patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Code X: Stanford Law's Hotbed of Legal Technology Startups
In the Law Technology News June cover story, "Silicon Startups," reporter Tam Harbert describes how Stanford University's Law School has become the "vortex" for entrepreneurship in legal technology. The law school has joined forces with the University's engineering and computer science departments to create the Center for Legal Informatics laboratory — dubbed Code X. Among the results is Lex Machina, a startup offering a rich database of intellectual property litigation information that helps law firms, corporate counsel, and the government refine their trial and settlement strategies. The company just completed a second round of funding, infusing $4.8 million into its war chest. Law Technology News Editor-in-Chief Monica Bay welcomes attorney Roland Vogl, executive director of Code X, to discuss this exciting project on the June edition of Law Technology Now.
The LinkedIn Lawyer
Are you on LinkedIn? 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 chats with Dennis Kennedy, lawyer and co-host of The Kennedy-Mighell Report and Allison Shields, author of Legal Ease Blog, about their recently published book, LinkedIn in One Hour for Lawyers. Dennis and Allison talk about how attorneys are using LinkedIn, and the key features that make LinkedIn a valuable networking and client development tool without consuming all of an attorney’s time.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2012/06/the-linkedin-lawyer/
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Delaware Chancery Court Establishes Procedural Framework for Obtaining Business Judgment Review for Going Private Transaction Sponsored By Majority Stockholders
In In re MFW Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6566-CS, 2013 WL 2436341 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2013), the Delaware Court of Chancery analyzed one of the most important open questions of Delaware corporate law: whether it is possible for majority stockholders to structure a going private transaction to avoid “entire fairness” review by the Court and instead have the transaction be reviewed under the more deferential “business judgment” standard. After carefully considering precedent and scholarly commentary on this issue, the Court of Chancery concluded that majority stockholders sponsoring a going private transaction can obtain “business judgment” review of the transaction if:
- the controlling stockholder conditions the transaction on the approval of both (i) a special committee of the board of directors and (ii) a majority of the minority stockholders;
- the special committee is truly independent;
- the special committee is empowered freely to select its own advisors and to say “no” to the transaction definitively;
- the special committee meets its fiduciary duty of due care;
- the vote of the minority stockholders is fully informed; and
- minority stockholders are not coerced in connection with the vote.
Although this decision provides majority stockholders with a clear procedural framework for how to structure a going private transaction to avoid “entire fairness” review, some uncertainty will remain until the Delaware Supreme Court rules on this issue.
M&F Worldwide (“MFW”) is a holding company incorporated in Delaware engaged in a wide variety of businesses. MFW was 43.4% owned by MacAndrews & Forbes, which was in turn owed by Ron Perelman. In May 2011, Perelman began to explore the possibility of taking MFW private by merging it with MacAndrews & Forbes. Perelman then sent a proposal to MFW’s board offering to purchase its shares for $24 in cash. Notably, the proposal stated, among other things:
We will not move forward with the transaction unless it is approved by . . . a special [independent] committee. In addition, the transaction will be subject to a nonwaivable condition requiring the approval of a majority of the shares of the Company not owned by M&F or its affiliates.
In response to the offer, the independent directors of MFW decided to form a special committee to further evaluate Perelman’s offer. The independent directors specifically empowered the special committee to (i) perform such investigations as it deemed appropriate; (ii) evaluate the terms of the proposal; (iii) negotiate with Perelman regarding the terms of the proposal and any final agreement; (iv) report any final recommendations to the board; and (v) have the ability to decline the proposal outright. The independent directors also decided that the board of MFW would not approve the proposal without a prior favorable recommendation by the special committee. Although the special committee had the authority to negotiate and say “no,” it did not have authority to market MFW to other buyers.
The special committee interviewed four financial advisors before hiring Evercore Partners (“Evercore”). Evercore produced a range of valuations for MFW from $15 to $45 per share. With Evercore’s analysis in tow, the special committee decided to counter Perelman’s offer at $30 per share. The parties negotiated until Perelman made a best and final offer of $25 per share. Evercore opined that the price was fair, and the special committee and MFW’s independent directors unanimously decided to accept the offer and recommend it to the stockholders.
In November 2011, MFW issued a detailed proxy statement to stockholders recommending that they approve the transaction. Ultimately, 65% of the minority stockholders approved MFW’s merger with MacAndrews & Forbes, and the transaction was consummated.
In response, some stockholders sued MacAndrews & Forbes, Perelman and the other directors of MFW, alleging the transaction was unfair. After initially seeking a preliminary injunction to block the merger vote, plaintiffs instead chose to seek post-closing damages for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that no material issue of fact existed regarding whether MFW’s special committee was truly independent with the power to say “no,” or whether the transaction was approved by a fully informed majority of the minority of stockholders. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.
