http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202434882706&Lawyers_warn_Bosses_who_friend_are_begging_to_be_sued=&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20091030nlj&kw=Lawyers%20warn%3A%20Bosses%20who%20'friend'%20are%20begging%20to%20be%20sued&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
There is growing concern regarding the current trend of "friending" a boss or subordinate on social networking sites. Employment attorneys are warning businesses that this trend is creating liability risks. The online interactions can cause an increase in claims of harrassment, favoritism, wrongful termination and discrimination. Information that is provided on social networking sites regarding age, group affiliations, health problems, recreational habits and other personal attributes could be used or be seen as being used to influence employment decisions.
Employment attorneys are advising businesses to update there policies and ban managers from "friending" subordinates.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Bill to legalize, tax marijuana in California gets a hearing
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2289970.html
A San Francisco Assemblyman proposed to legalize marijuana for recreational us in California on Assembly Bill 390. In a Capitol committee hearing, testimony was heard and discussions revealed that this is a very complex issue on many different levels.
It seems the primary concern is the amount of tax revenue it could provide to the state and the legal conflict created by collecting state tax on a federally banned item. Essentially, a retailer who files taxes indicating revenue from the sail of marijuana can be incriminating himself on federal offences.
The Assemblyman plans to push Assembly Bill 390 when the legislature reconvenes in January.
I can't imagine the legalization of marijuana for recreational use would be any different than the legalization of alcohol consumption. Some people will abuse it and some people will not. I wonder, though, how many people would still be buying, selling and using illegally for fear of federal charges.
A San Francisco Assemblyman proposed to legalize marijuana for recreational us in California on Assembly Bill 390. In a Capitol committee hearing, testimony was heard and discussions revealed that this is a very complex issue on many different levels.
It seems the primary concern is the amount of tax revenue it could provide to the state and the legal conflict created by collecting state tax on a federally banned item. Essentially, a retailer who files taxes indicating revenue from the sail of marijuana can be incriminating himself on federal offences.
The Assemblyman plans to push Assembly Bill 390 when the legislature reconvenes in January.
I can't imagine the legalization of marijuana for recreational use would be any different than the legalization of alcohol consumption. Some people will abuse it and some people will not. I wonder, though, how many people would still be buying, selling and using illegally for fear of federal charges.
Redbox Common Sense
SO, I read this article on people trying to sue Redbox for late fee charges. People can't be satisfied that they are renting NEW RELEASE movies for only one dollar, compared to the average movie rental store of about five dollars. NOOOO... they have to sue for late charges they accrued because they don't know how to return a twenty four hour rental in the time allowed. Then, they think it's outrageous because they were charged twenty-five dollars for the purchase of the movie after not returning the twenty-four hour rental for twenty-four days!!!! Let's use common sense people!
You can read the article at this link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435095759&Suit_Claims_That_Redbox_Charges_Late__Fees_Despite_Promise_Not_to
You can read the article at this link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435095759&Suit_Claims_That_Redbox_Charges_Late__Fees_Despite_Promise_Not_to
Suit Claims That Redbox Charges Late Fees Despite Promise Not to
Customers of "Redbox" are filing a suit against the company claiming they were charged late fees under a system that advertised "no late fees." The customers accuse Redbox of deceptive business practices.
Congress Set to Take Aim at Judicial Recusals
The basis of this article is the review of whether judges should be able to decide whether they themselves are qualified to reside over a case. Opponents of the current system say this is "paradoxic" and could cause a sort of unchecked power for a judge to reside over a case in which he has a stake in or prejudice to. Supporters of the current system claim that not allowing judges to choose whether they are qualified for a case could call people to "judge-shop."
Congress Set to Take Aim at Judicial Recusals
Local News | Lynnwood beating death called 'honor killing' | Seattle Times Newspaper
Local News Lynnwood beating death called 'honor killing' Seattle Times Newspaper: "By The Associated Press
Map data ©2009 Google - Terms of UseSee more mapped storiesA 61-year-old man accused of beating his brother to death in Lynnwood told Snohomish County sheriff's detectives it was an honor killing to avenge an insulting remark.
In a police statement filed Thursday in Everett District Court, 61-year-old Mehdi M. Matin says more than 20 years ago his brother uttered words about his bride-to-be so terrible the wedding was called off. Both men are from Afghanistan.
Matin was visiting his brother Monday when he repeated the remark.
Matin told detectives he hit his brother in the head with a pipe until he was unconscious and then strangled him with a rope.
Matin is jailed on $1 million bail for investigation of second-degree murder."
Map data ©2009 Google - Terms of UseSee more mapped storiesA 61-year-old man accused of beating his brother to death in Lynnwood told Snohomish County sheriff's detectives it was an honor killing to avenge an insulting remark.
In a police statement filed Thursday in Everett District Court, 61-year-old Mehdi M. Matin says more than 20 years ago his brother uttered words about his bride-to-be so terrible the wedding was called off. Both men are from Afghanistan.
Matin was visiting his brother Monday when he repeated the remark.
Matin told detectives he hit his brother in the head with a pipe until he was unconscious and then strangled him with a rope.
Matin is jailed on $1 million bail for investigation of second-degree murder."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
PA High Court Tosses "Kids For Cash" Convictions
As posted by the Associated Press on October 29, 2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33539621/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
As stated in the article (link above) a judge overseeing a Luzerne County Juvenile Court was violating the juveniles’ rights to a fair trial by allowing them to frequently appear without lawyers, expediting trials, and immediately locking the children in shackles to be led to a private jail of which the owner was paying-off the judge. Two judges were charged with taking over 2.8 million dollars in payoffs/bribes affecting the cases of over 6,500 juveniles.
This is a disgrace of the entire legal system and to the rights of the juveniles which were affected.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of the juveniles and states that they will not be retrying most of the cases (the exception being the most “dangerous offenders” but double-jeopardy may be a factor in these cases.
This has very negative implications on society. Yes, the juveniles should have been granted a fair trial. Now however, without being retried and their convictions overturned, they will be released into society without penalty to continue to commit crimes.
Additionally, according to the article, many of the families are filing civil lawsuits against the judges; of which the judges are attempting to seek immunity. If these lawsuits are won, the families of the offenders (and possibly the juveniles themselves) will actually profit immensely from the crimes of the juveniles.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33539621/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
As stated in the article (link above) a judge overseeing a Luzerne County Juvenile Court was violating the juveniles’ rights to a fair trial by allowing them to frequently appear without lawyers, expediting trials, and immediately locking the children in shackles to be led to a private jail of which the owner was paying-off the judge. Two judges were charged with taking over 2.8 million dollars in payoffs/bribes affecting the cases of over 6,500 juveniles.
This is a disgrace of the entire legal system and to the rights of the juveniles which were affected.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of the juveniles and states that they will not be retrying most of the cases (the exception being the most “dangerous offenders” but double-jeopardy may be a factor in these cases.
This has very negative implications on society. Yes, the juveniles should have been granted a fair trial. Now however, without being retried and their convictions overturned, they will be released into society without penalty to continue to commit crimes.
Additionally, according to the article, many of the families are filing civil lawsuits against the judges; of which the judges are attempting to seek immunity. If these lawsuits are won, the families of the offenders (and possibly the juveniles themselves) will actually profit immensely from the crimes of the juveniles.
Accountant Charged For Hiding Assets
As posted in the Bucks County Courier Times on October 29, 2009
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/121/2009/october/29/accountant-charged-for-hiding-assets.html
Upon reading the article (link attached), I was appalled at the sentencing. The Accountant, clearly deemed “wealthy” was sentenced to a year of house arrest. Now, playing devil’s advocate, if the gentleman is wealthy, he lives, most likely in a mansion or at the very least, well off. Additionally, he is able to continue to work from his home or transact any business deals of which he will continue to receive income.
The original charges at the time of arrest are posted at the following link, as listed in USA Today on April 2, 2009:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-04-02-ubs-charges_N.htm
I disagree with the U.S. District Justice Cooke, in that it is not sending a message around the globe. A stiffer sentence would have to have been given in order to do that.
It seems to me that the message sent around the globe to those hiding assets in offshore accounts is “status quo” unless you get caught and even then, the punishment is not that bad.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/121/2009/october/29/accountant-charged-for-hiding-assets.html
Upon reading the article (link attached), I was appalled at the sentencing. The Accountant, clearly deemed “wealthy” was sentenced to a year of house arrest. Now, playing devil’s advocate, if the gentleman is wealthy, he lives, most likely in a mansion or at the very least, well off. Additionally, he is able to continue to work from his home or transact any business deals of which he will continue to receive income.
