Reeves
On this edition of Gone Clio, Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Anthony Reeves of the Reeves Law Firm. Anthony talks about cloud computing and security, flexibility of using Clio for his practice and the role Internet access plays in serving his clients.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/10/gone-clio-with-attorney-anthony-reeves/
Pardon Our 100th Interruption
The Kennedy Mighell Report has reached a milestone: Episode 100! As part of the celebration your hosts will bring you today’s legal technology issues in the format of one of their favorite shows: ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption. Hear how technology can make your business more efficient, highlights from the ABA Tech Show, the future of technology for lawyers, and more
free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid
Legal Issues Surrounding the Colorado Movie Massacre
The Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre left 12 people dead and 58 wounded. The latest mass shooting in America brings up many legal issues on a national scale, including gun control, the insanity defense, liability and the death penalty. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, analyze the legal arguments of this case with Professor Adam Winkler from UCLA School of Law and Professor Daniel Filler from the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
The Firm Leader – Mastering Difficult Conversations
Attorneys can turn into leaders by successfully engaging others during difficult conversations. Learn more about handling these tough talks, how to prepare and how to get the results you want during these conversations on the Un-Billable Hour with host Attorney Rodney Dowell, the Executive Director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and Director of LCL’s Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program and expert guest Karen MacKay, President of the consultancy Phoenix Legal Inc.
Headline of the day
What happens when a semi carrying a truckload of fruit wrecks on the freeway in Southern California? The Los Angeles Times has the headline: “Big rig carrying fruit crashes on 310 Freeway, creates jam” I don’t care that this one actually was published in May of this year. It’s a keeper.
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/10/27/headline-of-the-day-14/
Appeals Court: Detention of Embassy Bomber was Constitutional
The government didn't violate a convicted terrorist's constitutional right to a speedy trial when it detained him for five years at Guantanamo Bay before trying him in court, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers
Law Firm Auto Policy Can’t Be Tapped
A law firm employee defending a personal injury suit that arose from an auto accident that occurred during his commute from home to work cannot look to the law firm’s insurance policy, even though a jury concluded the employee was using his automobile in the law firm’s business or personal affairs at the time; a ...
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/10/25/law-firm-auto-policy-cant-be-tapped/
E-Discovery: Why You Should Go Native!
It’s easy to get caught up in the fast-paced transition to paperless E-discovery review. Firms are now converting evidence into TIFF files. What’s a TIFF file? It’s just an easy way to manage and send large amounts of evidence, right? Wrong. On this episode of Digital Detectives, guest Craig Ball explains that a TIFF image turns the evidence into a small, non-searchable image. “They are not offering you the evidence in anything like the form in which they created and used the evidence.” Ball explained in a recent article, “ Instead, they propose to print everything to a kind of electronic paper, turning searchable, metadata-rich evidence into non-searchable pictures of much (but not all) of the source document.”
Ball is a certified computer forensic examiner, a court special master, and author of the Law Technology News Column and blog both titled Ball in Your Court. After years of experience practicing law and winning clients’ cases using technology in the courtroom, he is now a consultant to help courts and lawyers grapple with electronic evidence.
On this episode of Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek invite Ball to discuss why you should be wary of TIFF files and all the reasons to go native in your E-Discovery file review.
Ball is a certified computer forensic examiner, a court special master, and author of the Law Technology News Column and blog both titled Ball in Your Court. After years of experience practicing law and winning clients’ cases using technology in the courtroom, he is now a consultant to help courts and lawyers grapple with electronic evidence.
On this episode of Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek invite Ball to discuss why you should be wary of TIFF files and all the reasons to go native in your E-Discovery file review.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2013/06/e-discovery-why-you-should-go-native
immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys
Absolute Novelty Worldwide - Not Always So Absolute
In this Intellectual Property webcast, Thomas McNulty and Sandra Szela Congdon of Lando & Anastasi, LLP discuss absolute novelty worldwide. Learn more about Lando & Anastasi, LLP at http://www.lalaw.com.