Whether a majority stockholder-sponsored going private transaction may be reviewed under the business judgment rule when it is both approved by a special committee of independent directors with the power to negotiate and say “no” and subject to the approval of the majority of the minority stockholders was an issue of first impression for the Delaware courts. Plaintiffs argued that the more rigorous “entire fairness” review applied, relying upon the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Kahn v. Lynch Communication Systems, 638 A.2d 1110, 1117 (Del. 1994). The court here, however, distinguished Kahn v. Lynch because the transaction at issue there was procedurally different from the transaction at issue in MFW. The transaction in Kahn v. Lynch was a merger between a parent corporation, Alcatel, and the subsidiary that it controlled, Lynch. Alcatel owned 43% of Lynch, and sought to obtain the rest of Lynch through a cash-out merger. Lynch created a special committee to negotiate with Alcatel. The Lynch merger, however, was conditioned only upon the approval of the special committee, not also on the approval of the non-Alcatel stockholders. Furthermore, the special committee in Lynch was not empowered to say “no,” because Alcatel reserved the right to and did in fact threaten to approach the stockholders with a tender offer at a lower price should the special committee reject the proposed transaction.
After distinguishing Kahn v Lynch, the Court of Chancery concluded that “business judgment” review should govern the transaction between Perelman and the minority stockholders of MFW because the procedural safeguards employed were the optimal ones for the minority of stockholders. The court reached this conclusion after discussing a series of scholarly articles examining majority stockholder sponsored transactions and the effect of plaintiffs litigation on the final price obtained by minority stockholders. By giving controlling stockholders access to “business judgment” review for going private transactions, a strong incentive is created to give minority stockholders much broader access to the transactional structure that is most likely to effectively protect their interests.
The MFW decision is quite significant. If the Delaware Supreme Court affirms, controlling stockholders will have a clear procedural roadmap for how to structure going private transactions to obtain the benefit of the deferential “business judgment” standard of review. This is critical. By offering the majority stockholders a procedure for obtaining “business judgment” review, the majority stockholder will be able to avoid court scrutiny of the substance of the transaction. Instead, the court will limit its oversight to whether the transaction was approved by an independent special committee with the power to negotiate and say “no,” and by an uncoerced fully informed majority of the minority stockholders. This decision also may deter a certain amount of stockholder litigation that almost always follows the announcement of a “going private” transaction by lowering the likely settlement value of cases filed in response to transactions structured pursuant to the MFW framework.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Alejandro E. Moreno at (619) 338-6664.
Shareholder Activism
In this BU Law podcast, host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, welcomes David H. Webber, associate professor of law at BU Law, to talk about his interesting research in the area of shareholder activism and his paper "The Plight of the Individual Investor in Securities Class Actions," which will soon be published in the Northwestern University Law Review. Together they look at the forces that are driving shareholder activism, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, corporate governance reform and how to remedy conflicts between institutional and individual investors in class actions.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/boston-university-school-of-law/2012/04/shareholder-activism/
dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney
The Presidential Race and the Judiciary
On November 6, 2012, people across the States will cast their vote for President. Whatever the outcome, it will influence our justice system. Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Kenneth L. Manning, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and Professor Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond School of Law, to discuss everything from diversity in the courts, Supreme Court vacancies and obstruction and the impact on the justice system.
attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer
Predictive Coding: A Rose by Any Other Name
One of e-discovery’s hottest topics today is predictive coding. So what exactly "is" predictive coding? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome guest Dan Gallivan, one of the founders and Chief Technology Officer for Gallivan Gallivan & O’Melia , to discuss technology-assisted review, also known as predictive coding. Dan shares his thoughts on this new technology replacing keyword search, common areas of misunderstanding and Judge Peck’s role as a flag bearer for predictive coding.
divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney
The Government We Deserve
Alasdair Roberts, Suffolk Law's Rappaport Professor of Law and Public Policy, discusses his recent article on the Neoliberal Revolution. Read the article at: http://bit.ly/K4dhiu.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/06/the-government-we-deserve/
employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers
Judge: Jury Can Hear About Trayvon Martin's Marijuana Use
In Sanford, Fla., lawyers for George Zimmerman are presenting witnesses who back up his claim that he was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin. They include several people who identify Zimmerman as the person heard screaming for help in a 911 call. And, Zimmerman's defense got another boost on Monday when the judge ruled the jury can hear evidence of drug use by Martin.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Hot Coffee and our Civil Justice System
An elderly woman, Stella Liebeck, buys coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru, spills it on her lap, sues and wins. This case caused quite the controversy, but also contributed to some dramatic changes in the law. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen and co-host, Nolan Robinson, chat with Susan Saladoff, the producer and director of the documentary, Hot Coffee. Susan gives us the real story behind this notorious coffee case, talks tort reform, frivolous lawsuits and caps on damages and shares some other examples of how individuals are not getting a fair shake in this current civil justice system.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/09/hot-coffee-and-our-civil-justice-system/
injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer
Revisiting Voter ID Laws
Since our program spotlighting Voter ID Laws and Voter Purges across the country, there have been big developments in Arizona, Tennessee and key battleground state, Ohio. Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams chat with Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and Lawrence Norden, Deputy Director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, about this how the upcoming election might be impacted.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/revisiting-voter-id-laws/
free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney
Complete Good Faith
“The special agents acted in complete good faith,” Mr. Mulham said, “with the purpose of pursuing appropriate law enforcement interests.”Of course, what Charles J. Mulham, spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was talking about was cops and agents lying to United States District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein in order to get the bad guy while protecting the identity of a snitch. It's not that they didn't fabricate a story to get the job done, but they did get the bad guy, and isn't that all that really counts?