The original charges at the time of arrest are posted at the following link, as listed in USA Today on April 2, 2009:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-04-02-ubs-charges_N.htm
I disagree with the U.S. District Justice Cooke, in that it is not sending a message around the globe. A stiffer sentence would have to have been given in order to do that.
It seems to me that the message sent around the globe to those hiding assets in offshore accounts is “status quo” unless you get caught and even then, the punishment is not that bad.
UPS and FedEx Labor fight
UPS and FedEx met in New Mexico and are fighting over the new labor bill - FedEx Corp. and UPS Inc. officials they argued for the first time face to face about whether a labor bill pending in Congress would create a UPS monopoly or an even playing field for all package delivery companies. FedEx asked to speak at the meeting to share their view but it was only allowed if UPS could speak also. The bill would switch FedEx employees to the National Labor Relations Act and off of the National Railway Labor Act.
The link to the article:
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/66712427.html
The link to the article:
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/66712427.html
the new health care bill
This article is about the new health care bill that Congress had made the bill that would create affordable health care for all Americans. The principal for the "universal" coverage is creation of a new government-regulated insurance "exchange" where private companies would sell policies in competition with the government. Federal subsidies would be available to millions of lower-income individuals and families to help them afford the policies, and to small businesses as an incentive to offer coverage to their workers. Large firms would be required to cover workers, and most individuals would be required to carry insurance.
The articles link:
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/67268562.html
The articles link:
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/67268562.html
MN family wants court out of son's cancer case
MN family wants court out of son's cancer case
By AMY FORLITI Associated Press Writer
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The parents of a Minnesota teenager who once fled the state to avoid chemotherapy are asking a judge to end the court's role in the case.
Thirteen-year-old Daniel Hauser is undergoing radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma. He finished his chemotherapy treatments in early September.
In an affidavit filed in Brown County District Court, Daniel's mother, Colleen, says the family is following the court's orders and the advice of doctors. She says the county doesn't need to supervise Daniel's treatments because there's no evidence he's being neglected.
Colleen Hauser says the family will make sure Daniel gets the best medical care. They initially rejected chemo for religious reasons, saying it harms the body.
A hearing is set for later Monday.2009-10-26 16:31:03 GMT
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/10-26-2009/20091026095007_04.html
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Price for Pepsi missing court date...$1.2 billion
What's the cost of not showing up to court? For PepsiCo Inc., it's a $1.26 billion default judgment. A Wisconsin state court socked the company with the monster award in a case alleging that PepsiCo stole the idea to bottle and sell purified water from two Wisconsin men.
Now the company is scrambling to salvage the situation. The damages award was handed down on Sept. 30. PepsiCo filed motions to vacate the order and dismiss the claims on Oct. 13, saying it wasn't even aware of the lawsuit until Oct. 6.
The litigation began in April when Charles Joyce and James Voigt sued the soft drink maker and two of its distributors, alleging they had misappropriated trade secrets from confidential discussions the plaintiffs had with the distributors in 1981 about selling purified water. The information was illicitly passed to PepsiCo, which used it to develop and sell Aquafina bottled water, the plaintiffs allege in the case filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County before Judge Jacqueline Erwin.
In court documents, PepsiCo argues it was improperly served with the Wisconsin lawsuit in North Carolina, but also asks the court to excuse the corporate bureaucracy that buried a legal document for weeks. While plaintiffs say they served the lawsuit in June on PepsiCo's registered agent in North Carolina, where the company is incorporated, PepsiCo says its law department at the company's Purchase, N.Y.-based headquarters was not notified until September.
"The bottom line is there was a defect in the process for us, but also for" the plaintiffs, said PepsiCo spokesman Joe Jacuzzi, who called the case "highly dubious."
Robert Roth, a lawyer for PepsiCo at Menomonee, Wis.-based Niebler, Pyzyk, Roth & Carrig, couldn't be reached for comment. Another lawyer for PepsiCo, Dean Panos, a partner at Chicago-based Jenner & Block, declined to comment.
In court papers, PepsiCo claims it first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant's letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo's law department. Tamoney's secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn't tell anyone about it because she was "so busy preparing for a board meeting," PepsiCo said in its Oct. 13 motion to vacate.
When Henry received a forwarded copy of the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on Oct. 5, she sent that to Yvonne Mazza, a legal assistant for Aquafina matters. Remembering that she still had the other document, Henry passed it to Mazza too. The next day Mazza sent the documents to David Wexler, a department attorney, and he "immediately" called the agent to get a copy of the complaint.
Lawyers for PepsiCo distributors Wis-Pak Inc. and Carolina Canners Inc. made court appearances in June and July. PepsiCo was at a loss to explain why it hadn't heard about the case from them. "It's just another unfortunate thing that didn't come together," Jacuzzi said.
In seeking to dismiss the case, PepsiCo argues that the statute of limitations should preclude the lawsuit, brought 15 years after the company started selling Aquafina and more than two decades after the alleged confidential talks. Moreover, "the $1.26 billion judgment that has been entered is unprecedented in size and justice requires that PepsiCo have a chance to defend itself," the company said.
The lead plaintiffs lawyer, David Van Dyke of Chicago-based Cassiday Schade, said Wisconsin courts have been "pretty clear that they don't like" vacating default judgments. "There is a possibly that a judge may say we're going to litigate the damages aspect of it," Van Dyke said.
A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 6.
Now the company is scrambling to salvage the situation. The damages award was handed down on Sept. 30. PepsiCo filed motions to vacate the order and dismiss the claims on Oct. 13, saying it wasn't even aware of the lawsuit until Oct. 6.
The litigation began in April when Charles Joyce and James Voigt sued the soft drink maker and two of its distributors, alleging they had misappropriated trade secrets from confidential discussions the plaintiffs had with the distributors in 1981 about selling purified water. The information was illicitly passed to PepsiCo, which used it to develop and sell Aquafina bottled water, the plaintiffs allege in the case filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County before Judge Jacqueline Erwin.
In court documents, PepsiCo argues it was improperly served with the Wisconsin lawsuit in North Carolina, but also asks the court to excuse the corporate bureaucracy that buried a legal document for weeks. While plaintiffs say they served the lawsuit in June on PepsiCo's registered agent in North Carolina, where the company is incorporated, PepsiCo says its law department at the company's Purchase, N.Y.-based headquarters was not notified until September.
"The bottom line is there was a defect in the process for us, but also for" the plaintiffs, said PepsiCo spokesman Joe Jacuzzi, who called the case "highly dubious."
Robert Roth, a lawyer for PepsiCo at Menomonee, Wis.-based Niebler, Pyzyk, Roth & Carrig, couldn't be reached for comment. Another lawyer for PepsiCo, Dean Panos, a partner at Chicago-based Jenner & Block, declined to comment.
In court papers, PepsiCo claims it first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant's letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo's law department. Tamoney's secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn't tell anyone about it because she was "so busy preparing for a board meeting," PepsiCo said in its Oct. 13 motion to vacate.
When Henry received a forwarded copy of the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on Oct. 5, she sent that to Yvonne Mazza, a legal assistant for Aquafina matters. Remembering that she still had the other document, Henry passed it to Mazza too. The next day Mazza sent the documents to David Wexler, a department attorney, and he "immediately" called the agent to get a copy of the complaint.
Lawyers for PepsiCo distributors Wis-Pak Inc. and Carolina Canners Inc. made court appearances in June and July. PepsiCo was at a loss to explain why it hadn't heard about the case from them. "It's just another unfortunate thing that didn't come together," Jacuzzi said.
In seeking to dismiss the case, PepsiCo argues that the statute of limitations should preclude the lawsuit, brought 15 years after the company started selling Aquafina and more than two decades after the alleged confidential talks. Moreover, "the $1.26 billion judgment that has been entered is unprecedented in size and justice requires that PepsiCo have a chance to defend itself," the company said.
The lead plaintiffs lawyer, David Van Dyke of Chicago-based Cassiday Schade, said Wisconsin courts have been "pretty clear that they don't like" vacating default judgments. "There is a possibly that a judge may say we're going to litigate the damages aspect of it," Van Dyke said.
A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 6.