Gay Couples Tie Knot In New Jersey As Christie Backs Down
New Jersey became the 14th state to allow same-sex marriage Monday when gay couples began marrying just after midnight. A state judge forced the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Initially, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appealed that ruling. But he dropped that appeal Monday, saying the New Jersey Supreme Court had already made clear how it would rule.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=239269538&ft=1&f=1070
lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office
Legal Fees in Barbri Class Action Back Before Ninth Circuit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is expected once again to take up the long-running antitrust case involving Barbri—this time, hearing whether objectors who successfully unraveled a key portion of the $49 million settlement should recover additional legal fees.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202624849858&rss=rss_nlj
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Sound The Retreat (Update)
Remember when the word "wilding" was introduced into the general lexicon so that we would have a word to capture the "super-predator" gangs of youths who were intent on destroying society? It came out of the Central Park Five case, and produced a huge shift in our approach to juvenile prosecution and punishment.
"Justice," people cried. They demanded justice. Don't let these super-predator kids destroy our world with wilding.
Except it didn't happen. The kids never beat and raped a woman in Central Park, and were coerced into false confessions. Of course, we didn't learn that until much later, after the wilding scare had done its damage to our laws, procedures and psyches, to save us from the super-predators and give us justice.
The New York Times has a post-Zimmerman-verdict editorial today that threatens to do the same. It's titled "Trayvon Martin's Legacy," a blatant appeal to emotion. Invoking the name of a dead child has proven one of the most utilitarian methods of manipulation available, and the Times unabashedly uses it to further its point.
But the point of the editorial is just plain wrong:
Stand Your Ground laws apply to one aspect of the larger concept of self-defense, and only one: they eliminate the requirement that a person retreat if he can safely do so. To be clear, I believe that Stand Your Ground laws are fundamentally wrong. The balance is a human life, on the one hand, and some machismo principle that a person should not have to endure the humiliation of retreat on the other.
The argument is that they have a right to stand their ground and fight rather than be forced to run away in the face of an attack, even if they can safely do so. Life is not so cheap that it should be taken to protect ego. Many disagree with me, and they're allowed. This isn't a legal judgment, but a moral balance. I come out in favor of life, and have no plans to change.
But that's not how the Times plays the game in its editorial. While blaming Stand Your Ground, they are attacking the basic concept of self-defense having absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's not merely intuitive, which is used to suggest the inherent fight or flight instinct in human beings, but characterized by the Times as some unnatural shift imposed by law to empower "self-deputized" gun nuts with "a grudge."
This is an artfully crafted diversion from the law that existed long before anybody came up with the cool phrase, Stand Your Ground. We always had the right to defend our lives when threatened with death or serious physical injury. If we could safely retreat, then that was the best option and we were required to do so. If not, then we defended our lives.
The underlying gripe is twofold, neither of which have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. The first is playing the race card. Like most people, I can't let go of the assumption that race influenced perceptions here, even though I have no basis for the assumption. But there is no law, nor can there be, that requires us to behave one way when the interaction is black and white versus white and black, or people of the same race. Does the Times suggest we start writing two sets of laws, maybe more, to accommodate the races of participants?
The second is the gun card, as reflected in the "Kel-Tec 9 millimeter" language. New York, not being at all gun-friendly, is easily shaken by words that make guns sound particularly vicious and high tech. And again, I'm no personal fan of guns, having no interest in strapping one on. But a great many other people are fans, and the Second Amendment protects their right to be fans. It's irrelevant whether that's my favorite amendment, just as it's irrelevant whether cops like the Fourth.
The same Constitution we invoke to protect the rights we favor protects some things that we don't. Either we honor the Constitution or not, and that includes all the parts, even the ones that aren't as dear to us as others.
A guy is cornered, there is no escape. The other guy is big. Huge. Strong. And is about to bash his head in. The cornered guy has a gun (give it whatever nasty gun-type name you want). Should the law prohibit him from using it to save his life? But that's not the facts in Zimmerman, you say. True, but laws don't exist for every conceivable set of facts and circumstances people can come up with, and the law of self-defense applies to this scenario the same as it did in Zimmerman. Would it make you feel better to have the cornered guy die because the law prohibited him from using his gun to save his life?