From the New York Times, a garden variety gun possession case in uptown Manhattan, which was being prosecuted in federal court because they have so little else to do and Article III judges need to spend their days on routine "felon in possession" gun cases, ended up "a flash point over legal ethics and a sharp dispute between a judge and federal prosecutors."
“A decision was made to coordinate among all the witnesses not to tell the full truth,” the judge said after he heard testimony from the arresting officers and from federal agents who helped to prepare a complaint against the man who was stopped, Tajuan Simmons, or who later testified before a grand jury.Prosecutors in the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, strongly defended the officers’ testimony as truthful and accurate; they asked the judge to withdraw his findings, citing the potential damage to the officers’ careers. The judge refused.
Just at the start of the story, and already too many ironies to ignore. First, that there was hanky panky at all came out because an AUSA spilled the beans:
Last fall, before the suppression hearing began, a prosecutor told the judge that the government had informed the defense about some recently discovered “misstatements” in the complaint.
We might scoff at the word "misstatements," since they would be more likely characterized as bold-faced, disgraceful, outrageous lies, if they came from a non-LEO's mouth or hand, but that's just a matter of rhetoric. Had the assistant said nothing, the lie would have gone completely unnoticed. And yet the same office, if not the same assistant, argued with a straight face that "misstatements" magically turned "truthful and accurate" when it came time to salvage these fine law enforcers' careers. After all, why ruin a fine career by calling a cop a liar just because he's, well, a liar?
The details underlying this scheme are remarkably understandable. The call came in from a Confidential Informant, a rat busted for drugs who was flipped to save his own skin. He was told to stop committing crimes, but he didn't. Bad boy, he was told, but that didn't stop him from giving people up or the cops from working him.
The sergeant testified that he received the informant’s call around 11 p.m. on April 17, 2012, and after hearing his information, told him to dial a police hot line that offers callers anonymity and financial compensation for information about illegal guns; a hot line detective then called the 911 operator.
Two days later, when the complaint was sworn before a magistrate judge, it omitted any mention of the informant and said merely that “an anonymous individual had placed a 911 call” with the information about Mr. Simmons. Sergeant Nicholson said he had taken this step to protect the source.
It's not that they cared whether the snitch lived or died per se, but they weren't done squeezing him yet, and he still had plenty of juice. Once the CI gave up all he had, well, then his protection isn't nearly as much of a concern. But I digress.
The complaint had also stated that Mr. Simmons, when he saw the police, immediately began to run to the north. “He did not run,” the prosecutor said.
Finally, Officer Matthew Barber, who had seized the gun and arrested Mr. Simmons, now recalled that he saw “a bulge” in Mr. Simmons’s waistband — a detail that had not been in the complaint.
Except none of this happened, and it was all part of a scheme to justify the arrest while omitting the snitch's involvement. Not a big scheme. Not a sophisticated scheme to nail either a major bad dude or some innocent who made them angry. Just a banal scheme so that the CI wouldn't be involved. And what was the big deal, since Simmons really had the gun? No harm, no foul.
Asked by the judge whether that was a practice of his office, the agent responded that if there was other evidence that established probable cause for an arrest, and “you do not have to risk the safety of an informant by exposing them, then you try to do that if possible.” (The identity of the agent is being withheld at the A.T.F.’s request because he remains involved in undercover work.)
Judge Hellerstein said the agent was “shading the truth” in not telling the magistrate judge about the informant.
The agent responded, “It’s a safety concern.”
Judge Hellerstein called it "nonsense," "not credible," "false" and "not worthy of belief." So...
Nonetheless, he ultimately refused to suppress the gun, finding that the informant’s tip had been accurate. Mr. Simmons pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count, and in March he was sentenced to five years in prison, the maximum.
Didn't I tell you the guy actually had the gun? Just because the witnesses for the government at the suppression hearing lied through their teeth about everything along the way to everyone they could, and the government backed them up despite having been the party to reveal to the judge that he had been reduced to a pawn in their scheme to excise the snitch from the case while still getting Simmons, that would never serve as a reason not to get the bad guy.
Because, as the cops say, the agents say and the judge found, no matter how many lies or scams law enforcement has as the means to get to the end, it's all in complete good faith.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/01/complete-good-faith.aspx?ref=rss
immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys
Choosing a Law Firm Entity Structure
On this October edition of The Legal Toolkit, Jared Correia, Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, joins Chiara LaPlume, principal of LaPlume Law, LLC and Sofia Lingos, principal of Lingos Law, to address entity choice for lawyers and law firms. Chiara and Sofia run down the options for law firms and solo lawyers (including d/b/a’s and limited liability entities), talk about why it’s essential to have a partnership agreement and relay why it may useful for an attorney to hire another lawyer to help them get incorporated.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/10/choosing-a-law-firm-entity-structure/
LawBiz® Legal Pad: Tips for Increased Revenue
Ed offers 5 ways to increase your law firm's revenue.
1. Emphasize collections.
2. Hire lateral lawyers to meet specific demands, a new practice area, a new need.
3. Leverage technology.
4. Create a cooperative compensation model that emphasizes the law firm as an institution.
5. Outsource functions that are better done by others. Delegate.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/Rsl5KqSiZbU/
find an attorney find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation
Cyber Threats to Law Firms and Businesses: How Do We Defend Ourselves?
Digital Detectives hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek, president and vice president of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., welcome Stewart Baker of Steptoe & Johnson to discuss the 2013 Verizon Data Breach Report, cybersecurity legislation, and more.
• Stewart Baker has been described by The Washington Post as “one of the most techno-literate lawyers around.” His long list of experience includes serving as the first Assistant Secretary for Policy for the Department of Homeland Security and the General Counsel of the National Security Agency. His current law practice covers homeland security matters, travel and foreign investment regulation, international trade, cybersecurity, and data protection.
Tune in to hear Baker explain the difference between active defense against cyber-defense and vigilantism, the meaning of the Attribution Revolution, and what President Obama Cybersecurity Executive Order means and how it may be amplified by pending legislation.
• Stewart Baker has been described by The Washington Post as “one of the most techno-literate lawyers around.” His long list of experience includes serving as the first Assistant Secretary for Policy for the Department of Homeland Security and the General Counsel of the National Security Agency. His current law practice covers homeland security matters, travel and foreign investment regulation, international trade, cybersecurity, and data protection.
Tune in to hear Baker explain the difference between active defense against cyber-defense and vigilantism, the meaning of the Attribution Revolution, and what President Obama Cybersecurity Executive Order means and how it may be amplified by pending legislation.
lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers
Monday, July 8, 2013
The LIRR 600 Rode into the Valley of Death on the 8:09 (Update x 2)
The New York Times reports that the Railroad Retirement Board, apparently unable to cut off benefits to former Long Island Rail Road workers on disability fast enough when each form had to be stamped by hand, has decided instead to unilaterally cut off workers en masse.
But even assuming that some of the 600 are dirty, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that all of them are. Indeed, having heard from many of them, there is no question that there are people within this group who are most assuredly disabled and fully entitled to the benefits they receive. To which the government says, "who cares? If we just cut 'em all off, the deserving and undeserving alike, we can save a bundle and shift the problem onto the backs of the disabled."
The government, saving us $2 million a month. What's not to like? And if they let every poor person in America starve, and deny legal representation to anyone who can't pay for their own lawyer, they can save even more. Pretty soon, you're talking real money. And as long as it's not us who suffers, this is a great victory.
The action taken here could not be more arbitrary. Without any basis to suggest that these individuals (and remember that these are 600 human beings, each of whom has to live, eat, survive) did anything wrong, they just cut them all off and let the chips fall where they may. Who cares who was legitimately disabled? The government doesn't know and doesn't care.
But neither, it appears, does anyone else in a position to do anything about this. It seems that this is the culmination of the RRB poking a sleeping giant with a stick to see if it will wake up and fight. Instead, it has just rolled over and played dead. Where is the union? Hiding under its contract, praying that it won't be tainted by the bad press and entrenched hatred of the LIRR and its workers who have humped commuters for decades with their own nastiness and lack of empathy. Payback is a bitch.
And where are the leaders, the retirees who have the guts to stand up and be heard? <crickets>
This is where an organization must emerge to fight for the rights of the group, to finance and coordinate a fight against the government's outrageous denial of benefits to everyone because it's so much easier than doing the hard work of figuring out who is committing fraud and who is legitimately disabled. But no leader has emerged from the retirees, who are interested in their own financial survival but fear making themselves a target for federal prosecutors.
Everything about this action by the Railroad Retirement Board stinks of facile capriciousness, enabled by government prosecutors who have no room in their heads for the legitimately disabled whose lives they are wantonly destroying. And it's happening without anyone with the guts to life a finger. Not the union. Not the retirees. No one.
To paraphrase, the only thing necessary for the government to arbitrarily terminate the benefits of the LIRR disabled is for good men to do nothing. And it appears that's exactly what they're doing.
Update: It appears from an article in Newsday that not only will the 600 retirees whose applications for disability included a medical narrative report by convicted fraudster Dr. Peter Ajemian lose their disability payments, but that the LIRR is also trying to terminate their regular union pensions.
Bear in mind, while Ajemian may have lied on behalf of some retirees, there is nothing to suggest that the 600 who have neither been prosecuted nor individually inestigated weren't in fact disabled, and there is no doubt that most were disabled as defined by the Railroad Retirement Board. They have been singled out because of their having used Ajemian, who was promoted by the LIRR at the time as the best choice of physician.
Update 2: In a July 3rd memo to LIRR employees, LIRR President Helena Williams disavows Newsday's report that pensions are in jeopardy.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
About 600 Long Island Rail Road retirees will lose their disability benefits after a federal agency voted last week to halt the payments, amid a sweeping investigation into what prosecutors have called a major disability fraud scheme, according to agency documents and officials.The only thing shocking is that it took them a whole five minutes to be this arbitrary and capricious. This is the latest in a series of insults perpetrated by the government on disabled workers. It's been widely accepted that there are workers on disability scamming the system, though aside from the ones who have already been prosecuted, no evidence has been offered to show any individual retiree to have engaged in fraud. Still, it's become the accepted myth of the story, and who am I to stir up controversy.
The agency, the United States Railroad Retirement Board, which over more than a decade granted disability benefits to hundreds of railroad retirees based on fraudulent medical evidence with little scrutiny, took the action on Thursday during a five-minute meeting at its headquarters in Chicago. The vote approved procedures under which the board will cut off the benefits, which, officials said, are costing the agency $2 million a month.
But even assuming that some of the 600 are dirty, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that all of them are. Indeed, having heard from many of them, there is no question that there are people within this group who are most assuredly disabled and fully entitled to the benefits they receive. To which the government says, "who cares? If we just cut 'em all off, the deserving and undeserving alike, we can save a bundle and shift the problem onto the backs of the disabled."
The government, saving us $2 million a month. What's not to like? And if they let every poor person in America starve, and deny legal representation to anyone who can't pay for their own lawyer, they can save even more. Pretty soon, you're talking real money. And as long as it's not us who suffers, this is a great victory.
The action taken here could not be more arbitrary. Without any basis to suggest that these individuals (and remember that these are 600 human beings, each of whom has to live, eat, survive) did anything wrong, they just cut them all off and let the chips fall where they may. Who cares who was legitimately disabled? The government doesn't know and doesn't care.
But neither, it appears, does anyone else in a position to do anything about this. It seems that this is the culmination of the RRB poking a sleeping giant with a stick to see if it will wake up and fight. Instead, it has just rolled over and played dead. Where is the union? Hiding under its contract, praying that it won't be tainted by the bad press and entrenched hatred of the LIRR and its workers who have humped commuters for decades with their own nastiness and lack of empathy. Payback is a bitch.
And where are the leaders, the retirees who have the guts to stand up and be heard? <crickets>
This is where an organization must emerge to fight for the rights of the group, to finance and coordinate a fight against the government's outrageous denial of benefits to everyone because it's so much easier than doing the hard work of figuring out who is committing fraud and who is legitimately disabled. But no leader has emerged from the retirees, who are interested in their own financial survival but fear making themselves a target for federal prosecutors.
Everything about this action by the Railroad Retirement Board stinks of facile capriciousness, enabled by government prosecutors who have no room in their heads for the legitimately disabled whose lives they are wantonly destroying. And it's happening without anyone with the guts to life a finger. Not the union. Not the retirees. No one.
To paraphrase, the only thing necessary for the government to arbitrarily terminate the benefits of the LIRR disabled is for good men to do nothing. And it appears that's exactly what they're doing.
Update: It appears from an article in Newsday that not only will the 600 retirees whose applications for disability included a medical narrative report by convicted fraudster Dr. Peter Ajemian lose their disability payments, but that the LIRR is also trying to terminate their regular union pensions.
Bear in mind, while Ajemian may have lied on behalf of some retirees, there is nothing to suggest that the 600 who have neither been prosecuted nor individually inestigated weren't in fact disabled, and there is no doubt that most were disabled as defined by the Railroad Retirement Board. They have been singled out because of their having used Ajemian, who was promoted by the LIRR at the time as the best choice of physician.
Update 2: In a July 3rd memo to LIRR employees, LIRR President Helena Williams disavows Newsday's report that pensions are in jeopardy.
It appears she has a far better grasp of the issues than the RRB or Newsday. Or, for that matter, some of the annuitants involved.As reported in local newspapers and on websites, the RRB has taken an action to discontinue disability annuities for 600 retirees who were treated by Dr. Peter Ajemian. Newspaper headlines and articles are not under our control, and we regret any confusion to employees or retirees caused by today’s press coverage.
LIRR has no information about the identity of the 600 retirees affected by the RRB action or whether these retirees engaged in fraudulent activity while employed at the railroad, and LIRR has made no determination regarding their pension status.
Pension forfeiture for those employees found to have engaged in fraudulent or criminal activity while employed at the LIRR is not an automatic procedure and cannot be invoked without following an administrative process and procedure on a case-by-case basis, including, for those represented employees in the closed plan, an appeal process to an independent arbitrator.