Denver police crush sex offender's car - Yahoo! News
Denver police crush sex offender's car - Yahoo! News: "Tue Oct 27, 4:40 pm ET
DENVER – Denver police have crushed a car belonging to a man who pleaded guilty to attempting to sexually assault a child.
Police destroyed the vehicle of 37-year-old Balazs Toth on Tuesday, saying it's a public nuisance.
The former Roman Catholic school teacher also received a 90-day jail sentence in the case, in which he was accused of going online to try to lure a child to a McDonald's parking lot for sex in December.
Police say a vehicle can be considered a public nuisance in Denver if it is used to attempt a sexual assault.
Toth was sentenced in June, also receiving five years of sex offender probation. His phone number isn't listed, and he couldn't be reached for comment."
DENVER – Denver police have crushed a car belonging to a man who pleaded guilty to attempting to sexually assault a child.
Police destroyed the vehicle of 37-year-old Balazs Toth on Tuesday, saying it's a public nuisance.
The former Roman Catholic school teacher also received a 90-day jail sentence in the case, in which he was accused of going online to try to lure a child to a McDonald's parking lot for sex in December.
Police say a vehicle can be considered a public nuisance in Denver if it is used to attempt a sexual assault.
Toth was sentenced in June, also receiving five years of sex offender probation. His phone number isn't listed, and he couldn't be reached for comment."
Guantanamo detainees case reaches Supreme Court - Yahoo! News
Guantanamo detainees case reaches Supreme Court - Yahoo! News: "By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – Tue Oct 20, 7:45 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether Guantanamo detainees who are considered no threat can be ordered released in the United States — over the objections of the Obama administration and Congress — if the prisoners have nowhere else to go.
The case could further complicate the administration's plans to close the Guantanamo prison where 220 or so men are still held.
The court's fourth look at the terror-suspects detention system, created by the Bush administration following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will focus on 13 Chinese Muslims, most of whom were cleared by the Pentagon for release in 2003. Six years later — and eight years after their capture in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001 — they remain in custody at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The first three high court decisions were rebukes to the government for denying detainees their day in court.
The justices said they will hear a challenge from the Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs (WEE'-gurs), who are asking the court to put some teeth into its June 2008 ruling that said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, depending on security concerns and other circumstances."
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether Guantanamo detainees who are considered no threat can be ordered released in the United States — over the objections of the Obama administration and Congress — if the prisoners have nowhere else to go.
The case could further complicate the administration's plans to close the Guantanamo prison where 220 or so men are still held.
The court's fourth look at the terror-suspects detention system, created by the Bush administration following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will focus on 13 Chinese Muslims, most of whom were cleared by the Pentagon for release in 2003. Six years later — and eight years after their capture in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001 — they remain in custody at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The first three high court decisions were rebukes to the government for denying detainees their day in court.
The justices said they will hear a challenge from the Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs (WEE'-gurs), who are asking the court to put some teeth into its June 2008 ruling that said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, depending on security concerns and other circumstances."
Iowa woman with federal death sentence fights case - Yahoo! News
Iowa woman with federal death sentence fights case - Yahoo! News: "Mon Oct 19, 8:10 pm ET
DES MOINES, Iowa – The first woman to receive a federal death sentence since the Supreme Court reinstated the punishment in 1976 is challenging her conviction in a quadruple Iowa murder.
Attorneys for Angela Johnson filed a petition in U.S. District Court that said she was incompetent during her 2005 trial, in part due to mental disorders, and had ineffective lawyers.
Johnson was convicted in the 1993 drug-related slayings of three adults and two children in northern Iowa. The Forest City woman was sentenced to death in four of the killings and life in prison for the fifth. The victims were found buried in shallow graves in 2000.
The 164-page petition filed this month in Sioux Falls also challenges her sentence.
The federal government last executed a woman in 1953"
DES MOINES, Iowa – The first woman to receive a federal death sentence since the Supreme Court reinstated the punishment in 1976 is challenging her conviction in a quadruple Iowa murder.
Attorneys for Angela Johnson filed a petition in U.S. District Court that said she was incompetent during her 2005 trial, in part due to mental disorders, and had ineffective lawyers.
Johnson was convicted in the 1993 drug-related slayings of three adults and two children in northern Iowa. The Forest City woman was sentenced to death in four of the killings and life in prison for the fifth. The victims were found buried in shallow graves in 2000.
The 164-page petition filed this month in Sioux Falls also challenges her sentence.
The federal government last executed a woman in 1953"
Ga. court rules against millionaire's mistress - Yahoo! News
Ga. court rules against millionaire's mistress - Yahoo! News: "By DIONNE WALKER, Associated Press Writer Dionne Walker, Associated Press Writer – Mon Oct 19, 2:07 pm ET
ATLANTA – The Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against the mistress of a millionaire, saying she is not entitled to receive $7,900 a month for the rest of her life as provided under amendments to his will.
The court ruled 7-0 that Anne Melican should not receive the monthly payment, and that she also is not entitled to property in Florida and Cape Cod, Mass., as provided by the late Harvey Strother in amendments to his will signed between 2000 and his 2004 death.
The ruling overturns a decision last summer that had upheld the monthly allowance, despite his family's insistence that when he died, Strother was a fragile alcoholic who Melican conned into changing his will.
Part of the case hinged on the testimony of two home nurses who cared for Strother and signed as witnesses to the amendments, but later confessed they hadn't witnessed anything.
Monday's ruling nullified the women's signatures and voided the amendment, known in legal terms as a codicil.
'We conclude the first codicil was not properly executed,' Justice Hugh Thompson wrote.
Justices also upheld a decision denying Melican ownership of a Cape Cod home, and a Florida property and boat slip. The court was not asked to rule on an amendment granting her a condominium in Marco Island, Fla., an issue that will go before a different court.
Strother died at 79, a multimillionaire who made his fortune with a small empire of Atlanta-area car dealerships."
ATLANTA – The Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against the mistress of a millionaire, saying she is not entitled to receive $7,900 a month for the rest of her life as provided under amendments to his will.
The court ruled 7-0 that Anne Melican should not receive the monthly payment, and that she also is not entitled to property in Florida and Cape Cod, Mass., as provided by the late Harvey Strother in amendments to his will signed between 2000 and his 2004 death.
The ruling overturns a decision last summer that had upheld the monthly allowance, despite his family's insistence that when he died, Strother was a fragile alcoholic who Melican conned into changing his will.
Part of the case hinged on the testimony of two home nurses who cared for Strother and signed as witnesses to the amendments, but later confessed they hadn't witnessed anything.
Monday's ruling nullified the women's signatures and voided the amendment, known in legal terms as a codicil.
'We conclude the first codicil was not properly executed,' Justice Hugh Thompson wrote.
Justices also upheld a decision denying Melican ownership of a Cape Cod home, and a Florida property and boat slip. The court was not asked to rule on an amendment granting her a condominium in Marco Island, Fla., an issue that will go before a different court.
Strother died at 79, a multimillionaire who made his fortune with a small empire of Atlanta-area car dealerships."
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi face U.S. antitrust probe
TOKYO (AP) — Japanese electronics giants Sony, Toshiba and Hitachi said Tuesday that their optical disc drive operations are under investigation by U.S. authorities for possible antitrust violations.
Sony (SNE) said its California-based sales unit Sony Optiarc America has received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking information for an antitrust probe related to the company's optical disc drive operations.
Company spokesman Chisato Kitsukawa said the company is "fully cooperating with U.S. authorities," and that he could not provide any other details about the case.
Toshiba and Hitachi (HIT) said they also received similar subpoenas for optical disc drive operations at their subsidiaries, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Hitachi-LG Data Storage They also declined further comment.
See link for full story: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-10-27-sony--antitrust_N.htm
Sony (SNE) said its California-based sales unit Sony Optiarc America has received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking information for an antitrust probe related to the company's optical disc drive operations.
Company spokesman Chisato Kitsukawa said the company is "fully cooperating with U.S. authorities," and that he could not provide any other details about the case.
Toshiba and Hitachi (HIT) said they also received similar subpoenas for optical disc drive operations at their subsidiaries, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Hitachi-LG Data Storage They also declined further comment.
See link for full story: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-10-27-sony--antitrust_N.htm
Wash. court reins in warrantless car searches
The state Supreme Court says police were wrong to search a man's car after arresting him at home, even though he was standing next to the car with his head ducked in the window when the authorities arrived.
Please use attached link for full story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010118544_apwascowcarsearches.html
Please use attached link for full story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010118544_apwascowcarsearches.html
Judge Rules eBay Can Name Forum in Contract With Users
In an important case regarding jurisdiction a federal judge ruled that eBay was permitted to enforce the "forum selection clause" in their user's agreement. This clause requires any user who sues eBay to do so in Santa Clara County, Calif. The plaintiff in the case sued eBay over issues related to what the termination of his account. After filing his complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, eBay petitioned to have the case moved to California. The plaintiff argued that doing so would be unreasonably burdensome. The judge in the case disagreed and ordered the case transferred to California. He stated that the plaintiff chose to accept the terms in eBay's user agreement and was therefore bound to follow them. This decision echoes the decisions of other cases throughout the US.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434958313&rss=newswire
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434958313&rss=newswire
Microsoft Wins Patent Case
Microsoft was in court for a patent infringement case brought by a Singapore based Uniloc software company, where the ruling judge initially ordered Microsoft to pay $388 million dollars but after a jury was brought in he did not think they could rule capably in favor of the case thought they were clueless. Afterwards he vacated his own verdict and changed it to Microsoft's favor.
The link for the article:
http://bx.businessweek.com/business-law/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Fbusinesscenter%2Farticle%2F172936%2Fjurys_verdict_tossed_388m_win_for_microsoft.html
The link for the article:
http://bx.businessweek.com/business-law/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Fbusinesscenter%2Farticle%2F172936%2Fjurys_verdict_tossed_388m_win_for_microsoft.html
Ex-Bear Stearns manager wins email ruling
Interesting article. The main thing everyone should take from this article is never ever put anything in email that you dont want everybody to see.
Ex-Bear Stearns manager wins email ruling
REUTERS — 5:14 PM ET 10/26/09
By Grant McCool
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Bear Stearns hedge fund manager Matthew Tannin won a round during his trial in New York on fraud charges on Monday when a judge ruled the jury cannot see a personal email in which he wrote about his fears of a "blow up risk" for investors.
Emails written by Tannin and his former boss at Bear Stearns Asset Management, Ralph Cioffi, are central to the prosecution's case against the two men -- the first high- profile Wall Streeters to be criminally charged stemming from problems with subprime mortgages and overall liquidity.
Bear Stearns Cos was taken over in 2008 by JPMorgan Chase & Co (Symbol : JPM
Loading...
) in a government-backed deal for far less than it was once worth.
Cioffi, 53, and Tannin, 48, have denied charges of securities fraud and conspiracy over funds crammed with subprime mortgage-backed securities that collapsed in the summer of 2007, early in the financial meltdown. Both face up to 20 years in prison if convicted by the Brooklyn federal court jury, which was selected on October 13 for a trial expected to last well into November.
Investors lost as much as $1.6 billion, according to a U.S. prosecutor, who accused them in his opening statement of lying repeatedly to investors who had money in two funds they managed.
In their opening statements, lawyers for both men told jurors their clients did not lie and could not forecast the severity of the market's decline as they debated possible strategies for the funds in emails sent to each other and sometimes shared with other colleagues.
Monday's written ruling by Judge Frederic Block granted Tannin's motion "to suppress evidence from his personal email account on the ground that the warrant authorizing the seizure did not comply with the Warrants Clause of the Fourth Amendment."
The ruling referred to a November 23, 2006 email that was part of Tannin's personal diary on a private Google Inc (Symbol : GOOG
Loading...
) or gmail account. The ruling did not quote the contents, which was put on the court record on October 8, five days before the trial began.
Tannin wrote about his fear that one of the funds could not be run the way he had hoped and that "it was going to subject investors to 'blow up risk'."
A spokesman for prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Tannin's lawyers were not immediately available to comment.
The case is USA v Cioffi & Tannin, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 08-415
(Reporting by Grant McCool; editing by Andre Grenon)
Ex-Bear Stearns manager wins email ruling
REUTERS — 5:14 PM ET 10/26/09
By Grant McCool
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Bear Stearns hedge fund manager Matthew Tannin won a round during his trial in New York on fraud charges on Monday when a judge ruled the jury cannot see a personal email in which he wrote about his fears of a "blow up risk" for investors.
Emails written by Tannin and his former boss at Bear Stearns Asset Management, Ralph Cioffi, are central to the prosecution's case against the two men -- the first high- profile Wall Streeters to be criminally charged stemming from problems with subprime mortgages and overall liquidity.
Bear Stearns Cos was taken over in 2008 by JPMorgan Chase & Co (Symbol : JPM
Loading...
) in a government-backed deal for far less than it was once worth.
Cioffi, 53, and Tannin, 48, have denied charges of securities fraud and conspiracy over funds crammed with subprime mortgage-backed securities that collapsed in the summer of 2007, early in the financial meltdown. Both face up to 20 years in prison if convicted by the Brooklyn federal court jury, which was selected on October 13 for a trial expected to last well into November.
Investors lost as much as $1.6 billion, according to a U.S. prosecutor, who accused them in his opening statement of lying repeatedly to investors who had money in two funds they managed.
In their opening statements, lawyers for both men told jurors their clients did not lie and could not forecast the severity of the market's decline as they debated possible strategies for the funds in emails sent to each other and sometimes shared with other colleagues.
Monday's written ruling by Judge Frederic Block granted Tannin's motion "to suppress evidence from his personal email account on the ground that the warrant authorizing the seizure did not comply with the Warrants Clause of the Fourth Amendment."
The ruling referred to a November 23, 2006 email that was part of Tannin's personal diary on a private Google Inc (Symbol : GOOG
Loading...
) or gmail account. The ruling did not quote the contents, which was put on the court record on October 8, five days before the trial began.
Tannin wrote about his fear that one of the funds could not be run the way he had hoped and that "it was going to subject investors to 'blow up risk'."
A spokesman for prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Tannin's lawyers were not immediately available to comment.
The case is USA v Cioffi & Tannin, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 08-415
(Reporting by Grant McCool; editing by Andre Grenon)
Civil Gideon
By TAMARA AUDI
This is very interesting article. Reguardles of weather your for or against court appointed civil attournies , you have to agree this new law will ultimately change the civil court system in california.
A new California law that gives poor residents the right to an attorney in civil matters such as child custody and foreclosure is being hailed as a model that could transform the nation's legal landscape. But critics argue that the law will result in a wave of case backlogs and could further burden court budgets.
The law, signed this month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, assures the poor legal counsel in an array of civil cases. Advocates for the change say poor people often wind up in court facing life-changing consequences -- such as eviction -- but go through the process without adequate legal advice. That can lead to mistakes and delays.
View Full ImageMichael Mullady
Jamie Silahua, leaving his foreclosed Antioch, Calif., home in April for the last time, couldn't afford a lawyer to help hang on to the house. A new law will ensure legal counsel for poor Californians in foreclosures and other civil cases.
"This is a really big step forward," said Richard Alderman, associate dean and director of the Center for Consumer Law at the University of Houston. "Everyone will be watching it."
The movement to mandate legal representation for the poor in civil cases, known as "civil Gideon" -- named after the Supreme Court case more than 40 years ago that required government-provided lawyers for criminal defendants -- has been gaining support in recent years. In 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement backing civil Gideon.
But finding the money for it, even when the economy was booming, has been difficult.
California's law will be funded by a pre-approved $10 increase in some court fees. For now, those fees -- expected to generate about $11 million annually -- will go into the cash-strapped court system's general operating budget. California's budget crisis has forced its courts to close every third Wednesday of the month.
Starting in 2011, the fee will be funneled toward the new law, which calls for legal-aid groups to propose methods of delivering services to the indigent. Those living at 200% above the federal poverty guidelines or less will be eligible for free legal services. For a family of four, that means an annual income of $44,100.
Most states mandate lawyers for the poor in civil cases that could result in them being committed to a mental institution. A few states provide lawyers in some types of child-custody cases. A city-council resolution pending in New York City would provide free legal representation to the elderly in eviction cases.
But California is the first state to enact such a sweeping mandate.
It is common practice for publicly funded legal-aid groups to represent the poor in civil cases, though it generally isn't a requirement. But legal-aid lawyers around the U.S. say they are overwhelmed with cases, especially as foreclosures and evictions rise.
Julia Wilson, executive director of the Legal Aid Association of California, an association of state nonprofits that provide legal aid to the poor, said legal-aid groups in the state are forced to turn away as many as two thirds of those who come looking for free help because of a lack of resources.
Most legal-aid groups get funding from a patchwork of federal and state programs. California's Judicial Council, the policy-making body of the state's courts, says around 4 million people represent themselves in California civil matters. Many who need the help "have a valid defense, they just have no idea how to present it," said Debra Gardner, coordinator for the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel.
Ted Frank, a Washington lawyer who has written about civil Gideon for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said he believes the new law will result in more waste in the court system.
Parents fighting over child custody, for example, will be less inclined to work out an agreement on their own and more apt to fight in court because of access to free legal services, he said.
Mr. Frank said he believes landlords will have a harder and more expensive time carrying out legitimate evictions, which may cause rents to rise.
"What is clear is that you will never have a simple eviction because every single one of them will be litigated," Mr. Frank said. "The rest of the poor will be worse off because that."
Write to Tamara Audi at tammy.audi@wsj.com
This is very interesting article. Reguardles of weather your for or against court appointed civil attournies , you have to agree this new law will ultimately change the civil court system in california.
A new California law that gives poor residents the right to an attorney in civil matters such as child custody and foreclosure is being hailed as a model that could transform the nation's legal landscape. But critics argue that the law will result in a wave of case backlogs and could further burden court budgets.
The law, signed this month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, assures the poor legal counsel in an array of civil cases. Advocates for the change say poor people often wind up in court facing life-changing consequences -- such as eviction -- but go through the process without adequate legal advice. That can lead to mistakes and delays.
View Full ImageMichael Mullady
Jamie Silahua, leaving his foreclosed Antioch, Calif., home in April for the last time, couldn't afford a lawyer to help hang on to the house. A new law will ensure legal counsel for poor Californians in foreclosures and other civil cases.
"This is a really big step forward," said Richard Alderman, associate dean and director of the Center for Consumer Law at the University of Houston. "Everyone will be watching it."
The movement to mandate legal representation for the poor in civil cases, known as "civil Gideon" -- named after the Supreme Court case more than 40 years ago that required government-provided lawyers for criminal defendants -- has been gaining support in recent years. In 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement backing civil Gideon.
But finding the money for it, even when the economy was booming, has been difficult.
California's law will be funded by a pre-approved $10 increase in some court fees. For now, those fees -- expected to generate about $11 million annually -- will go into the cash-strapped court system's general operating budget. California's budget crisis has forced its courts to close every third Wednesday of the month.
Starting in 2011, the fee will be funneled toward the new law, which calls for legal-aid groups to propose methods of delivering services to the indigent. Those living at 200% above the federal poverty guidelines or less will be eligible for free legal services. For a family of four, that means an annual income of $44,100.
Most states mandate lawyers for the poor in civil cases that could result in them being committed to a mental institution. A few states provide lawyers in some types of child-custody cases. A city-council resolution pending in New York City would provide free legal representation to the elderly in eviction cases.
But California is the first state to enact such a sweeping mandate.
It is common practice for publicly funded legal-aid groups to represent the poor in civil cases, though it generally isn't a requirement. But legal-aid lawyers around the U.S. say they are overwhelmed with cases, especially as foreclosures and evictions rise.
Julia Wilson, executive director of the Legal Aid Association of California, an association of state nonprofits that provide legal aid to the poor, said legal-aid groups in the state are forced to turn away as many as two thirds of those who come looking for free help because of a lack of resources.
Most legal-aid groups get funding from a patchwork of federal and state programs. California's Judicial Council, the policy-making body of the state's courts, says around 4 million people represent themselves in California civil matters. Many who need the help "have a valid defense, they just have no idea how to present it," said Debra Gardner, coordinator for the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel.
Ted Frank, a Washington lawyer who has written about civil Gideon for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said he believes the new law will result in more waste in the court system.
Parents fighting over child custody, for example, will be less inclined to work out an agreement on their own and more apt to fight in court because of access to free legal services, he said.
Mr. Frank said he believes landlords will have a harder and more expensive time carrying out legitimate evictions, which may cause rents to rise.
"What is clear is that you will never have a simple eviction because every single one of them will be litigated," Mr. Frank said. "The rest of the poor will be worse off because that."
Write to Tamara Audi at tammy.audi@wsj.com
Survey Shows Large Firms Have Few Women Among Top Rainmakers
This is an interesting article about how there are so many few women in leadership positions in law firms. The percentage has changed but not by much each year.
Women as top rainmakers can now be added to a list of rarities in large law firms, joining the small group of women on governing committees and an even greater rarity -- the female managing partner.
Whether this new statistic, measured in the latest survey by the National Association of Women Lawyers, can be seen as the fault of the firm or the fault of women lawyers themselves is a question the survey didn't answer.
In the four years that NAWL has conducted its National Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms, there has been very little change in the data. Nearly the same amount of women are on management committees and in leadership positions as when the survey began and the numbers are small compared to the numbers of women entering the profession in the last two decades, according to the survey released Monday. [See NAWL's report on the survey (pdf).]
For the first time this year, NAWL asked firms about their key rainmakers and found very few were women. The survey tracked the gender of the top rainmaker and that of the top 10 and should be viewed in the context of a law firm sample that had a median of 22 female equity partners compared with a median of 120 male equity partners.
According to the survey results 46 percent of large law firms have no women at all among their top 10 rainmakers. Almost another third, or 32 percent, have only one woman on that list. About 15 percent of large firms have two women among their top rainmakers and 6 percent have three or four in the top 10. About 72 percent of large firms have no women at all among the top five rainmakers in the firm, the survey results showed.
"The results are astounding, even to those of us familiar with the dynamics of legal business development," NAWL said in its report on the survey.
NAWL admittedly couldn't explain the phenomenon and pointed to a number of reasons why women could be so underrepresented among leading business getters.
"Our data cannot tell us whether this underrepresentation is a function of less aggressive rainmaking activities among women, or the result of 'inherited' clients of the firm flowing to men, whether women are given opportunities to participate in business development on an equal footing with men, whether women are receiving credit for business development at the same rate as men, or if there is some other explanation for the observed differences," NAWL said in its report.
Roberta Liebenberg, chairwoman of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, said she has been working with other groups like the Minority Corporate Counsel Association and the Project for Attorney Retention on the issue of women rainmakers. She said it is difficult to tell why women might not be rainmakers at a certain firm. But the groups have heard anecdotally that women aren't always getting proper origination credit and aren't inheriting clients from retiring partners proportionately to men.
Regardless of the reason, the lack of women as top business generators affects other categories tracked by NAWL's survey.
NAWL said the data show firms with no women rainmakers in the top 10 have a much greater pay differential between male and female partners. Those firms with three or four women among the highest business producers have basically eliminated the differences in compensation between the sexes, according to the report.
In firms with no top female rainmakers, women make a median of $81,000 less than men. In those firms with 1 or 2 women in that group, women make a median of $56,000 less than men. Where there are 3 or 4 women as top rainmakers, women actually make a median of $11,000 more than men, though NAWL pointed out that was a small group of firms.
COMPENSATION GAP SHRINKS
The NAWL survey has tracked compensation since its inception and has historically found a gap in pay between the sexes, particularly the higher one goes in seniority. Some good news out of the survey was that the gap in compensation between male and female partners shrunk in 2009. But the report also pointed out that the smaller gap is likely an overall effect of reduced compensation at the equity level generally. Between 2008 and 2009, the median pay fell for all positions regardless of gender and was sharpest for equity partners. Pay for the equity partner category in 2009 fell below 87 percent of the median compensation in 2008.
In 2009, women equity partners made about $65,850 less than their male counterparts. Male equity partners earned a median compensation of $565,200 and women equity partners earned a median take home of $499,350.
The picture has improved slightly when looking at non-equity partners. Women non-equity partners made 87 percent of what their male counterparts did in the 2008 survey and they made 92 percent of their male counterparts' compensation in 2009, according to the survey. The median salary for female non-equity partners in 2009 was $250,000 compared to $275,000 for male non-equity partners.
LAYOFFS AND LEADERSHIP
For the first time since the survey began, NAWL tracked the impact of layoffs on women by tracking layoffs through June 2009. The results showed men and women were laid off in rates proportionate to their numbers as associates and partners.
The exception came in the area of part-time lawyers. Though fewer firms responded to questions about layoffs than other sections of the survey, the data showed nearly 100 percent of the part-time lawyers laid off were women even though they don't make up nearly 100 percent of the overall group of part-time attorneys.
Despite decades of women entering the legal profession at the same rate as men, there is a steady decrease of women at each higher position within firms.
In a typical firm, according to the survey results, women comprise 48 percent of first and second-year associates, about 45 percent of seventh-year associates, 34 percent of of-counsel positions, 27 percent of non-equity positions and 16 percent of equity partners.
These numbers are virtually unchanged since NAWL began the survey in 2006.
Liebenberg said the ABA and several other groups have been focused on raising the percentage of women in the equity partnership ranks. She pointed to a recent report by Catalyst, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing women in business, that said if law firms continue to advance women partners to equity status at this rate, it wouldn't be until 2088 that women gain parity in the firms.
When looking at two-tiered firms, according to NAWL, women comprise 10 percent of equity partners by year 10, 17 percent by year 15 and 18 percent by year 25 with the firm.
An even smaller percentage of women sit on firm governance committees than there are women equity partners. About 14 percent of the respondents have no women on those committees. Of those that do, the average percentage of female members has gone basically unchanged since 2006, with women making up 15 percent of those committees. Considering the average committee has 10 members, that usually means one or two are women, according to the survey.
In 2006, 5 percent of managing partners were women and in 2009, that number has moved to 6 percent. According to NAWL's report, the organization is aware, at least anecdotally, that there has been an increase in the number of women practice-group leaders.
A total of 116 firms responded to this year's survey.
Women as top rainmakers can now be added to a list of rarities in large law firms, joining the small group of women on governing committees and an even greater rarity -- the female managing partner.
Whether this new statistic, measured in the latest survey by the National Association of Women Lawyers, can be seen as the fault of the firm or the fault of women lawyers themselves is a question the survey didn't answer.
In the four years that NAWL has conducted its National Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms, there has been very little change in the data. Nearly the same amount of women are on management committees and in leadership positions as when the survey began and the numbers are small compared to the numbers of women entering the profession in the last two decades, according to the survey released Monday. [See NAWL's report on the survey (pdf).]
For the first time this year, NAWL asked firms about their key rainmakers and found very few were women. The survey tracked the gender of the top rainmaker and that of the top 10 and should be viewed in the context of a law firm sample that had a median of 22 female equity partners compared with a median of 120 male equity partners.
According to the survey results 46 percent of large law firms have no women at all among their top 10 rainmakers. Almost another third, or 32 percent, have only one woman on that list. About 15 percent of large firms have two women among their top rainmakers and 6 percent have three or four in the top 10. About 72 percent of large firms have no women at all among the top five rainmakers in the firm, the survey results showed.
"The results are astounding, even to those of us familiar with the dynamics of legal business development," NAWL said in its report on the survey.
NAWL admittedly couldn't explain the phenomenon and pointed to a number of reasons why women could be so underrepresented among leading business getters.
"Our data cannot tell us whether this underrepresentation is a function of less aggressive rainmaking activities among women, or the result of 'inherited' clients of the firm flowing to men, whether women are given opportunities to participate in business development on an equal footing with men, whether women are receiving credit for business development at the same rate as men, or if there is some other explanation for the observed differences," NAWL said in its report.
Roberta Liebenberg, chairwoman of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, said she has been working with other groups like the Minority Corporate Counsel Association and the Project for Attorney Retention on the issue of women rainmakers. She said it is difficult to tell why women might not be rainmakers at a certain firm. But the groups have heard anecdotally that women aren't always getting proper origination credit and aren't inheriting clients from retiring partners proportionately to men.
Regardless of the reason, the lack of women as top business generators affects other categories tracked by NAWL's survey.
NAWL said the data show firms with no women rainmakers in the top 10 have a much greater pay differential between male and female partners. Those firms with three or four women among the highest business producers have basically eliminated the differences in compensation between the sexes, according to the report.
In firms with no top female rainmakers, women make a median of $81,000 less than men. In those firms with 1 or 2 women in that group, women make a median of $56,000 less than men. Where there are 3 or 4 women as top rainmakers, women actually make a median of $11,000 more than men, though NAWL pointed out that was a small group of firms.
COMPENSATION GAP SHRINKS
The NAWL survey has tracked compensation since its inception and has historically found a gap in pay between the sexes, particularly the higher one goes in seniority. Some good news out of the survey was that the gap in compensation between male and female partners shrunk in 2009. But the report also pointed out that the smaller gap is likely an overall effect of reduced compensation at the equity level generally. Between 2008 and 2009, the median pay fell for all positions regardless of gender and was sharpest for equity partners. Pay for the equity partner category in 2009 fell below 87 percent of the median compensation in 2008.
In 2009, women equity partners made about $65,850 less than their male counterparts. Male equity partners earned a median compensation of $565,200 and women equity partners earned a median take home of $499,350.
The picture has improved slightly when looking at non-equity partners. Women non-equity partners made 87 percent of what their male counterparts did in the 2008 survey and they made 92 percent of their male counterparts' compensation in 2009, according to the survey. The median salary for female non-equity partners in 2009 was $250,000 compared to $275,000 for male non-equity partners.
LAYOFFS AND LEADERSHIP
For the first time since the survey began, NAWL tracked the impact of layoffs on women by tracking layoffs through June 2009. The results showed men and women were laid off in rates proportionate to their numbers as associates and partners.
The exception came in the area of part-time lawyers. Though fewer firms responded to questions about layoffs than other sections of the survey, the data showed nearly 100 percent of the part-time lawyers laid off were women even though they don't make up nearly 100 percent of the overall group of part-time attorneys.
Despite decades of women entering the legal profession at the same rate as men, there is a steady decrease of women at each higher position within firms.
In a typical firm, according to the survey results, women comprise 48 percent of first and second-year associates, about 45 percent of seventh-year associates, 34 percent of of-counsel positions, 27 percent of non-equity positions and 16 percent of equity partners.
These numbers are virtually unchanged since NAWL began the survey in 2006.
Liebenberg said the ABA and several other groups have been focused on raising the percentage of women in the equity partnership ranks. She pointed to a recent report by Catalyst, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing women in business, that said if law firms continue to advance women partners to equity status at this rate, it wouldn't be until 2088 that women gain parity in the firms.
When looking at two-tiered firms, according to NAWL, women comprise 10 percent of equity partners by year 10, 17 percent by year 15 and 18 percent by year 25 with the firm.
An even smaller percentage of women sit on firm governance committees than there are women equity partners. About 14 percent of the respondents have no women on those committees. Of those that do, the average percentage of female members has gone basically unchanged since 2006, with women making up 15 percent of those committees. Considering the average committee has 10 members, that usually means one or two are women, according to the survey.
In 2006, 5 percent of managing partners were women and in 2009, that number has moved to 6 percent. According to NAWL's report, the organization is aware, at least anecdotally, that there has been an increase in the number of women practice-group leaders.
A total of 116 firms responded to this year's survey.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Paralegal Fights Search of His Home Over Twitter Tweets About Police Activities
A case about a paralegal who is facing charges for using Twitter to tell protesters to stay away from areas which had police presence during the G-20 summit protests. I am definitely going to do some more research to look into the legal issues of using a police scanner but it seems like a very interesting case.
Does anyone know about the legal issues of using police scanners?
Here is the link:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/paralegal_fights_search_of_his_home_over_twitter_tweets_about_police_activi/
Does anyone know about the legal issues of using police scanners?
Here is the link:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/paralegal_fights_search_of_his_home_over_twitter_tweets_about_police_activi/
Alien Halloween costume spooks immigrants
Alien Halloween costume spooks immigrants
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ AP Hispanic Affairs Writer
MIAMI (AP) - Immigrant advocates are urging retailers to pull a Halloween costume depicting a space creature in orange prison garb emblazoned with the words "illegal alien," while a group that supports strict immigration laws says such a move impinges on freedom of speech.
Beyond the holiday uproar, the dispute highlights the controversial nature of the phrase illegal alien - still the government's official term for those in the country without a visa, though many national politicians and media increasingly avoid using it.
Since Friday, when the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights in Los Angeles first raised the issue, companies including Target, Walgreens and eBay have removed the costume from their inventory. Still, many local retailers continue to stock the costume that also comes with a "green" card - which technically makes the alien legal.
At costume stores in Miami, the responses have been mixed.
Don King, whose mother immigrated from Cuba, bought pirate and Homer Simpson costumes Tuesday at Halloween USA in midtown Miami, where the costume is on sale but has attracted few customers. "It's a joke," King said. "I really don't think much of it."
A few miles away in the Little Havana neighborhood, workers at a popular costume store said it was not something they would carry because it was discriminatory. They do stock a human taco costume, replete with a Mariachi hat.
Cashier Carmen Torres, who recalled facing discrimination after arriving from Cuba as a young girl in the 1960s, said the costume was tasteless. "They haven't done anything bad. you can punish those who are criminals, but not people who are trying to, trying to work," Torres said.
Target has said it sold the costume online only and was posted by accident because it did not meet the company's standards. eBay said it asked sellers to remove the costume because it "does not allow items that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual, or religious intolerance, or promote organizations with such views."
Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the immigrant coalition, said the costume "perpetuates this idea we have about undocumented immigrants as alien foreigners, strangers, scary."
Cabrera said he knew the costume could be taken as a play on words but the jumpsuit was too close to what many immigrants must wear in detention centers, "where they can spend months at a time, and where there is a lot of suffering."
"That the creature was holding a green card was a stab at a (broader) community," he said, because it suggests even with a legal document, immigrants are still scary criminals.
But William Gheen, head of the North Carolina-based political action committee Americans for Legal Immigration, said efforts to get stores not to sell the costume amounted to an attack on freedom of speech. He urged Americans to buy the costumes in protest.
"I looked at the costume and thought it was kind of funny. The only thing that wasn't funny was how many illegal immigrants are in this country," said Gheen, who has given speeches suggesting Latin Americans are bringing an epidemic of tuberculosis to the U.S., despite government figures showing the illness is at an all-time low.
Gheen said he didn't understand why people would have a problem with words used in federal law.
"This is a battle over psycholinguistics," he said, referring to the study of the relationship between language and the psychology or behavior of those who use it. "Nobody is supposed to be able to use the words 'illegal aliens' ... except in the government literature."
There's a big difference between how words are used officially and what people say in popular language, said Charleton McIlwain, professor of race and media at New York University.
"When people (informally) talk about immigrants, the term aliens seems to almost exclusively get used for Mexicans or other Latin Americans. We don't talk about Canadian aliens," he said, adding that the prison jumpsuit creates an association with more serious crimes like drug dealing, rape and murder.
Many major media organizations, including The Associated Press, no longer use the term "Illegal Alien" unless quoting an individual or official statute.
During the 2008 election, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain rarely used the term, opting for "illegal immigrants" instead. More recently, though, Obama has picked up the phrase again, something Cabrera said he's concerned about as the debate over immigration reform heats up.
The illegal alien prisoner costume is not the only one out there. Another illegal alien mask recently on the market sported a baseball cap and a black mustache. Rich Zagone, whose company produced the mask as a joke to tweak people he calls "xenophobes," has pulled the product since the controversy began.
If he does sell it again next year, he says he'll have the words "Xenophobe's nightmare" stitched to the cap.
But Zagone added: "More than likely we will not sell it next year as we have learned that rubber masks do not make a good medium for social commentary."2009-10-20 20:40:14 GMT
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ AP Hispanic Affairs Writer
MIAMI (AP) - Immigrant advocates are urging retailers to pull a Halloween costume depicting a space creature in orange prison garb emblazoned with the words "illegal alien," while a group that supports strict immigration laws says such a move impinges on freedom of speech.
Beyond the holiday uproar, the dispute highlights the controversial nature of the phrase illegal alien - still the government's official term for those in the country without a visa, though many national politicians and media increasingly avoid using it.
Since Friday, when the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights in Los Angeles first raised the issue, companies including Target, Walgreens and eBay have removed the costume from their inventory. Still, many local retailers continue to stock the costume that also comes with a "green" card - which technically makes the alien legal.
At costume stores in Miami, the responses have been mixed.
Don King, whose mother immigrated from Cuba, bought pirate and Homer Simpson costumes Tuesday at Halloween USA in midtown Miami, where the costume is on sale but has attracted few customers. "It's a joke," King said. "I really don't think much of it."
A few miles away in the Little Havana neighborhood, workers at a popular costume store said it was not something they would carry because it was discriminatory. They do stock a human taco costume, replete with a Mariachi hat.
Cashier Carmen Torres, who recalled facing discrimination after arriving from Cuba as a young girl in the 1960s, said the costume was tasteless. "They haven't done anything bad. you can punish those who are criminals, but not people who are trying to, trying to work," Torres said.
Target has said it sold the costume online only and was posted by accident because it did not meet the company's standards. eBay said it asked sellers to remove the costume because it "does not allow items that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual, or religious intolerance, or promote organizations with such views."
Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the immigrant coalition, said the costume "perpetuates this idea we have about undocumented immigrants as alien foreigners, strangers, scary."
Cabrera said he knew the costume could be taken as a play on words but the jumpsuit was too close to what many immigrants must wear in detention centers, "where they can spend months at a time, and where there is a lot of suffering."
"That the creature was holding a green card was a stab at a (broader) community," he said, because it suggests even with a legal document, immigrants are still scary criminals.
But William Gheen, head of the North Carolina-based political action committee Americans for Legal Immigration, said efforts to get stores not to sell the costume amounted to an attack on freedom of speech. He urged Americans to buy the costumes in protest.
"I looked at the costume and thought it was kind of funny. The only thing that wasn't funny was how many illegal immigrants are in this country," said Gheen, who has given speeches suggesting Latin Americans are bringing an epidemic of tuberculosis to the U.S., despite government figures showing the illness is at an all-time low.
Gheen said he didn't understand why people would have a problem with words used in federal law.
"This is a battle over psycholinguistics," he said, referring to the study of the relationship between language and the psychology or behavior of those who use it. "Nobody is supposed to be able to use the words 'illegal aliens' ... except in the government literature."
There's a big difference between how words are used officially and what people say in popular language, said Charleton McIlwain, professor of race and media at New York University.
"When people (informally) talk about immigrants, the term aliens seems to almost exclusively get used for Mexicans or other Latin Americans. We don't talk about Canadian aliens," he said, adding that the prison jumpsuit creates an association with more serious crimes like drug dealing, rape and murder.
Many major media organizations, including The Associated Press, no longer use the term "Illegal Alien" unless quoting an individual or official statute.
During the 2008 election, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain rarely used the term, opting for "illegal immigrants" instead. More recently, though, Obama has picked up the phrase again, something Cabrera said he's concerned about as the debate over immigration reform heats up.
The illegal alien prisoner costume is not the only one out there. Another illegal alien mask recently on the market sported a baseball cap and a black mustache. Rich Zagone, whose company produced the mask as a joke to tweak people he calls "xenophobes," has pulled the product since the controversy began.
If he does sell it again next year, he says he'll have the words "Xenophobe's nightmare" stitched to the cap.
But Zagone added: "More than likely we will not sell it next year as we have learned that rubber masks do not make a good medium for social commentary."2009-10-20 20:40:14 GMT
Sunday, October 25, 2009
To Build Practice, Ex-Bush SG Embraces Liberal Clients
Until this summer, Paul Clement had never been hugged by a client.
He'd been in George W. Bush's solicitor general's office for eight years, building a reputation as one of the most skilled appellate advocates of his generation as he argued the trickiest of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts. But, he acknowledged wryly, "In government, your client tends to be abstract -- the United States of America. Or, slightly less abstract -- the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Clement left as solicitor general in June 2008, before the presidential election that would have put him out of a job. He returned to King & Spalding in November to build a Washington appellate practice in a souring economy, and before a Supreme Court that was still accepting only 75 cases per term.
So in one case he argued on Oct. 14, and another set for Nov. 4, Clement has taken on tough-to-win cases that are far from standard fare for a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and a Bush-era legal icon: In the first, he argued for enhanced fees for plaintiffs lawyers in a civil rights case, and, in the second, he represents a pair of men who were wrongly convicted in the murder of a retired Iowa police officer.
Which explains the hug.
In June, Clement traveled to Omaha, Neb., to pitch his pro bono services to Curtis McGhee Jr. and Terry Harrington, who had been found guilty in the 1977 murder of John Schweer in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The two, who spent 25 years in prison before being freed in 2003, are suing their Iowa prosecutors for violating their civil rights by falsifying evidence used against them before arrest and at trial. The suit bumps up against strong precedents that give prosecutors near-absolute immunity from liability for their official acts. The case isPottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington.
McGhee and Harrington were skeptical at first about hiring Clement, who had argued for law enforcement officials -- including in immunity cases -- for the Bush administration for so long. "They asked him, 'Why are you taking our case?' " recalled Steve Davis, McGhee's lawyer since 2004. Clement told them that, with his background, he can make the case that, even with prosecutorial immunity, as he put it, "there clearly has to be some conduct on the other side of the line" that does not deserve protecting from liability. By the end of the interview, Davis said, McGhee and Harrington were convinced he was their man. "They were very happy, and gave him a hug," said Davis.
Clement said his trip to Omaha was indeed "a remarkable experience," and the client hug was "a definite first."
The case Clement argued on Oct. 14 for Children's Rights Inc. in Perdue v. Kenny A was also a first for him. The group and its lawyers were seeking a fee enhancement under a federal fee-shifting statute after winning a class action challenge to Georgia's foster care system. The group's executive director, Marcia Lowry, said she sought out Clement after being told by several friends in the public interest sector that "Paul was the best oral advocate they'd ever seen." She also wanted to telegraph that seeking fee enhancements "was not a 'liberal' issue only. I liked the idea of someone with government background and a Republican."
The Georgia case marked Clement's 50th argument before the high court, a rare achievement for a 43-year-old. His first argument was in March 2001 in Saucier v. Katz -- an immunity case, as it happens. Clement's firm threw a party at the Willard InterContinental Hotel Oct. 22 to mark the milestone.
Clement allowed that his first two Supreme Court cases in private practice have been unusual. In both, he noted, the solicitor general's office he once ran has opposed him, even tough it's under new, presumably more liberal, management. But Clement said his conservative political views have not changed. "I haven't had a conversion on the road to Damascus or anywhere else," he said. So what to make of Clement's new clients? "What it signifies is that I'm no longer working for the government," he answered.
Indeed it is the way of Washington and modern legal practice for former government lawyers to add former adversaries or their ilk to their client rosters once they enter private practice. Republican predecessors have surely done it: Kenneth Starr has represented death row inmates, and Theodore Olson is arguing on behalf of same-sex marriage in California. Democrats likewise: Since leaving the SG's office, Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman have leavened pro bono work and liberal causes with representing corporate giants such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Wyeth.
Clement's former deputy, Thomas Hungar, who now works with Olson at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, cut Clement slack. "The practice mix tends to change when you leave the government," said Hungar, who said Clement's latest cases appeared to be "quite a switch."
Still, some can't resist the irony of Clement's new clientele. "Paul's invitation to join NACDL is in the mail," joked Jeffrey Green of Sidley Austin, who often works with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and argued against Clement's SG office in criminal cases. "We all have tremendous faith in Paul's intellect and prodigious argument skills as a new member of the dark side."
More seriously, Green said that Clement's role in the Iowa case is another sign that "pro bono cases that no one wanted to touch a few years ago are now being fought over."
Clement has joined that fight even as he juggles a traditional corporate practice that is keeping him busy in lower courts. He's defending Chevron USA Inc. in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against charges that global warming intensified the impact of Hurricane Katrina. And he just filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Food and Drug Administration of behalf of Allergan Inc. to protect marketing of off-label uses for Botox.
Clement pursued the Iowa ex-convicts aggressively, said Davis, the lawyer who represents McGhee. Clement was one of several top lawyers who called as soon as Pottawattamie County was granted.
What impressed him about Clement, he recalled, was that "Paul had read everything, and he had a plan" for how to argue the case. Clement's conservative pedigree was also a factor, said Davis. "Consider where we're going. The Supreme Court is a conservative place," said Davis. "The justices know him, and they'll look at him and say to themselves, 'He's on their side.'"
Clement's brief details a county attorney's office hell-bent on finding the murderer of a popular ex-police officer in an election year, resulting in "the most egregious breach of public trust and resulting deprivation imaginable." Prosecutors shifted their attention from a suspect who was white and had been seen in the area carrying a shotgun, toward a group of blacks. Clement claims a witness was coerced to pinpoint Harrington and McGhee, and jailhouse informants were recruited to make false statements about them.
Both were found guilty and sentenced to life, spending more than 20 years in prison before evidence of the fabrications was unearthed. In 2005, they filed civil rights suits against the county and its prosecutors. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the prosecutors did not have absolute immunity, because they acted as investigators rather than prosecutors when the fabrications began.
Stephen Sanders of Mayer Brown in Chicago, who has represented Pottawatamie County since 2007 and will argue opposite Clement, said Clement's allegations "are just that -- allegations, and if the case went to trial, we would vigorously contest them."
Long ago, Sanders said, the Supreme Court decided that in the "balance of evils" between prosecutorial misconduct and exposing prosecutors to liability, prosecutors should be shielded. Sanders, an associate, is making his first argument before the high court.
Clement, who almost certainly would be on a Republican short list for a Supreme Court appointment, scoffed when asked whether the more liberal complexion of his caseload is aimed at softening his conservative image for a possible future Supreme Court appointment under a Republican administration. Said Clement, "Anyone who tries to pick clients based on future job prospects is doomed to failure."
(To view this story from its original site, follow this link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434912722&To_Build_Practice_ExBush_SG_Embraces_Liberal_Clients ).
What Was BofA Lawyer's Advice on Merrill? It Depended on the Audience
Eric Roth, a litigation partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, apparently was telling the Bank of America Corp. leadership one story about how difficult it would be to escape from the merger with Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., while singing quite a different tune to the federal government.
E-mails from Roth and in-house lawyers at the bank were among documents released last week from theHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is investigating the merger. Roth and Bank of America representatives did not return calls for comment on this story.
The e-mails show that early on the morning of Dec. 19 Roth advised the bank's chief executive, Ken Lewis, and its interim general counsel, Brian Moynihan, on how difficult and financially risky it would be to try to invoke a so-called MAC -- or material adverse change -- clause, which would allow the bank to get out of the merger with Merrill.
But another e-mail from associate general counsel Teresa Brenner to Moynihan, sent several hours later and on the same day as Roth's e-mail, says, "Eric made a very strong case as to why there was a MAC" during a conference call with some officials from the Federal Reserve.
The e-mails appear to confirm previous Corporate Counsel stories that the bank was telling federal regulators that it wanted to declare the MAC, even though its own lawyers and leaders knew that legally it probably could not succeed. If the bank were to make public its MAC threat, government regulators have said Merrill would have collapsed, causing severe damage to the shaky U.S. financial system at the time.
Roth's four-page e-mail begins: "Brian - As discussed, a draft of Ken's litigation-related talking points. Eric." Copied on the e-mail are Wachtell partners Edward Herlihy, Nicholas Demmo, Peter Hein, Richard Kim and Matthew Guest. Hein, like Roth, is a litigation lawyer; the rest practice corporate law.
The e-mail says any attempt to invoke the MAC would certainly cause Merrill to file suit. Roth then lists a half dozen reasons why Merrill's arguments could prevail in court. It lists no argument in Bank of America's favor. But perhaps the most compelling fact on the list was this one: The merger deal is governed by Delaware law and "no Delaware court has ever found that a MAC occurred permitting an acquiror to terminate a merger agreement."
Roth's e-mail concludes: "The potential danger here is that, if we declare a MAC and MER's business loses even more value as a result because, for example, retail customers pull their funds out, and then we litigate the MAC issue and lose, we could be required to close on a deal where MER is worth even less than it is today."
Still only hours later, according to associate GC Brenner's e-mail, Roth was on the phone trying to convince federal regulators why Bank of America believed it had a strong case to declare a MAC. Her e-mail refers to "Eric and Peter" with the names Roth and Hein scribbled in long hand on the copies released by investigators.
Brenner's e-mail states that all questions other than one came from a "prickly" Thomas Baxter Jr., general counsel of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The other question came from Scott Alvarez, general counsel to the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. Baxter "pointed out that there had never been a successful MAC case before," the e-mail says, but Roth countered "that this one essentially could be the first" because of the magnitude of Merrill's losses.
Baxter then asked if the bank or the board had outside counsel other than Wachtell, "and we advised we did not," Brenner's note says.
The e-mails and discussions were followed over the next several days with phone calls between Lewis and federal regulators, including U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.
During those calls, Lewis repeatedly said the bank believed it had a MAC. Paulson has testified that he told Lewis "that it would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis."
But the government blinked first, and agreed to give the bank more than $20 billion in extra bailout funds after it closed the merger on Jan. 1.
(To view this story from its original site, follow this link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434913787 ).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)