While the New York Times editorial may fairly argue for racial tolerance and the evils of guns, Second Amendment be damned, what it cannot do is lie to people by claiming that Trayvon Martin would not be dead but for Stand Your Ground laws, and then call for the evisceration of our basic, age-old right to self-defense. The alternative to self-defense when one cannot safely retreat is to die.
While it's painfully hard to know whether a person's fear of harm was "reasonable," especially when there is only one side to the confrontation who is alive to tell the story, it's a necessary evil in distinguishing whether force can be lawfully used. The choice was made hundreds of years before anyone ever heard of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, and it's been the right choice for all those years since.
As much as many feel that it played out poorly here, it was always understood that some variations in fact on the same theme would touch our sensibilities differently than others. But the flaw was never with the law. The flaw is that we're human and subject to feelings that may defy reason, and not every application of sound and neutral law will make us feel good about what happened. It's what we must suffer in a society of laws. And the New York Times should know this and be ashamed of itself for engaging in this deception.
Update: In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360, one of the jurors spoke:
© 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.
"Justice," people cried. They demanded justice. Don't let these super-predator kids destroy our world with wilding.
Except it didn't happen. The kids never beat and raped a woman in Central Park, and were coerced into false confessions. Of course, we didn't learn that until much later, after the wilding scare had done its damage to our laws, procedures and psyches, to save us from the super-predators and give us justice.
The New York Times has a post-Zimmerman-verdict editorial today that threatens to do the same. It's titled "Trayvon Martin's Legacy," a blatant appeal to emotion. Invoking the name of a dead child has proven one of the most utilitarian methods of manipulation available, and the Times unabashedly uses it to further its point.
But the point of the editorial is just plain wrong:
The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.It's been explained, calmly and rationally, over and over. It's impossible to believe that the editorial board of the Times, a smart bunch of folks, didn't hear it or grasp it. If so, then what's written here can only be attributed to disingenuousness and a deliberate effort to deceive.These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.
Stand Your Ground laws apply to one aspect of the larger concept of self-defense, and only one: they eliminate the requirement that a person retreat if he can safely do so. To be clear, I believe that Stand Your Ground laws are fundamentally wrong. The balance is a human life, on the one hand, and some machismo principle that a person should not have to endure the humiliation of retreat on the other.
The argument is that they have a right to stand their ground and fight rather than be forced to run away in the face of an attack, even if they can safely do so. Life is not so cheap that it should be taken to protect ego. Many disagree with me, and they're allowed. This isn't a legal judgment, but a moral balance. I come out in favor of life, and have no plans to change.
But that's not how the Times plays the game in its editorial. While blaming Stand Your Ground, they are attacking the basic concept of self-defense having absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's not merely intuitive, which is used to suggest the inherent fight or flight instinct in human beings, but characterized by the Times as some unnatural shift imposed by law to empower "self-deputized" gun nuts with "a grudge."
This is an artfully crafted diversion from the law that existed long before anybody came up with the cool phrase, Stand Your Ground. We always had the right to defend our lives when threatened with death or serious physical injury. If we could safely retreat, then that was the best option and we were required to do so. If not, then we defended our lives.
The underlying gripe is twofold, neither of which have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. The first is playing the race card. Like most people, I can't let go of the assumption that race influenced perceptions here, even though I have no basis for the assumption. But there is no law, nor can there be, that requires us to behave one way when the interaction is black and white versus white and black, or people of the same race. Does the Times suggest we start writing two sets of laws, maybe more, to accommodate the races of participants?
The second is the gun card, as reflected in the "Kel-Tec 9 millimeter" language. New York, not being at all gun-friendly, is easily shaken by words that make guns sound particularly vicious and high tech. And again, I'm no personal fan of guns, having no interest in strapping one on. But a great many other people are fans, and the Second Amendment protects their right to be fans. It's irrelevant whether that's my favorite amendment, just as it's irrelevant whether cops like the Fourth.
The same Constitution we invoke to protect the rights we favor protects some things that we don't. Either we honor the Constitution or not, and that includes all the parts, even the ones that aren't as dear to us as others.
