Need Help?
1-800-LAWLINE
      |
      |
| All Posts | