Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202585797862&rss=rss_nlj
free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney
Thursday, January 31, 2013
E-DISCOVERY: A SPECIAL REPORT: Five cases made for a momentous year in predictive coding
They reflected widely differing approaches by judges and parties involved.
The BP Oil Spill Case and Large Volume E-Discovery
How do you efficiently handle large volume e-discovery in a high-profile case? Digital Detectives co-hosts, Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, get expert advice from Joe Mulenex, the Regional Technical Director for Avansic, who assisted the discovery team for the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in the BP Oil Spill case. Joe discusses the biggest challenges of handling documents and the importance of project management. He also shares his biggest e-discovery take away from this case.
colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law
How Law Firms Can Track Time
How does your firm track time? On The Un-Billable Hour, host Attorney Rodney Dowell, Executive Director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and Director of LCL’s Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program joins Danny Wen, Co-founder of Harvest Software and Sri Vemuri, Marketing Manager at Harvest Software, to discuss how law firms can track time and invoice clients in a way that captures more time and allows attorneys to receive payment more quickly.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2012/02/how-law-firms-can-track-time/
criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers
Evaluating and Negotiating Workers’ Compensation Claims
Closing a workers’ compensation claim involves a two-step process: evaluation and negotiation. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen joins colleague, Teddy Snyder, Esq. and Attorney Sylvia Lopez from Bakersfield, California, to talk about closing workers’ compensation claims. They explore the risks and advantages to a claimant and employer in closing a workers’ compensation claim, the importance of rated age and how a structured settlement can give injured workers the best of both worlds.
legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information legal news
Cryopreserved Embryos in Divorce Cases
Charles Kindregan, professor of law at Suffolk University Law School, discusses the emerging legal issues regarding cryopreserved embryos in divorce cases. Learn more about Professor Kindregan at http://bit.ly/hqQg1q.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/02/cryopreserved-embryos-in-divorce-cases/
Defending a Serial Killer
What is it like to defend one of America’s most infamous serial killers? Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join retired judge and lawyer, Sam L. Amirante, and retired lawyer, Daniel J. Broderick, to discuss their new book, John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster, and the constitutional right to a defense.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/defending-a-serial-killer/
legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information legal news
DOMA down, but why?
The 1st Circuit today held that the Defense of Marriage Act's denial of federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional. Massachusetts v. US Department of Health and Human Services (1st Cir 05/31/2012).
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Section 3 prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint tax returns, prevent a surviving spouse from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, and prevents federal employees from sharing medical benefits with same-sex spouses.
The trial court held that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional; the 1st Circuit affirmed.
The court's decision surveys equal protection and federalism issues and concludes that "governing precedents under both heads combine - not to create some new category of 'heightened scrutiny,' ..., but rather to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage."
Thus the court gave less deference to, and "closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern."
The court concluded that denial of federal benefits to same-sex married couples "has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."
The court stayed its mandate, thus extending the trial court's stay, in anticipation of the losing parties seeking certiorari in the US Supreme Court.
My view:
This is a decision, purportedly based on the US Constitution, that essentially avoids making an explicit connection to the text of the Constitution.
The idea is that states regulate marriage, the federal government may have something to say in this regard, but the reasons behind the federal government's actions didn't have enough oomph. No, there's no 10th amendment violation, and no violation of the Spending Clause. And no, there's no "strict scrutiny" going on. And no "new category of 'heightened scrutiny.'" But wait, let's give the legislation "closer scrutiny."
I'm no fan of DOMA, but it's not really clear to me what this court is doing.
[By the way, similar DOMA issues are pending in the 9th Circuit.]
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/05/doma_down_but_w.html
Recent tax law changes of 2013
On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 into law. Summarized below are highlights of those and other changes to Federal tax laws affecting income, payroll, gift and estate, and generation-skipping transfer taxes beginning in 2013.
New top federal marginal rates – ordinary income, capital gains, and qualified dividends
39.6% top ordinary income tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold taxable incomes listed below, the highest marginal ordinary income tax rate increases from 35% to 39.6%. The 39.6% rate is a reinstatement of the highest rate from before the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts.
| Filing Status | Threshold taxable income amounts |
| Single | $400,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $450,000 |
The threshold amounts will be adjusted for inflation annually.
20% top capital gain and qualified dividend tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold incomes listed above, the tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income increases from 15% to 20%.
3.8% Medicare tax on net investment income
For individuals above the threshold “modified adjusted gross income” amounts listed below, the net investment income tax, or NIIT, of 3.8% applies. The NIIT applies to a wide range of investment income, including certain long term capital gains and qualified dividends. In effect, the top tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income will be 23.8% for those whose income exceeds $450,000 ($400,000, if single).
The NIIT also applies to certain short term capital gains, ordinary dividends, interest, rental and royalty income, nonqualified annuities, income from businesses involved in trading of financial instruments or commodities, and income from businesses that are passive activities for the taxpayer.
| Filing status | Threshold modified adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Phaseout of itemized deductions reinstated
Beginning in 2013, the itemized deduction phaseout will be reinstated for taxpayers above the applicable threshold amount listed below. The phaseout reduces itemized deductions by the lesser of 3% of the adjusted gross income amount above the threshold amount, or 80% of the otherwise allocable itemized deductions.
| Filing status | Threshold adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $250,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $300,000 |
Permanent AMT relief
Beginning in 2012 tax years, the AMT exemption amounts are permanently increased as listed in the table below and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
| Filing status | Increased 2012 exemption amounts |
| Single | $50,600 |
| Married filing jointly | $78,750 |
0.9% additional FICA Medicare tax
Beginning on January 1, 2013, an additional 0.9% FICA Medicare tax applies to earnings above the threshold amounts listed below. The highest applicable FICA Medicare tax rate for employees increases from 1.45% to 2.35%, and for the self-employed from 2.9% to 3.8%.
| Filing status | Threshold earnings amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Expiration of 2% FICA Social Security tax cut
Beginning on January 1, 2013, the 6.2% rate is reinstated for the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax. This is due to the expiration of the temporary 2% rate reduction in the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2% on December 31, 2012. For the self-employed, the FICA Social Security tax rate of 10.4% reverts to 12.4%. The FICA wage base for 2013 is $113,700 and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
Section 1202 tax break extended through 2013
The 100% exclusion of certain gains from the sale of qualifying small business stock, or QSBS, under Section 1202 has been extended to acquisitions of QSBS from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. Generally, QSBS must meet the following conditions: the stock was acquired at original issue from a domestic C corporation with gross assets of no more than $50,000,000, the C corporation met certain active business requirements, and the stock was held for more than five years. The amount of excludible gain is limited to the greater of $10,000,000 in aggregate gains, or 10 times the aggregate basis in QSBS.
Section 1374 built in gains relief extended through 2013
The previously reduced five year recognition period for computing built-in gains tax of an S corporation under Section 1374 has been extended to taxable years beginning in 2012 and 2013. The recognition period was to increase to ten years in 2012 until the five year recognition period was extended through 2013.
This tax applies if, during the recognition period, a C corporation converts to an S Corporation and then sells, for a gain, assets that were appreciated in value at the time of the conversion. Those “built-in gains” are taxed at the highest marginal corporate tax rate of 35%. Normally, the recognition period is the ten year period from the first day of the first taxable year for which the S election is effective.
Gift and estate tax exclusion, rates, and portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount
$5,000,000 gift and estate tax exclusion
The gift and estate tax, and generation-skipping transfer tax exclusion amount has been permanently set at $5,000,000, adjusted annually for inflation. The exclusion amount for 2013 is $5,250,000. Without this change, the exclusion amount would have fallen to or around $1,000,000 as of January 1, 2013.
40% top gift and estate tax rates
The gift and estate tax rate on transfers as of January 1, 2013 above the exclusion amount were increased as listed below. The highest rate increased from 35% to 40%. Without the new 40% rate, the highest marginal gift and estate tax rate would have increased to 55%.
Portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount made permanent
A surviving spouse’s election to include his or her deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount will now be a permanent option. This portability election would have expired on December 31, 2012 without this change.
Source:
http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/tax-recent-tax-law-changes-of-2013.html
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Polling Firm Gallup Lands In Legal Hot Water
The company's name has been tarnished by a whistle-blower lawsuit alleging that it overcharged the federal government, and by a guilty plea from a former FEMA executive for improperly steering business to the polling firm. For now, Gallup has been suspended from winning any new federal contracts.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/30/170598814/polling-firm-gallup-lands-in-legal-hot-water?ft=1&f=1070
Former American Idol Contestant Hits Gibson Dunn, MoFo, Others with $120 Million Defamation Suit
Former American Idol contestant Corey Clark is suing a group that includes Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Morrison & Foerster, as well as E! Entertainment Television and Fox, accusing all four defendants of libel and false light invasion of privacy over statements made following his ouster from the program and in connection with his claims that he and TV show co-host Paula Abdul had an affair.
bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney
Is Your Food Safe?
3,000 Americans die every year from food-borne illnesses. Recent warnings include listeria in lettuce, salmonella in tuna and E. coli in ground beef. So, is the food Americans eat safe? Are the FDA, USDA and federal laws doing enough to keep our food supply free from potentially deadly pathogens? Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney, Craig Williams gets the facts from food safety experts, William Marler, Managing Partner of Marler Clark and Editor of Food Safety News, and Dr. Michael Doyle, the Director of the University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/05/is-your-food-safe/
legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help
America's First Great Depression: Economic Crisis and Political Disorder after the Panic of 1837
Alasdair Roberts, Suffolk Law's Rappaport Professor of Law and Public Policy, discusses his upcoming book and how it relates to the United States economy today. Learn more about Professor Roberts at http://bit.ly/zTKaZP.
bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney
Response to @RadleyBalko: Why Loser Pays in Criminal Law is a Loser
Following my dismissal of the same old ideas for fixing the criminal justice system, Radley Balko twitted "Why is it a bad idea for the state to pay the legal costs of people who are acquitted?" He went on to twit, "Even [if] there's no larger effect, seems like a just policy."
Unfortunately, this happened on twitter, so that readers weren't aware of his questions, and there was no ability to explain with any degree of depth. As fun and easy as twitter may be, it's not a good medium for thoughtful discussion. For this reason, I refuse to start something on twitter that's either doomed to fail or merely incapable of doing any more than scratching the surface.
But if Radley questions why this proffered fix shouldn't be given a try, I assume others do as well, and it's worthy of a real response. In Glenn Reynolds' 6-page opus, he explains this fix:
What a great idea, for guys who do what I do at least. The reluctance criminal defendants now have in putting their own money up for their defense, applying whatever cost-benefit analysis naturally happens in their heads, would certainly get a boost from the prospect of getting the money back on the other side.
After all, there are two things that are almost invariably present at the beginning of a criminal defense: The defendant believes he's innocent, regardless of how guilty he may be, or the defendant believes the prosecution can't really prove his guilty. The ubiquitous question, "do they have it on videotape? Huh? Huh?" said to convince us that there is no way the defendant can lose because there is no way the government can prove their guilt. Except the prisons are filled with people whose guilt couldn't possibly be prove to the defendants way of thinking. How could that possibly be?
The problem is that defendant often begin their defense in a delusional state of absurd denial, grasping onto odd straws that they, their spouses, their great aunt in Selma, the guy on the corner, assert with absolute certainty will result in their freedom. And this is before they find religion.
Introducing a financial incentive to secure a conviction to the already overwhelming incentives that drive cops to coerce confessions and nudge identifications, and prosecutors to bury the Brady and provide excessive coaching to their victims, is just fuel to the fire. If the defendant would recover his legal fees (and how much was recoverable according to a judge's vision of reasonable fees is another issue, but one that will never need to be addressed), the money would have to come from somewhere, some budget. Whose? Which bureaucracy would be willing to take the hit? Which piece of the prosecution side would be strong enough, honest enough, reliable enough, to ignore the potentially ruinous financial consequences and maintain fealty to the rules and Constitution?
And why, if the group's devotion to justice is so strong, can't they be trusted now, without the additional burden of a financial incentive?
Then we have the judiciary, which costs money to run as well. The judges don't hold bake sales, but depend on the legislature to fund their operations. If the decisions of the judges end up busting budgets, even a little bit, the power of the purse will come to bear. It may be subtle. It may be blatant. But it most assuredly will be, as politicians are disinclined to suffer the anger of their constituents when they have to raise taxes to cover gaps that judges could close. While we may not have much judicial independence now, there will certainly be less when there is money involved.
And finally, we come to the beneficiaries of the concept, the defendants. Already, defendants are faced with unbearable choices, to plead or fight. The equation is now a difficult balancing act of risk of conviction and severity of sentence. The discussion is brutal, as few defendants have any appreciation of the weight or nature of evidence, or why all their really good reasons why they shouldn't be convicted won't come out at trial. They want to be heard, but they don't want to testify. They want the truth to be known, but they can't risk cross-examination. They didn't do this crime, but there are the three same priors lingering in the air.
Add a financial incentive into this mix, where they may not only win acquittal but get their money back, and the influence will skew their unduly optimistic view off the charts. Should defendants choose to go to trial because they have a viable defense and a good chance of winning, or should they go to trial because they can get their money back? How many defendants will suffer the trial tax because money influenced one of the most difficult decisions of their life?
And these are the reasons why this idea, seemingly "just" on its surface, would prove problematic, if not disastrous, in real life. And this is why the response wasn't suitable for a twit.
As long as we're at it, Radley also questioned by twit why I wasn't more open to embracing the ideas proffered by Glenn Reynolds and Conor Friedersdorf, "And it's probably more productive to engage, persuade new allies than to shun and mock them." Since I hate to be a shunner or mocker, and I try to be relatively informative as reflected in this response to Radley's query, I look forward to Reynolds and Friedersdorf, our new allies, engaging. Engage away, guys. Your turn. Anyone?
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Unfortunately, this happened on twitter, so that readers weren't aware of his questions, and there was no ability to explain with any degree of depth. As fun and easy as twitter may be, it's not a good medium for thoughtful discussion. For this reason, I refuse to start something on twitter that's either doomed to fail or merely incapable of doing any more than scratching the surface.
But if Radley questions why this proffered fix shouldn't be given a try, I assume others do as well, and it's worthy of a real response. In Glenn Reynolds' 6-page opus, he explains this fix:
Another remedy might be a “loser pays” rule for criminal defense costs. After all, when a person is charged with a crime, the defense – for which non-indigent defendants bear the cost – is an integral part of the criminal justice process. For guilty defendants, one might view this cost as part of the punishment. But for those found not guilty, it looks more like a taking: Spend this money in the public interest, to support a public endeavor, or go to jail. To further discipline the process, we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant’s legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging.
What a great idea, for guys who do what I do at least. The reluctance criminal defendants now have in putting their own money up for their defense, applying whatever cost-benefit analysis naturally happens in their heads, would certainly get a boost from the prospect of getting the money back on the other side.
After all, there are two things that are almost invariably present at the beginning of a criminal defense: The defendant believes he's innocent, regardless of how guilty he may be, or the defendant believes the prosecution can't really prove his guilty. The ubiquitous question, "do they have it on videotape? Huh? Huh?" said to convince us that there is no way the defendant can lose because there is no way the government can prove their guilt. Except the prisons are filled with people whose guilt couldn't possibly be prove to the defendants way of thinking. How could that possibly be?
The problem is that defendant often begin their defense in a delusional state of absurd denial, grasping onto odd straws that they, their spouses, their great aunt in Selma, the guy on the corner, assert with absolute certainty will result in their freedom. And this is before they find religion.
Introducing a financial incentive to secure a conviction to the already overwhelming incentives that drive cops to coerce confessions and nudge identifications, and prosecutors to bury the Brady and provide excessive coaching to their victims, is just fuel to the fire. If the defendant would recover his legal fees (and how much was recoverable according to a judge's vision of reasonable fees is another issue, but one that will never need to be addressed), the money would have to come from somewhere, some budget. Whose? Which bureaucracy would be willing to take the hit? Which piece of the prosecution side would be strong enough, honest enough, reliable enough, to ignore the potentially ruinous financial consequences and maintain fealty to the rules and Constitution?
And why, if the group's devotion to justice is so strong, can't they be trusted now, without the additional burden of a financial incentive?
Then we have the judiciary, which costs money to run as well. The judges don't hold bake sales, but depend on the legislature to fund their operations. If the decisions of the judges end up busting budgets, even a little bit, the power of the purse will come to bear. It may be subtle. It may be blatant. But it most assuredly will be, as politicians are disinclined to suffer the anger of their constituents when they have to raise taxes to cover gaps that judges could close. While we may not have much judicial independence now, there will certainly be less when there is money involved.
And finally, we come to the beneficiaries of the concept, the defendants. Already, defendants are faced with unbearable choices, to plead or fight. The equation is now a difficult balancing act of risk of conviction and severity of sentence. The discussion is brutal, as few defendants have any appreciation of the weight or nature of evidence, or why all their really good reasons why they shouldn't be convicted won't come out at trial. They want to be heard, but they don't want to testify. They want the truth to be known, but they can't risk cross-examination. They didn't do this crime, but there are the three same priors lingering in the air.
Add a financial incentive into this mix, where they may not only win acquittal but get their money back, and the influence will skew their unduly optimistic view off the charts. Should defendants choose to go to trial because they have a viable defense and a good chance of winning, or should they go to trial because they can get their money back? How many defendants will suffer the trial tax because money influenced one of the most difficult decisions of their life?
And these are the reasons why this idea, seemingly "just" on its surface, would prove problematic, if not disastrous, in real life. And this is why the response wasn't suitable for a twit.
As long as we're at it, Radley also questioned by twit why I wasn't more open to embracing the ideas proffered by Glenn Reynolds and Conor Friedersdorf, "And it's probably more productive to engage, persuade new allies than to shun and mock them." Since I hate to be a shunner or mocker, and I try to be relatively informative as reflected in this response to Radley's query, I look forward to Reynolds and Friedersdorf, our new allies, engaging. Engage away, guys. Your turn. Anyone?
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
Google Just Said No
For a brief, shining moment, Sen. Patrick Leahy told us he was going to make law enforcement get warrants to obtain our information from the internet. And then, poof, it was gone. Law enforcement patiently explained to the good senator that it would make their lives more difficult, and he said, "Oh no, we can't have that."
But there was another way. A way that few of us considered, and fewer still ever believed could happen. While the law required nothing more of the government than the mere asking, it didn't require the recipients of the request to comply. The targets of government subpoenas for our lives weren't obliged to cooperate.
And someone at Google, maybe the Jolly Good Fellow, decided to just say no. In an article in Wired, via Grits for Breakfast:
The government asked. Google delivered. That's the way it worked. Until now.
What Congress is too cowardly to give us, Google will provide.
The significance of Google's new stance, its demand for a search warrant before turning over information to the government, cannot be overstated. Entire lives are online, our most personal information and most private moments, exist on third party servers. The courts, explaining that by handing our information over to the cloud, say we have forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy, though most ordinary people have no idea what they've given away.
Whenever a court has concluded that the third-party doctrine lives, it regurgitates the words of computer experts, who explain how the tubes of the internet actually work. Most of us don't know, or care, how it actually works, and we're just pretty happy that we can watch funny kitten videos on Youtube from our cellphones. It's a miracle. It's less of a miracle should your life be laid out before you from your search history and emails.
The fact that neither our courts nor our legislators feel particularly concerned at how privacy has been eviscerated by a doctrine that makes no sense whatsoever in the digital age, and how the reasonable expectation of privacy of ordinary people died a quiet, but horribly painful death, left many to believe that there was no hope for the future of privacy. Google's change of policy offers new, unanticipated hope.
That doesn't mean, however, that private corporations will provide a public service by honoring the Constitution where governmental entities will not.
Whether that last sentence is accurate is doubtful. It's hard to imagine the FBI shaking in its boots at the idea of Justice Scalia becoming a champion for internet privacy. Rather, the question is whether Google's refusal to honor "requests" in the form of a disconnected subpoena will subject it to sanctions. The principled stance taken by Google may crumble if fines start piling up, or even incarceration of the Jolly Good Fellow for contempt.
As for others Internet Service Providers, they may wait to see what happens to the 800 pound gorilla of the internet before deciding whether to stare down the government. Or they may be more than happy to be compliant servants of law enforcement, offering up whatever they have and sending a box of donuts along for good measure. It never hurts to have friends in high places. With full stomaches.
For now, at least, Google has decided not to play the game any longer. If the government has a warrant, they will honor it as the law requires. But without a warrant, the government can stick it. That's guts.
For quite a long time now, the argument has raged over whether the Fourth Amendment protects our digital lives from unfettered intrusion by the government. The fight has not gone particularly well for privacy, and the foremost scholar on the subject, Orin Kerr, has not been particularly supportive of what most people reasonably believe to be private.
And so Google has decided not to play the government's game as a matter of principle. Well done, Google. You are a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
But there was another way. A way that few of us considered, and fewer still ever believed could happen. While the law required nothing more of the government than the mere asking, it didn't require the recipients of the request to comply. The targets of government subpoenas for our lives weren't obliged to cooperate.
And someone at Google, maybe the Jolly Good Fellow, decided to just say no. In an article in Wired, via Grits for Breakfast:
The development surfaced as Google publicly announced that more than two-thirds of the user data Google forwards to government agencies across the United States is handed over without a probable-cause warrant.
A Google spokesman told Wired that the media giant demands that government agencies — from the locals to the feds — get a probable-cause warrant for content on its e-mail, Google Drive cloud storage and other platforms — despite the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allowing the government to access such customer data without a warrant if it’s stored on Google’s servers for more than 180 days.
The government asked. Google delivered. That's the way it worked. Until now.
Google demands probable-cause, court-issued warrants to divulge the contents of Gmail and other cloud-stored documents to authorities in the United States — a startling revelation Wednesday that runs counter to federal law that does not always demand warrants.
“Google requires an ECPA search warrant for contents of Gmail and other services based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents unreasonable search and seizure,” Chris Gaither, a Google spokesman, said.
What Congress is too cowardly to give us, Google will provide.
The significance of Google's new stance, its demand for a search warrant before turning over information to the government, cannot be overstated. Entire lives are online, our most personal information and most private moments, exist on third party servers. The courts, explaining that by handing our information over to the cloud, say we have forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy, though most ordinary people have no idea what they've given away.
Whenever a court has concluded that the third-party doctrine lives, it regurgitates the words of computer experts, who explain how the tubes of the internet actually work. Most of us don't know, or care, how it actually works, and we're just pretty happy that we can watch funny kitten videos on Youtube from our cellphones. It's a miracle. It's less of a miracle should your life be laid out before you from your search history and emails.
The fact that neither our courts nor our legislators feel particularly concerned at how privacy has been eviscerated by a doctrine that makes no sense whatsoever in the digital age, and how the reasonable expectation of privacy of ordinary people died a quiet, but horribly painful death, left many to believe that there was no hope for the future of privacy. Google's change of policy offers new, unanticipated hope.
That doesn't mean, however, that private corporations will provide a public service by honoring the Constitution where governmental entities will not.
It was not immediately known whether other ISPs are traveling Google’s path when it comes to demanding probable-cause warrants for all stored content. But Google can seemingly grant more privacy than the four corners of the law allows because there’s been a string of conflicting court opinions on whether warrants are required for data stored on third-party servers longer than 180 days. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on the topic — and the authorities are seemingly abiding by Google’s rules to avoid a high court showdown.
Whether that last sentence is accurate is doubtful. It's hard to imagine the FBI shaking in its boots at the idea of Justice Scalia becoming a champion for internet privacy. Rather, the question is whether Google's refusal to honor "requests" in the form of a disconnected subpoena will subject it to sanctions. The principled stance taken by Google may crumble if fines start piling up, or even incarceration of the Jolly Good Fellow for contempt.
As for others Internet Service Providers, they may wait to see what happens to the 800 pound gorilla of the internet before deciding whether to stare down the government. Or they may be more than happy to be compliant servants of law enforcement, offering up whatever they have and sending a box of donuts along for good measure. It never hurts to have friends in high places. With full stomaches.
For now, at least, Google has decided not to play the game any longer. If the government has a warrant, they will honor it as the law requires. But without a warrant, the government can stick it. That's guts.
For quite a long time now, the argument has raged over whether the Fourth Amendment protects our digital lives from unfettered intrusion by the government. The fight has not gone particularly well for privacy, and the foremost scholar on the subject, Orin Kerr, has not been particularly supportive of what most people reasonably believe to be private.
And so Google has decided not to play the government's game as a matter of principle. Well done, Google. You are a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/01/26/google-just-said-no.aspx?ref=rss
lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice legal advice online
Bridging the Gap in Copyright Protection of Symbols, Shapes and Letters
In this episode of the IP Issues podcast series, Thomas McNulty and Julia Mathis of Lando & Anastasi, LLP discuss copyright protection of symbols, geometric shapes, and letters. Learn more about Lando & Anastasi, LLP at http://www.lalaw.com.
criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
Gone Clio with Attorney Michael J. P. Schewe
On this edition of Gone Clio, Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Attorney Michael J. P. Schewe of Schewe Law LLC. Michael talks about his passion for employment-related issues, the pros and cons of starting your own law firm, and how Clio makes him confident when a malpractice issue comes up.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/08/gone-clio-with-attorney-michael-j-p-schewe/
family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Illinois governor signs bill allowing illegal immigrant driver's licenses
[JURIST] Illinois Governor Pat Quinn [official website] signed a bill [SB 0957 text, PDF] on Sunday that will permit immigrants in the country illegally to obtain temporary driver's licenses if they can provide proof of one-year state residence and an unexpired passport from their country of citizenship or a valid unexpired consular identification document and a photograph. The bill will allow potential licensees to take both written and driving tests and would require them to have proof of auto insurance,...
criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer
Harvesting Intellectual Property: Inspired Beginnings and "Work-Makes-Work," Two Stages in the Creative Process of Artists and Innovators
Professor Jessica Silbey of Suffolk University Law School discusses her Intellectual Property law research, as described in her recent article in Notre Dame Law Review Volume 86, Issue 5 and her upcoming book. Read the article at http://bit.ly/A927vO.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/01/harvesting-intellectual-property/
civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law
Lawyer2Lawyer 7th Anniversary
On the longest continually produced legal podcast, Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and J.Craig Williams share their experiences with great guests and insightful legal topics - some serious and some not so serious. And hear a behind the scenes special interview.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/08/lawyer2lawyer-7th-anniversary/
IP Intensive Industries: Part One
Professor David L. Lange, Melvin Shimm Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, joins us for our latest Intellectual Property podcast. Learn more about Professor Lange at http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/lange.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/05/ip-intensive-industries-part-one/
attorney fees attorney finder attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys
NLRB "recess" appointments were unconstitutional; Board lacked a quorum
Noel Canning v. NLRB (DC Cir 01/25/2013)
The DC Circuit this morning held that the President's attempt to make "recess" appointments of three NLRB Members was invalid under the constitution.
On February 8, 2012 the Board issued its decision finding that the employer violated the NLRA by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement reached with Teamsters Local 760. At that time the Board purportedly had five members. Two of these had been confirmed by the Senate. Three of these were appointed on January 4, 2012, purportedly pursuant to the constitution's recess clause.
At the time of the President’s purported recess appointments, the Senate was operating pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement, which provided that the Senate would meet in pro forma sessions every three business days from December 20, 2011, through January 23, 2012. The DC Circuit held that "recess" appointments must occur during an "intersession" recess of the Senate, that is to say, the period between sessions of the Senate when the Senate is by definition not in session and therefore unavailable to receive and act upon nominations from the President.
Because the appointments were invalid, the Board lacked a quorum (three Members) and its order was "void."
Lots of chatter from all over:
- New York Times
- Wall Street Journal
- Workplace Prof Blog
- New York Labor and Employment Law Report
- Faculty Lounge
- Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer
- SCOTUSblog
- Employment Law Watch
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2013/01/nlrb_recess_app_1.html
IOLTA changes
Reminder note: IOLTA protection has changed as of January 1st ... Be sure you review your clients' trust account to confirm that your accounts are in balance and that they are below the maximum now protected. There no longer is unlimited protection ... and that means that you may be personally liable for a bank defalcation that impacts your holdings. Check with the FDIC, or call 1-877--ASK-FDIC, or talk to your local banker to learn more.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/0-2wzI2Naaw/
find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice
Legal Talk Network Live at LegalTechNY 2012-Burke & Company’s Christy Burke Talks About What’s New in Legal Industry
Christy Burke, from Burke & Company tells us about networking and shares the "latest and greatest" in legal technology. Christy also comments on exciting happenings within the legal industry including: convergence, mergers and acquisitions, and competition. Be sure to watch the interview, hosted by Legal Talk Network producer, Kate Kenney.
personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney
The Return of Black Lung and the Law
A recent investigation found the rate of miners diagnosed with Black Lung Disease is surging after nearly three decades of decline. Some blame lenient regulations, lax enforcement, even manipulation of air samples from mines. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the reasons behind this shocking increase and a breakdown of Black Lung litigation from Chris Hamby, the author of the Center for Public Integrity report, and Attorney Stephen Sanders, the director of Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-return-of-black-lung-and-the-law/
criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws
Monday, January 28, 2013
Douglas Cawley of McKool Smith
Douglas Cawley, principal of McKool Smith in Dallas and a patent lawyer, tells how he works to make jurors comfortable with the idea of large verdicts.
divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers
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/
find an attorney find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation
Google Explains How It Handles Police Requests For Users' Data
For the first time, Google has posted its policies for when it gives up users' information to the government. It's part of a broader company strategy to push for tougher privacy laws.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office
Legal Issues Created by Story World Communities and Transmedia
The rise of interactive story world communities and transmedia marketing campaigns has brought about scores of intellectual property, copyright law and creation rights issues. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, bring together Esther Lim, the Founder of The Estuary and Scott Walker, the President of Brain Candy, for an in-depth analysis of the questions and concerns generated by collaborative entertainment and multi-platform interactive engagement.
free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer
THE PRACTICE: Three steps that can upgrade psychiatric evidence
Requiring collateral evidence, transparency and peer review can improve its integrity when used in case assessments.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202585689279&rss=rss_nlj
Gone Clio with Paul "Woody" Scott
Listen as Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Attorney Paul "Woody" Scott, founder of The Scott Law Firm, based in Louisiana. Jack and Woody talk about Dropbox and its integration with Clio, disaster recovery and how digital and the cloud can save on overhead in your firm.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/04/gone-clio-with-paul-woody-scott/
lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Secure Your Legal Data in the Cloud
The use of cloud-based services and technology is top-of-mind for many law departments today, who wonder, "Is the cloud really secure enough to store my company’s confidential legal data?" In this edition of Tech Experts, information security expert, Joe McMorris, VP of Information Technology at Datacert, will explore this question and offer practical advice about the critical information security and compliance questions you should ask before entrusting a cloud-based legal software vendor with your data.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2012/07/secure-your-legal-data-in-the-cloud/
district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers
OPINION: Prosecutors and book deals
In a blockbuster case, the question 'Who is going to play me in the movie?' could be one of life or death.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202585689193&rss=rss_nlj
statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer
Missing Georgia Bank Director Aubrey Price Indicted For Fraud
Seven months after he “disappeared,” the former director of a Georgia bank has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., on fraud charges.
business law business lawyer civil attorney colleges for lawyers
Gone Clio with Attorney Beate Weiss-Krull
Listen as Clio co-founder and CEO Jack Newton talks with special guest, Beate Weiss-Krull, a general practitioner based in Portland, Oregon. You’ll hear Jack and Beate talk about how #cloudcomputing helps her manage her US and German cases, her switch from PC to Mac, ScanSnap and other #paperless productivity tips.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/01/gone-clio-with-beate-weiss-krull/
real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor solicitors
Civility as an Art Form in Diplomacy and the Law
Civility is a skill in the management of differences, disagreements and conflict and is good for the law profession. So how essential is civility to the legal profession? And is it practiced well by lawyers? Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Dick A. Semerdjian from the firm Schwartz Semerdjian Ballard & Cauley LLP and chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS), to discuss the status of civility in the legal profession.
divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer
Federal appeals court finds Obama recess appointments unconstitutional
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Friday ruled [opinion, PDF] that the recess appointment of three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) [official website] by President Barack Obama [official website] was unconstitutional. The Obama administration argued that the president's appointment was constitutional because the Senate was on a 20-day recess when the appointments were made. However, the court, after discussing the background underlying the constitutional language "Recess," reasoned that...
divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer
Future Law Office: Top Technology Trends Reshaping the Legal Field
In this video podcast of The Robert Half Legal Report, Charles Volkert, executive director of Robert Half Legal, and Robert Ambrogi, co-host of Lawyer2Lawyer on the Legal Talk Network discuss how law firms and corporate legal departments are leveraging technology to improve services and streamline workflow. They share key findings from Future Law Office, Robert Half Legal’s annual research program that examines important developments in the legal profession.
legal legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon
Saturday, January 26, 2013
How Pro Bono can be a market strategy for Solos and Law Students
Solos and Law Students-have you considered Pro Bono as an investment? It can expand your client base and knowledge, open doors for employment and networking, and enrich your standing in the community. New Solo host, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher, a solo practitioner and the most recent Chair of the Young Lawyers Division of the Massachusetts Bar Association discusses with Attorney Luz Herrera, Assistant Professor of Law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California how she used Pro Bono to build her practice and strengthen her community.
employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego
The Regulation Agenda
At The National Law Journal's first-ever Regulatory Summit, Washington insiders made it clear: If the House and Senate are unable to overcome partisan gridlock, the president will almost certainly use executive orders and rulemaking at federal agencies to advance his second-term agenda.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202585064766&rss=rss_nlj
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
The Law Professors' New Clothes
While we're sitting on hard benches waiting for cases to be called, the legal academy is hard at work reinventing our profession without us. Massive drops in applications has made their attention imperative, even though there are still enough to fill the seats needed to pay the cost of scholarship. So what if law schools are cold-calling qualified applicants to entice them with Ginsu knives and financing packages? If you spell your name right on the LSAT, there's a law school for you.
This is pretty embarrassing for law schools, forced to reduce the quality of new admits because the smart kids no longer want to lose three years and a bundle of debt to an education that will enable them to get a part-time barrista position. The more upstanding schools are cutting their class sizes, while the less upstanding ones are happily taking their rejects so they can afford the dean's salary.
And they're coming up with schemes to cure their ills. You probably weren't paying attention, because you were busy thinking about how to make your phone ring again, but what they come up with is going to affect you whether you care or not.
All these hungry little buggers they're sending into the profession need to find a way to pay off their loans and keep their mommies from crying, and if you read their blogs and websites, they're smarter, more aggressive, more caring and, yes, more experienced than you. Baloney, you say? Yeah. So what? They're doing what they've got to do to survive, and niceties like integrity are for old guys. They're fighting for their lives and, frankly, have completely rationalized ethics out of the picture. And since they are all brilliant (ask them, they'll tell you), they see no net harm from a bit of puffery.
Just this week, here's what the scholars came up with:
NYU wants to make a systemic change to law schools that would allow students to do law school in two years and take the bar. The point is that it would cut the cost by a third, create a two-tier profession since some will stay for the full three years, and force law schools to make the third year more relevant.
While this could save some law students money, although at the cost of being second-class lawyers, it does nothing to make them more competent or to reduce the numbers of lawyers being spewed into a market that can't absorb them and has no use for them. Cool plan, bro.
Yale Law School announced that for its first-ever class of law Ph.D.'s, it has received 82 applications for five spots, thus disproving naysayers that nobody in their right mind would waste their time on a law Ph.D. While it proves nothing of the sort, the thrust toward a scholarly doctorate is happening while one of the core failings of law school is its inability to produce lawyers with the capacity to do anything remotely associates with what lawyers do. What are the chances that creating a new cadre of scholars, even more detached from the practice of law, is going to produce better qualified lawyers?
It's not surprising that there are 82 people interested in the program. Lots of people, myself included, are interested in scholarly pursuits, and feel themselves better suited to churning out law review articles than showing kids the tricks of the trade or how to schmooze the clerk to get your papers filed. But if we assume that the only place these doctors can get jobs is law schools, then this seems to be heading in the opposite direction of producing functional lawyers. While I've got nothing against law docs (that's doctors, not documents), they're the last thing we need in law schools.
Lawprof Steve Diamond, who is recovering from involuntary proctology exam by the scambloggers for his market oriented "let them eat cake" approach to solving the problem, has come up with a new initiative, which he modestly calls "Lawyers for America."
Then Bill Henderson, at the Legal Whiteboard, has finally published his Part II to his book review of Brian Tamanaha's Failing Law Schools (a mere eight months after Part I), except instead of a blog post, it's now a law review article. How cool is that? It's called A Blueprint for Change, which starts with embracing futurist crackpot Richard Susskind, that all law outside the courtroom will be commoditized and either shipped overseas or done by nonlawyers.
Despite this, Bill doesn't call for the closing of law schools or the death of self-serving scholarship, because that would piss off the professoriate and nobody would be willing to join his consortium of law schools where 12% of scholars would create a paradigm shift, which he equates with the "Apollo Project," of "competency-based curriculum." No, that doesn't mean practice-ready:
Notably, the Blueprint for Change assumes that all lawyers will work for big law firms, government or corporations, because, you know, it's not like the vast majority of lawyers are solo or small firm now. But then, that's what would be expected of a Susskind apostle, since in his future, there will be no need for toilet lawyers do the banal work that will be taken over by computers and LegalZoom.
If I recall correctly, the problems facing law schools involve excessive expense, declining enrollment, declining standards, producing many times more lawyers than there are jobs or society can absorb, producing lawyers who are wholly unprepared to practice, producing lawyers who adore situational ethics, serving the population that needs but can't afford legal representation, and flushing their problems into our profession to deal with.
So while we're sitting on hard benches wondering whether a new logo will bring us wealth and prestige, the professoriate is vying for the new paradigm without us, hoping that whoever wins the game will get a statue of himself built outside Harvard Law School.
Are any of these schemes going to make a better legal profession? For a bunch of smart people, these schemes strike me as pretty darned inadequate, both for law students, for the profession or, most importantly, for clients. But then, if we leave it up to the lawprofs, what should we expect?
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
This is pretty embarrassing for law schools, forced to reduce the quality of new admits because the smart kids no longer want to lose three years and a bundle of debt to an education that will enable them to get a part-time barrista position. The more upstanding schools are cutting their class sizes, while the less upstanding ones are happily taking their rejects so they can afford the dean's salary.
And they're coming up with schemes to cure their ills. You probably weren't paying attention, because you were busy thinking about how to make your phone ring again, but what they come up with is going to affect you whether you care or not.
All these hungry little buggers they're sending into the profession need to find a way to pay off their loans and keep their mommies from crying, and if you read their blogs and websites, they're smarter, more aggressive, more caring and, yes, more experienced than you. Baloney, you say? Yeah. So what? They're doing what they've got to do to survive, and niceties like integrity are for old guys. They're fighting for their lives and, frankly, have completely rationalized ethics out of the picture. And since they are all brilliant (ask them, they'll tell you), they see no net harm from a bit of puffery.
Just this week, here's what the scholars came up with:
NYU wants to make a systemic change to law schools that would allow students to do law school in two years and take the bar. The point is that it would cut the cost by a third, create a two-tier profession since some will stay for the full three years, and force law schools to make the third year more relevant.
While this could save some law students money, although at the cost of being second-class lawyers, it does nothing to make them more competent or to reduce the numbers of lawyers being spewed into a market that can't absorb them and has no use for them. Cool plan, bro.
Yale Law School announced that for its first-ever class of law Ph.D.'s, it has received 82 applications for five spots, thus disproving naysayers that nobody in their right mind would waste their time on a law Ph.D. While it proves nothing of the sort, the thrust toward a scholarly doctorate is happening while one of the core failings of law school is its inability to produce lawyers with the capacity to do anything remotely associates with what lawyers do. What are the chances that creating a new cadre of scholars, even more detached from the practice of law, is going to produce better qualified lawyers?
It's not surprising that there are 82 people interested in the program. Lots of people, myself included, are interested in scholarly pursuits, and feel themselves better suited to churning out law review articles than showing kids the tricks of the trade or how to schmooze the clerk to get your papers filed. But if we assume that the only place these doctors can get jobs is law schools, then this seems to be heading in the opposite direction of producing functional lawyers. While I've got nothing against law docs (that's doctors, not documents), they're the last thing we need in law schools.
Lawprof Steve Diamond, who is recovering from involuntary proctology exam by the scambloggers for his market oriented "let them eat cake" approach to solving the problem, has come up with a new initiative, which he modestly calls "Lawyers for America."
It would offer young unemployed or underemployed lawyers the chance to practice law serving an underserved community under the supervision of existing lawyers. One example: there are many thousands of small businesses in our poor and immigrant communities, including cleaning, housekeeping, gardening, construction and other services. Many of these could be organized as LLCs thus shielding their owners from personal liability. This requires legal help. These entities could use other legal advice as well. A legal service organization would be established in major urban areas that could provide these services.There will be a sign-up sheet passed around for you supervising lawyers, and we're trying to negotiate with Costco to accept your pro bono credit for food. The law students, of course, don't have to eat, so no worries on that end. And the karma gained from helping businesses in poor and immigrant communities will obviously form the basis for a thriving and successful law practice going forward, provided your career is limited to representing businesses in poor and immigrant communities, and when you have kids, they don't want to eat either.The supervising lawyers could earn CLE or pro bono credit for their time. The law students would be provided a stipend for living expenses and more importantly would earn credits for debt relief. Every year of full time service would earn them 20% cancellation [sic] of their outstanding debt.
Then Bill Henderson, at the Legal Whiteboard, has finally published his Part II to his book review of Brian Tamanaha's Failing Law Schools (a mere eight months after Part I), except instead of a blog post, it's now a law review article. How cool is that? It's called A Blueprint for Change, which starts with embracing futurist crackpot Richard Susskind, that all law outside the courtroom will be commoditized and either shipped overseas or done by nonlawyers.
Despite this, Bill doesn't call for the closing of law schools or the death of self-serving scholarship, because that would piss off the professoriate and nobody would be willing to join his consortium of law schools where 12% of scholars would create a paradigm shift, which he equates with the "Apollo Project," of "competency-based curriculum." No, that doesn't mean practice-ready:
What does it mean? I can't tell, except that they can spend the next decade writing law review articles on their empirical experience with it. So what if Bill's prescription solves nothing now. It's all going to change anyway, according to Susskind, we're just spinning wheels as everybody becomes a lawyer for 15 minutes.“Practice-Ready” is Not Enough. Despite the rebukes often received from the practicing bar, for most law schools an emphasis on “practice-ready” skills will be insufficient to cope with the structural changes occurring within the legal industry. Granted, it is true that better skills training will enable law school graduates to better compete for the finite number of traditional legal service jobs that will be available in the years to come. But, to be blunt, in a world that is getting pulled in Susskind’s continuum from bespoke to commoditized, practice-ready skills training will not change the total number of traditional legal jobs available to law school graduates. Moreover, one of greatest dangers of the “practice ready” solution is that we law professors will too readily conclude that we don’t need to leave the building—that is, engage with profession and the industry— to find a solution. Our schools would just need to hire more clinicians. Yet, this is a very expensive solution that fails to address the longer-term systemic employment problems.
Notably, the Blueprint for Change assumes that all lawyers will work for big law firms, government or corporations, because, you know, it's not like the vast majority of lawyers are solo or small firm now. But then, that's what would be expected of a Susskind apostle, since in his future, there will be no need for toilet lawyers do the banal work that will be taken over by computers and LegalZoom.
If I recall correctly, the problems facing law schools involve excessive expense, declining enrollment, declining standards, producing many times more lawyers than there are jobs or society can absorb, producing lawyers who are wholly unprepared to practice, producing lawyers who adore situational ethics, serving the population that needs but can't afford legal representation, and flushing their problems into our profession to deal with.
So while we're sitting on hard benches wondering whether a new logo will bring us wealth and prestige, the professoriate is vying for the new paradigm without us, hoping that whoever wins the game will get a statue of himself built outside Harvard Law School.
Are any of these schemes going to make a better legal profession? For a bunch of smart people, these schemes strike me as pretty darned inadequate, both for law students, for the profession or, most importantly, for clients. But then, if we leave it up to the lawprofs, what should we expect?
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/01/19/the-law-professors-new-clothes.aspx?ref=rss
employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego
Recent tax law changes of 2013
On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 into law. Summarized below are highlights of those and other changes to Federal tax laws affecting income, payroll, gift and estate, and generation-skipping transfer taxes beginning in 2013.