Railroad work is physically demanding, and LIRR employees have distinguished themselves time and again with their hard work and dedication in all kinds of weather and under very challenging conditions. LIRR believes that RRB disability annuity is an important benefit that should be reserved for those railroad employees who are truly disabled.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney
Android Devices for Lawyers
We are happy to announce that The Digital Edge is now a part of Legal Talk Network. Since 2007, Digital Detectives co-host Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. has been co-presenting another podcast, The Digital Edge: Lawyers and Technology, with Jim Calloway. Calloway is the director of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program. He frequently writes and speaks on legal technology issues, Internet research, law office management, and ethics for lawyers. The Digital Edge invites noted legal technologists, authors, and lecturers to discuss topics related to lawyers and technology.
This episode of The Digital Edge features guest Jeff Taylor, also known as “The Droid Lawyer,” to discuss how lawyers can efficiently use Android phones, tablets and computers in their practice.
Jeffrey Taylor is an Oklahoma City Attorney. He has been writing the popular blog “The Droid Lawyer” since 2011, educating lawyers on how to get the most out of their Android devices. His first Android device was the original Motorola Droid, which he discovered was a useful tool for his profession. His practice focuses on personal injury, small business litigation and immigration.
Learn more about Android’s newest operating system, Jelly Bean, the top Android apps for lawyers, how to prevent security and malware issues with Android devices, and much more.
This episode of The Digital Edge features guest Jeff Taylor, also known as “The Droid Lawyer,” to discuss how lawyers can efficiently use Android phones, tablets and computers in their practice.
Jeffrey Taylor is an Oklahoma City Attorney. He has been writing the popular blog “The Droid Lawyer” since 2011, educating lawyers on how to get the most out of their Android devices. His first Android device was the original Motorola Droid, which he discovered was a useful tool for his profession. His practice focuses on personal injury, small business litigation and immigration.
Learn more about Android’s newest operating system, Jelly Bean, the top Android apps for lawyers, how to prevent security and malware issues with Android devices, and much more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-edge-podcasts/2013/05/android-devices-for-lawyers
legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
THE NLJ 350
The number of lawyers increased just slightly in 2012. Most of the gains were among partners, and associate results were flat.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202603414946&rss=rss_nlj
employment lawyers estate attorney family law family lawyer federal attorney
Choosing a Law Firm Entity Structure
On this October edition of The Legal Toolkit, Jared Correia, Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, joins Chiara LaPlume, principal of LaPlume Law, LLC and Sofia Lingos, principal of Lingos Law, to address entity choice for lawyers and law firms. Chiara and Sofia run down the options for law firms and solo lawyers (including d/b/a’s and limited liability entities), talk about why it’s essential to have a partnership agreement and relay why it may useful for an attorney to hire another lawyer to help them get incorporated.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/10/choosing-a-law-firm-entity-structure/
legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society
Key changes to Patent Law
Back on September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act (AIA) into law, vastly changing the core of the patent system and patent law. Now, a year later, some of the key provisions are going into effect. Lawyer2Lawyer host Bob Ambrogi talks with Attorney Matthew I. Kreeger, the Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster’s Patent Interferences Practice Group and Dennis Crouch, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law and editor of Patently-O, about the implementation of some of the most important provisions of the America Invents Act and their impact.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/09/key-changes-to-patent-law/
private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer
LawBiz® Legal Pad: Training Your Partner
What is the communication between you and your partner?
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/2JmqvnmuGJg/
The Firm Leader – Mastering Difficult Conversations
Attorneys can turn into leaders by successfully engaging others during difficult conversations. Learn more about handling these tough talks, how to prepare and how to get the results you want during these conversations on the Un-Billable Hour with host Attorney Rodney Dowell, the Executive Director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and Director of LCL’s Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program and expert guest Karen MacKay, President of the consultancy Phoenix Legal Inc.
defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney divorce atterney
A Civil Remedy
Professor Kate Nace Day of Suffolk University Law School discusses her new film, "A Civil Remedy," which premieres at the Brattle Theatre on April 26, 2012. For more information, go to http://filmandlaw.com/film.html.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/04/a-civil-remedy/
find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation free lawyer
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Is law school necessary?
The standard for competence is generally considered to be passing a test. If this is true and if you can pass the State Bar exam, the test in this case, why should we require 3 years of law school? Looking at the law school curriculum, can we truly say that this learning (e.g., 3 years vs 2 years) will help to better serve clients? Is it not true that the 3rd year is more fluffy or elective than essential to the practice?
The customer (client) is the market; the education system is the distribution system. Yet, schools seem to focus on classrooms and housing rather than the market being served, students and then clients. The net result is that the education is so expensive that fewer and fewer people can go to law school because it takes 5 to 10 years to pay off the student debt accumulated while going to school. And in today’s economy, with so many licensed lawyers unable to find work, these debts may stay on the books for a very long time with devastating psychological impact on the “student.”
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/gP22vtKKEWU/
traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney attorney
Code X: Stanford Law's Hotbed of Legal Technology Startups
In the Law Technology News June cover story, "Silicon Startups," reporter Tam Harbert describes how Stanford University's Law School has become the "vortex" for entrepreneurship in legal technology. The law school has joined forces with the University's engineering and computer science departments to create the Center for Legal Informatics laboratory — dubbed Code X. Among the results is Lex Machina, a startup offering a rich database of intellectual property litigation information that helps law firms, corporate counsel, and the government refine their trial and settlement strategies. The company just completed a second round of funding, infusing $4.8 million into its war chest. Law Technology News Editor-in-Chief Monica Bay welcomes attorney Roland Vogl, executive director of Code X, to discuss this exciting project on the June edition of Law Technology Now.
Obamacare on Trial
The fate of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now in the hands of the United States Supreme Court. But did lawyers for the Obama Administration convince the justices this historic healthcare initiative conforms to the U.S. Constitution? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, along with Professor Ilya Somin from the George Mason University School of Law and Professor Geoffrey Stone of The Law School of the University of Chicago, discuss the constitutionality and possible outcomes of this landmark Supreme Court case.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/04/obamacare-on-trial/
best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney colleges for lawyers
Paralegal Career Opportunities in Litigation Support
On The Paralegal Voice co-host Vicki Voisin welcome’s guests Ann L. Atkinson, ACP, NALA President, Michael Potters, CEO/Managing Partner of Glenmont Group, Inc. and Patrick Oot, co-founder of the Electronic Discovery Institute for a lively discussion about career opportunities for paralegals in the area of litigation support, particularly eDiscovery and technology.
Man Busted For Sidewalk Chalk?
You did not just bust that man for writing a message in sidewalk chalk did you? You did? Not cool at all. As reported by lancasteronline.com (PA):
Adanjesus Marin wanted to leave his mark on the debate over Medicaid expansion, but he had no idea it would get him arrested.
Armed with a few pieces of blue and pink sidewalk chalk, the Lancaster city resident joined a number of other activists Wednesday evening outside the governor's mansion.
That's where Marin wrote in chalk, "Corbett has healthcare, we should too."
The message refers to Gov. Tom Corbett's decision that Pennsylvania — for now — won't take part in the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act that kicks in next year.
Just moments after writing the comment, Marin was arrested at 10:22 p.m. by Harrisburg police and charged with disorderly conduct.
According to the citation: "The above did engage in an action that served no legitimate purpose in that he did write derogatory remark about the governor on the sidewalk."Setting aside the question of how a governor can refuse 100% federal funding of Medicaid expansion in his state (yes, it will go down to 90%) so that many thousands of needy folks won't get health insurance under Obamacare, is this really a good use of police resources?
Troy Thompson, spokesman for the Department of General Services, which manages the Capitol Police, said Friday afternoon that the citation was issued as a means to collect restitution for clean-up costs.
"There was a considerable amount of chalk used throughout the Capitol complex, and it did take some of our resources to clean that up," he said.You sure about that?
However, Thompson said the department has "withdrawn the citation" since it cost less than $100 to remove the chalk.Um. Er. Uh. You can read more, and see a photo of Mr. Marin's message, here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/MlJvdfOvdKg/post_711.html
absolute power of attorney attorney attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory
Sacramento’s New One-Day Divorce Program
On this episode of Lawyer2Lawyer, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams invite California Judge James Mize to discuss his first-of-its-kind idea to address the heavy congestion of divorce cases in Sacramento’s family court: The One-Day Divorce Program. This allows couples, who meet the specified requirements, to participate in an expedited divorce process that finalizes the separation in just one day. This program aims to serve couples who can’t afford a divorce lawyer. According to Judge Mize, 72% of family law litigants in California don’t have representation.
Judge Mize began his career with an undergraduate degree in psychology, followed by graduate work at the School of Social Welfare where he earned his Master of Social Work. He found his work in social issues to be a defining part of his 26 years working as an attorney, and his current work on the bench. He has served as the presiding judge of the Sacramento Superior Court and is currently the supervising judge of Sacramento’s Family Court. Judge Mize is best known for his civil reform efforts which have garnered him several honors including the California Judge Association’s Alba Witkin Humanitarian Award and Sacramento County Bar Association’s Judge of the Year Award.
Tune into to hear about the inner workings of the new one-day divorce program, who qualifies, how it’s run, and more.
Judge Mize began his career with an undergraduate degree in psychology, followed by graduate work at the School of Social Welfare where he earned his Master of Social Work. He found his work in social issues to be a defining part of his 26 years working as an attorney, and his current work on the bench. He has served as the presiding judge of the Sacramento Superior Court and is currently the supervising judge of Sacramento’s Family Court. Judge Mize is best known for his civil reform efforts which have garnered him several honors including the California Judge Association’s Alba Witkin Humanitarian Award and Sacramento County Bar Association’s Judge of the Year Award.