A guy is cornered, there is no escape. The other guy is big. Huge. Strong. And is about to bash his head in. The cornered guy has a gun (give it whatever nasty gun-type name you want). Should the law prohibit him from using it to save his life? But that's not the facts in Zimmerman, you say. True, but laws don't exist for every conceivable set of facts and circumstances people can come up with, and the law of self-defense applies to this scenario the same as it did in Zimmerman. Would it make you feel better to have the cornered guy die because the law prohibited him from using his gun to save his life?
While the New York Times editorial may fairly argue for racial tolerance and the evils of guns, Second Amendment be damned, what it cannot do is lie to people by claiming that Trayvon Martin would not be dead but for Stand Your Ground laws, and then call for the evisceration of our basic, age-old right to self-defense. The alternative to self-defense when one cannot safely retreat is to die.
While it's painfully hard to know whether a person's fear of harm was "reasonable," especially when there is only one side to the confrontation who is alive to tell the story, it's a necessary evil in distinguishing whether force can be lawfully used. The choice was made hundreds of years before anyone ever heard of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, and it's been the right choice for all those years since.
As much as many feel that it played out poorly here, it was always understood that some variations in fact on the same theme would touch our sensibilities differently than others. But the flaw was never with the law. The flaw is that we're human and subject to feelings that may defy reason, and not every application of sound and neutral law will make us feel good about what happened. It's what we must suffer in a society of laws. And the New York Times should know this and be ashamed of itself for engaging in this deception.
Update: In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360, one of the jurors spoke:
COOPER: Because of the only, the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
JUROR: Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
This mention of stand your ground gave rise to an apology from Eugene Volokh, who had also written about this Times editorial subsequent to this post.
It thus appears that at least one of the jurors did “consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of the ... Stand Your Ground provision in Florida’s self-defense law,” and on that the Times editorial was right, and I was wrong to criticize it; my apologies to the editorialists, and to our readers.
While there is no issue that stand your ground had no legal bearing on the case, Eugene apologized for arguing that the aspect of the editorial suggesting that the jury somehow relied on it in reaching its verdict. My view is that these were empty words to the juror, having been uttered too many time in the media before trial, and she offered them in the interview either without any grasp of what they meant or inadvertently.
It was a loose phrase, not a reflection that an unrelated legal concept, mentioned in passing as part of pattern jury instructions, and never argued to the jury, played a role. Loose language shouldn't be taken too seriously and serve as a basis for assuming scholar-like attention to something that scholars universally agree had no place in the case.
While it was gracious of Eugene to apologize, it was both unnecessary and, perhaps, a mistake to feed misguided understandings about a law which is being blamed for a role it never played.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/15/sound-the-retreat.aspx?ref=rss
legal legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon
The Implications of NSA Surveillance for Lawyers
Edward Snowden’s leaks about NSA surveillance have been a hot topic in the media for the last few months. But what do lawyers, specifically, need to worry about? The answer is: a lot. On this edition of Digital Detectives, hosts Sharon D. Nelson and John W. Simek take the stage and examine NSA surveillance as it relates to lawyers. Tune in for an overview of Snowden and the NSA surveillance controversy, how effective (or ineffective) encrypting data is, whether the surveillance is having a chilling effect on lawyers, how to abide by the Model Rules of Professionalism 1.6, and an answer to the underlying question - has George Orwell’s dystopia, 1984, arrived a few decades late?
The "Pink Collar" Profession: The Male Paralegal's Perspective
Is the paralegal profession a woman’s world? Or is the number of male paralegals on the rise in this female-dominated profession? Paralegal Voice co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin get the male perspective and some interesting insight from special guests, Carl H. Morrison, II, PP, AACP, a Certified Paralegal at Rhodes Hieronymus and Zachary W. Brewer, CP, a Litigation Paralegal at Hall Estill.
free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice
Social Media and Lawsuits
From "tweets" to Facebook status updates, social media has taken over how we communicate with the outside world. It has also become a large part of our legal system. Social media is now considered key evidence in both criminal cases and civil lawsuits. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi examine the surge in social media-based evidence and claims in litigation, as well as the importance of educating attorneys on the ins and outs of social media with Attorney Antigone Peyton, Founder and CEO of Cloudigy® Law, PLLC and Attorney Ernest Svenson, solo attorney and blogger.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/social-media-and-lawsuits/
Paralegal Career Opportunities in Litigation Support
On The Paralegal Voice co-host Vicki Voisin welcome’s guests Ann L. Atkinson, ACP, NALA President, Michael Potters, CEO/Managing Partner of Glenmont Group, Inc. and Patrick Oot, co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Institute for a lively discussion about career opportunities for paralegals in the area of litigation support, particularly eDiscovery and technology.
criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law
LinkedIn for Legal Professionals
Lawyers consistently tell us that LinkedIn is the social media platform that makes the most sense for lawyers and other legal professionals. They like the professional and business focus of LinkedIn as compared to the "personal" focus of Facebook and other platforms. However, lawyers also always tell us that they wish they could use LinkedIn better than they do now. In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell and special guest Allison Shields discuss the new book, LinkedIn in One Hour for Lawyers, how lawyers can make better use of LinkedIn, and some practical tips lawyers and others can implement right away with LinkedIn.
Making Selling Easier for Lawyers
Why is selling so hard for lawyers and what can you do about it? On this September edition Jared Correia, the host of The Legal Toolkit and Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, joins Stephen Seckler, principal of Seckler Legal Consulting and Coaching, to talk about selling vs. marketing, how important referrals are for attorneys and some of the key things that get in the way of attorneys successfully generating work.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/09/making-selling-easier-for-lawyers/
No license before ceremony voids couple’s marriage
In 2002, a couple in Northern Virginia were married, or at least they thought they were married. In 2011, the wife filed for divorce and for the next two years, they battled through the courts with numerous hearings, discovery dustups and several amended complaints and counterclaims. Then, earlier this year, the husband hit on a ...
Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/10/25/no-license-before-ceremony-voids-couples-marriage/
Friday, October 25, 2013
Police Grapple With Mentally Ill; Detroit Readies Bankruptcy Case; Bitcoin Underworld
The AM Roundup: Law Blog rounds up the morning's news.
free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer
A Radical or Rational SCOTUS Session?
After one of the most historic United States Supreme Court sessions in years, emotions ran high and charges of radicalism ran amuck as the Justices handed down rulings on immigration enforcement, national healthcare, campaign finance law, stolen valor and more. But in the end, did SCOTUS simply uphold the law of the land? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the legal facts behind the decisions from New York University School of Law Professor Roderick Hills, Jr. and Temple University Beasley School of Law Professor Jan Ting.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/a-radical-or-rational-scotus-session/
Trial With Many F-Bombs, Including On Juror’s Shirt
One might think the f-bomb has the power of an a-bomb, the way folks deal with it. Take the recent case of a judge in New York who was not pleased with the shirt an alternate juror was wearing. Per the New York Post:
The shirt in question, worn by 19-year-old alternate No. 3, Nneka Eneorj, as she sat in the front row of the jury box, caught the judge’s eye just as the defendant was about to take the stand. “WHO THE F[UCK] IS KANYE WEST?” the shirt read, the offending obscenity resting just above the wood veneer rail of the jury box.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Farber ordered the other jurors out of the courtroom — directing Eneorj to stand before his bench.
Uh-oh.
“Do you think it’s appropriate to wear a shirt that says ‘f—’ on it in my courtroom?” the judge asked, anger in his voice.
Based on the reporting, The Juice is unclear. Did the judge say “f—” or “fuck”? If it was the latter, oh no you din’t! Anyway …
When Eneorj started to protest about having a sweater on — not that it covered the front of the shirt — the judge cut her off, demanding, “You’re excused.” “Sounds like a personal problem,” she sniffed of the judge as she walked out of the courthouse, indignantly.
So she’s already an alternate juror, and is not even given the opportunity to turn her shirt inside out? Oh, and here’s some of the testimony from the case later that day:
Officer David London — caught on surveillance tape delivering a violent, 20-blow baton beating to a prone suspect in an Upper West Side lobby two years ago — let at least a dozen “F-bombs” fly as he recounted what suspect Walter Harvin was purportedly threatening as the blows fell. Among Harvin’s shouts, London told the remaining jurors, were, “You can’t take me,” “I’m gonna f—ing kill you,” and, it’s derivation, “I’m gonna f—ing kill you motherf—er.”
And here’s Ms. Eneorj after leaving the courthouse:
“You will not believe what the f[uck] just happened!” she gabbed into her cell phone, as two news photographers snapped away on the sidewalk outside.
Here’s the source, including a photo.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/s0ka8-yzPlM/ss-2.html
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
What Would Atticus Have Done?
Hearing that the mob was going to storm the jail and lynch Tom Robinson, the fictional Atticus Finch stood at the doorway to block their entrance. Among criminal defense lawyers, Atticus Finch is revered as a paragon of honor. Not all lawyers saw it that way.
Yesterday was Race Day at the New York Times, where two op-eds argued the failure of a certain verdict in Florida was due to the one word unspoken throughout the trial, race. In a "surprising" choice that suggests the power of an excellent public relations team, one op-ed was by Gloria Allred's daughter, Lisa Bloom, who, after explaining the basis for her assumption about what was inside George Zimmerman's head, illuminated the race issue with the insightful:
This isn't a legal argument, however. Bloom and Yankah are both writing from the legal perspective, but what they are writing about isn't legal. It's sociological, a condemnation of a society that is still racist despite having a black president. Anyone who thinks it's "problem solved" is delusional.
But Yankah contends that it is "the simplest of truths: that race and law cannot be cleanly separated." Cleanly? No, it probably can't be cleanly separated, though it's similarly unclear that this constitutes "the simplest of truths." There is nothing simple about it.
It gives rise to a troubling question, that Yankah fails to adequately address and is way over Bloom's head.
Does the introduction of race by the prosecution into Zimmerman's perceptions alter the rule of self-defense? Does it render his subsequent conduct unlawful, even if it would have been lawful otherwise? Should there be two rules of law, one for interactions between people of different races where perceptions of the significance of conduct is assumed to be racially related, if not motivated?
To point out that we still live in a society where race remains a pervasive unresolved issue is to state the obvious. To suggest that the criminal law should accommodate it is to present an intractable problem. Atticus Finch didn't hesitate to put his life on the line for his client, a black man accused of raping a white woman. But he didn't do enough because he didn't confront the racist society in defending Tom Robinson?
If the prosecution had been allowed, and inclined, to argue that George Zimmerman's conduct was racially motivated, and that his ultimate decision to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin was, at least in the tiniest of ways, based upon his race, would that have rendered his belief that he was about to suffer death or serious injury unreasonable? If his head was being beaten against concrete by a white youth, as opposed to a black youth, would the harm have been different?
The argument that this scenario would never have commenced had Trayvon Martin been a white youth in a sports jacket and khakis is likely true. It's pure speculation no matter how much your head screams "yes, yes, yes," of course, but still. Yet how would the law have been any different at the point where a shot was fired?
If we are to have a nation of laws to guide ourselves, how do we draw these vague, fuzzy lines where the law ceases to apply, where it's a free for all, where there is no longer a fixed right and wrong and everything becomes a matter of feelings, assumptions and personal perspective? Yankah may be right that race and law cannot be cleanly separated in our collective consciousness, but then we cease to be a nation of laws when we ignore one for the other.
You might prefer that to happen here, but will you feel the same when you sit in the defendant's chair? So what would Atticus Finch have done? He would have defended George Zimmerman based on the law, even if he failed to meet Monroe Freedman's expectation that he not be morally ambiguous. Atticus Finch would have still been the paragon of honor, even in the face of societal condemnation. That's what criminal defense lawyers do. That's what we are sworn to do.
© 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 1992, Monroe Freedman, a legal ethics expert, published two articles in the national legal newspaper Legal Times calling for the legal profession to set aside Atticus Finch as a role model. Freedman argued that Atticus still worked within a system of institutionalized racism and sexism and should not be revered. Freedman's article sparked a flurry of responses from attorneys who entered the profession holding Atticus Finch as a hero, and the reason they became lawyers. Critics of Atticus such as Freedman maintain that Atticus Finch is morally ambiguous and does not use his legal skills to challenge the racist status quo in Maycomb.While Atticus might have fulfilled the highest calling of a lawyer, Freedman saw the character as failing his calling as a human being in a racist society, and considered that to be a fatal flaw.