New top federal marginal rates – ordinary income, capital gains, and qualified dividends
39.6% top ordinary income tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold taxable incomes listed below, the highest marginal ordinary income tax rate increases from 35% to 39.6%. The 39.6% rate is a reinstatement of the highest rate from before the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts.
| Filing Status | Threshold taxable income amounts |
| Single | $400,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $450,000 |
The threshold amounts will be adjusted for inflation annually.
20% top capital gain and qualified dividend tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold incomes listed above, the tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income increases from 15% to 20%.
3.8% Medicare tax on net investment income
For individuals above the threshold “modified adjusted gross income” amounts listed below, the net investment income tax, or NIIT, of 3.8% applies. The NIIT applies to a wide range of investment income, including certain long term capital gains and qualified dividends. In effect, the top tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income will be 23.8% for those whose income exceeds $450,000 ($400,000, if single).
The NIIT also applies to certain short term capital gains, ordinary dividends, interest, rental and royalty income, nonqualified annuities, income from businesses involved in trading of financial instruments or commodities, and income from businesses that are passive activities for the taxpayer.
| Filing status | Threshold modified adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Phaseout of itemized deductions reinstated
Beginning in 2013, the itemized deduction phaseout will be reinstated for taxpayers above the applicable threshold amount listed below. The phaseout reduces itemized deductions by the lesser of 3% of the adjusted gross income amount above the threshold amount, or 80% of the otherwise allocable itemized deductions.
| Filing status | Threshold adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $250,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $300,000 |
Permanent AMT relief
Beginning in 2012 tax years, the AMT exemption amounts are permanently increased as listed in the table below and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
| Filing status | Increased 2012 exemption amounts |
| Single | $50,600 |
| Married filing jointly | $78,750 |
0.9% additional FICA Medicare tax
Beginning on January 1, 2013, an additional 0.9% FICA Medicare tax applies to earnings above the threshold amounts listed below. The highest applicable FICA Medicare tax rate for employees increases from 1.45% to 2.35%, and for the self-employed from 2.9% to 3.8%.
| Filing status | Threshold earnings amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Expiration of 2% FICA Social Security tax cut
Beginning on January 1, 2013, the 6.2% rate is reinstated for the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax. This is due to the expiration of the temporary 2% rate reduction in the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2% on December 31, 2012. For the self-employed, the FICA Social Security tax rate of 10.4% reverts to 12.4%. The FICA wage base for 2013 is $113,700 and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
Section 1202 tax break extended through 2013
The 100% exclusion of certain gains from the sale of qualifying small business stock, or QSBS, under Section 1202 has been extended to acquisitions of QSBS from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. Generally, QSBS must meet the following conditions: the stock was acquired at original issue from a domestic C corporation with gross assets of no more than $50,000,000, the C corporation met certain active business requirements, and the stock was held for more than five years. The amount of excludible gain is limited to the greater of $10,000,000 in aggregate gains, or 10 times the aggregate basis in QSBS.
Section 1374 built in gains relief extended through 2013
The previously reduced five year recognition period for computing built-in gains tax of an S corporation under Section 1374 has been extended to taxable years beginning in 2012 and 2013. The recognition period was to increase to ten years in 2012 until the five year recognition period was extended through 2013.
This tax applies if, during the recognition period, a C corporation converts to an S Corporation and then sells, for a gain, assets that were appreciated in value at the time of the conversion. Those “built-in gains” are taxed at the highest marginal corporate tax rate of 35%. Normally, the recognition period is the ten year period from the first day of the first taxable year for which the S election is effective.
Gift and estate tax exclusion, rates, and portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount
$5,000,000 gift and estate tax exclusion
The gift and estate tax, and generation-skipping transfer tax exclusion amount has been permanently set at $5,000,000, adjusted annually for inflation. The exclusion amount for 2013 is $5,250,000. Without this change, the exclusion amount would have fallen to or around $1,000,000 as of January 1, 2013.
40% top gift and estate tax rates
The gift and estate tax rate on transfers as of January 1, 2013 above the exclusion amount were increased as listed below. The highest rate increased from 35% to 40%. Without the new 40% rate, the highest marginal gift and estate tax rate would have increased to 55%.
Portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount made permanent
A surviving spouse’s election to include his or her deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount will now be a permanent option. This portability election would have expired on December 31, 2012 without this change.
Source:
http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/tax-recent-tax-law-changes-of-2013.html
dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney
International Law Opportunities at Suffolk University Law School
Professor Christopher Gibson, Associate Dean, & Ian Menchini, Director of Electronic Marketing and Enrollment Management discuss the many opportunities available through Suffolk Law's International Law program. Learn more at http://bit.ly/I95LF3.
injury lawyers international law international law schools internet lawyer
Rhode Island House approves same-sex marriage bill
[JURIST] The Rhode Island House of Representatives on Thursday approved [press release] a bill [H 5015, PDF] that would legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] in the state. The bill passed by a vote of 51-19 after a lengthy debate on the House floor. Rhode Island is currently the only state in New England that has not legalized same-sex marriage, and previous attempts to legalize same-sex marriage in the predominantly Catholic state have been unsuccessful. The debate on the house floor...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/01/rhode-island-house-approves-same-sex-marriage-bill.php
legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
Sex, And A Broken ...
You may be wondering: "Can you break that?" Unfortunately for Mr. Doe, the answer is "yes." And yes, it gave rise (sorry) to a lawsuit. The case, out of Massachusetts, is John Doe v. Mary Doe.
Facts. The summary judgment record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross, 388 Mass. 16 , 17 (1983), establishes the following facts. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a long-term committed relationship. Early in the morning of September 24, 1994, they were engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The plaintiff was lying on his back while the defendant was on top of him. The defendant's body was secured in this position by the interlocking of her legs and the plaintiff's legs. At some point, the defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of the plaintiff's abdomen for the purpose of increasing her stimulation. When the defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to the plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, the defendant landed awkwardly on the plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture.Yeowwwwwwwwwwww! So, did Mr. Doe make the case that Ms. Doe negligently broke his, well, you know? Nope. You can read the opinion here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/dvno9t1zRjI/post_579.html
lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office
Gone Clio with Attorney Andrew Kawel
Listen as Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Andrew Kawel, founder of Kawel PLLC. You'll hear Jack and Andy discuss switching to Mac to minimize time and frustration in doing certain non-billable and labor intensive tasks, Dropbox, Google Voice, Google Apps and the cloud.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/02/gone-clio-with-attorney-andrew-kawel/
letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)