Tune into to hear about the inner workings of the new one-day divorce program, who qualifies, how it’s run, and more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2013/06/sacramentos-new-one-day-divorce-program
Congress Questions India Pharma Patent Practices
India is again coming under attack for its pharmaceutical patent policies, which Big Pharma says tilt in generic drug makers' favor.
attorney finder attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney
Inside Midnight Regulations
Back in June of 2012, the Administrative Conference of the United States approved non-binding "Midnight Rules" guidelines. Midnight rulemaking involves the pushing through of rules by a President, in the last few months of their administration. Host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, chats with consultant for the Administrative Conference of the United States, Professor Jack M. Beermann, about Midnight Regulations, the new recommendations and the potential impact on current and future administrations.
immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Paralegal Career 101: Dealing with Work-Related Stress
On this September edition of The Paralegal Voice, co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin explore the different kinds of work-related stressors many paralegals face on a day-to-day basis. They talk about the realities associated with an exciting but deadline-driven, detail-oriented paralegal job, and offer tips for both anticipating and resolving common stressors.
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney
Recent Rulings May Lead to More Issues Classes
Plaintiffs increasingly likely to seek certification of classes involving single claim or just issue of liability.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202609662842&rss=rss_nlj
free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid
At Center of Gay Rights Movement, a Justice Rises
Long saddled with the label of "swing vote," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has a new moniker that will travel with him into history: the court's strongest champion of gay rights.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202609568427&rss=rss_nlj
free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice
Monday, July 1, 2013
Workers’ Compensation for Harbor Workers and Longshoremen
Before The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, policy covered those working on land and those working within navigable waters, and neglected worker’s on the harbor. This left harbor workers with nowhere to turn but litigation when they were injured on the job. On this edition of Worker’s Comp Matters your host Attorney Alan Pierce has invited Steven M. Birnbaum to discuss The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, The Defense Base Act, and coverage for workers’ on the harbor.
Steven M. Birnbaum, Esq. started his private practice in 1983 specializing in workers’ compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act and the California Labor Code. He is a certified specialist in workers’ compensation by State Bar of California and a certified specialist in Admiralty and Maritime Law by State Bar of California. Birnbaum is a frequent lecturer on the topic of worker’s compensation and The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Listen to the interview as two worker’s compensation specialists discuss coverage for those working on and along the water.
Steven M. Birnbaum, Esq. started his private practice in 1983 specializing in workers’ compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act and the California Labor Code. He is a certified specialist in workers’ compensation by State Bar of California and a certified specialist in Admiralty and Maritime Law by State Bar of California. Birnbaum is a frequent lecturer on the topic of worker’s compensation and The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Listen to the interview as two worker’s compensation specialists discuss coverage for those working on and along the water.
divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer
Are your fees reasonable?
MyCase features my guest blog post suggesting that there is plenty of work for those lawyers willing to be realistic both in the nature of the clients they serve and the fees they charge.
While you're at their web site, check out their software. It has been reviewed by many and is well - regarded.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/hJvJpkxz83Q/
district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer
Burn Injury Litigation
Millions of burn injuries are reported every year in the United States. When an individual is severely burned, they can be left scarred, endure severe emotional trauma and some often succumb to their injuries. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen joins Attorney Marc Breakstone, founder and principal at Breakstone, White & Gluck, to talk about the various types of burn injuries litigation, liability and prevention.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/11/burn-injury-litigation/
criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer
Supreme Court Watch: Employment law cases
We will be watching three pending cases at the US Supreme Court as the Court's session opens today:
Kloeckner v. Solis
Oral argument on October 2.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears appeals by federal employees regarding certain adverse actions, such as dismissals. If the employee asserts that the challenged action was the result of unlawful discrimination, that claim is referred to as a "mixed case."
Question Presented: If the MSPB decides a mixed case without determining the merits of the discrimination claim, is the court with jurisdiction over that claim the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a district court?
Vance v. Ball State Univ
Oral argument on November 26.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) held that under Title VII, an employer is vicariously liable for workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim’s co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence.
Question Presented: Whether the Faragher and Ellerth “supervisor” liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.
Genesis HealthCare v. Symczyk
Oral argument December 3.
Symczk sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. This was a section 216(b) collective action. The defendants extended an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in full satisfaction of her alleged damages, fees, and costs - prior to her moving for conditional certification and prior to other potential plaintiffs opting in.
Question Presented: Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/10/supreme_court_w_11.html
colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law conservator
Supreme Court Looks at Oklahoma Abortion Law
The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Thursday that it is taking a close look at an Oklahoma law that restricts the use of abortion-inducing drugs.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/06/27/supreme-court-looks-at-oklahoma-abortion-law/?mod=WSJBlog
State Bar Rejects Rules on Pro Bono Reporting
The State Bar says the new rules will have a "coercive effect" that "dilutes the voluntary nature" of lawyers' donations of time and money.
commercial law common law company law conservator copyright lawyer
The Controversial War on Drugs
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" claiming "America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse". Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-controversial-war-on-drugs/
traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney
So You Think You Like Bicycles ...
Don't get me wrong. As a daily bicycle commuter, The Juice really likes bicycles, just not this much. Read this, from thelocal.se, and you'll be clicking below to read the entire article.
Östersund police are investigating whether there is any connection between the recent spate of masturbation bike attacks with similar incidents from 2007.You'll find the rest of the article here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/kbTJ-jYbu2M/post_706.html
colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law conservator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)