Monroe H. Freedman, ""Atticus Finch, Esq., R.I.P.,"" 14 LEGAL TIMES 20 (1992); Monroe H. Freedman, ""Finch: The Lawyer Mythologized,"" 14 LEGAL TIMES 25 (1992) and Monroe Freedman, Atticus Finch – Right and Wrong, 45 Ala. L. Rev. 473 (1994).
Yesterday was Race Day at the New York Times, where two op-eds argued the failure of a certain verdict in Florida was due to the one word unspoken throughout the trial, race. In a "surprising" choice that suggests the power of an excellent public relations team, one op-ed was by Gloria Allred's daughter, Lisa Bloom, who, after explaining the basis for her assumption about what was inside George Zimmerman's head, illuminated the race issue with the insightful:
Huh?In contrast, Cardozo lawprof Ekow Yankah invokes the spirit of his fellow lawprof, Freedman, in writing:
The anger felt by so many African-Americans speaks to the simplest of truths: that race and law cannot be cleanly separated. We are tired of hearing that race is a conversation for another day. We are tired of pretending that “reasonable doubt” is not, in every sense of the word, colored.This conforms with my assumption as well. I find it impossible to believe that Zimmerman's perception of Martin as being "a punk" wasn't colored by race. Sure, there was also youth and attire, but it was part of the whole package. And to the extent that his skin color played a role in his perception that this was a kid who needed to be followed, who posed a threat of doing something wrong, it is racist. Maybe not white hooded, cross-burning racism, but racist nonetheless.
Every step Mr. Martin took toward the end of his too-short life was defined by his race. I do not have to believe that Mr. Zimmerman is a hate-filled racist to recognize that he would probably not even have noticed Mr. Martin if he had been a casually dressed white teenager.
This isn't a legal argument, however. Bloom and Yankah are both writing from the legal perspective, but what they are writing about isn't legal. It's sociological, a condemnation of a society that is still racist despite having a black president. Anyone who thinks it's "problem solved" is delusional.
But Yankah contends that it is "the simplest of truths: that race and law cannot be cleanly separated." Cleanly? No, it probably can't be cleanly separated, though it's similarly unclear that this constitutes "the simplest of truths." There is nothing simple about it.
It gives rise to a troubling question, that Yankah fails to adequately address and is way over Bloom's head.
What is reasonable to do, especially in the dark of night, is defined by preconceived social roles that paint young black men as potential criminals and predators. Black men, the narrative dictates, are dangerous, to be watched and put down at the first false move. This pain is one all black men know; putting away the tie you wear to the office means peeling off the assumption that you are owed equal respect. Mr. Martin’s hoodie struck the deepest chord because we know that daring to wear jeans and a hooded sweatshirt too often means that the police or other citizens are judged to be reasonable in fearing you.Being fully willing to accept that race factored into Zimmerman's perception, based on my own personal bias, the question that remains unanswered is what should the law have done about it?We know this, yet every time a case like this offers a chance for the country to tackle the evil of racial discrimination in our criminal law, courts have deliberately silenced our ability to expose it. The Supreme Court has held that even if your race is what makes your actions suspicious to the police, their suspicions are reasonable so long as an officer can later construct a race-neutral narrative.
Does the introduction of race by the prosecution into Zimmerman's perceptions alter the rule of self-defense? Does it render his subsequent conduct unlawful, even if it would have been lawful otherwise? Should there be two rules of law, one for interactions between people of different races where perceptions of the significance of conduct is assumed to be racially related, if not motivated?
To point out that we still live in a society where race remains a pervasive unresolved issue is to state the obvious. To suggest that the criminal law should accommodate it is to present an intractable problem. Atticus Finch didn't hesitate to put his life on the line for his client, a black man accused of raping a white woman. But he didn't do enough because he didn't confront the racist society in defending Tom Robinson?
If the prosecution had been allowed, and inclined, to argue that George Zimmerman's conduct was racially motivated, and that his ultimate decision to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin was, at least in the tiniest of ways, based upon his race, would that have rendered his belief that he was about to suffer death or serious injury unreasonable? If his head was being beaten against concrete by a white youth, as opposed to a black youth, would the harm have been different?
The argument that this scenario would never have commenced had Trayvon Martin been a white youth in a sports jacket and khakis is likely true. It's pure speculation no matter how much your head screams "yes, yes, yes," of course, but still. Yet how would the law have been any different at the point where a shot was fired?
If we are to have a nation of laws to guide ourselves, how do we draw these vague, fuzzy lines where the law ceases to apply, where it's a free for all, where there is no longer a fixed right and wrong and everything becomes a matter of feelings, assumptions and personal perspective? Yankah may be right that race and law cannot be cleanly separated in our collective consciousness, but then we cease to be a nation of laws when we ignore one for the other.
You might prefer that to happen here, but will you feel the same when you sit in the defendant's chair? So what would Atticus Finch have done? He would have defended George Zimmerman based on the law, even if he failed to meet Monroe Freedman's expectation that he not be morally ambiguous. Atticus Finch would have still been the paragon of honor, even in the face of societal condemnation. That's what criminal defense lawyers do. That's what we are sworn to do.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/16/what-would-atticus-have-done.aspx?ref=rss
Execute a Long-Term Technology Strategy
For today’s corporate law departments faced with the challenge of doing more with less, a legal matter and spend management system is almost an imperative. In this edition of Tech Experts, Mandy Purington, a Managing Director in Datacert’s professional services group, shares best practices and practical tips for keeping your department’s legal matter and spend management system implementation project on-time and on-budget, while also ensuring that it supports your department’s long-term technology strategy.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2012/09/execute-a-long-term-technology-strategy/
statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer
NSSTA’s Take the Hill
This past April, members of National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) decided to "Take the Hill". They headed to Capitol Hill for meetings with members of Congress and senior Congressional staff to discuss important public policy and the economic security benefits of structured settlements. Ringler Radio host, Larry Cohen talks to Ringler colleagues, Peter Early and Erin Muller about their experience at "Take the Hill" and their mission to educate our elected officials on the benefits of structured settlements.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/07/nsstas-take-the-hill/
Desktop as a Service for Lawyers
Desktop as a service, commonly known as DaaS, is a relatively new service which provides users access to their desktops from any computer via the cloud. Your hosts Jared Correia and Heidi Alexander invited Tom Rowe to talk about DaaS for lawyers.
Rowe is a 4th generation attorney with an undergraduate degree in computer science and business administration. He now works as a technology consultant for law firms and businesses at OTB-Consulting and was named Technolawyer’s technology consultant of the year.
Rowe answers questions about DaaS for big, small, and solo firms, how to make DaaS secure, how to make it cost effective, and more. He will also talk about SaaS, software as a service, as it relates to lawyers and DaaS users.
Rowe is a 4th generation attorney with an undergraduate degree in computer science and business administration. He now works as a technology consultant for law firms and businesses at OTB-Consulting and was named Technolawyer’s technology consultant of the year.
Rowe answers questions about DaaS for big, small, and solo firms, how to make DaaS secure, how to make it cost effective, and more. He will also talk about SaaS, software as a service, as it relates to lawyers and DaaS users.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2013/04/desktop-as-a-service-for-lawyers
immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney
Keeping up with the cloud: software, social media, and more.
What started as a way to backup our hard drives is moving to how we access, what feels like, everything on our computers. On this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell will discuss the new trend of software by subscription. Instead of paying for an updated version of a new software product, companies are offering a monthly subscription which will immediately grant users access to the newest version via the cloud. Adobe and Microsoft are just two of the recent examples of vendors switching to this model. With so many lawyers and law firms using old versions of standard software, how will they react to this new system?
The second portion of the show will cover the new service Google Takeout, which provides an easy way to extract your data from online-Google apps like Google Reader, Google Circles, and more. Whether you know it or not, seems like everything is stored online nowadays. Tune in to The Kennedy Mighell Report to keep up with Internet technology and the cloud.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Transporter.
The second portion of the show will cover the new service Google Takeout, which provides an easy way to extract your data from online-Google apps like Google Reader, Google Circles, and more. Whether you know it or not, seems like everything is stored online nowadays. Tune in to The Kennedy Mighell Report to keep up with Internet technology and the cloud.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Transporter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)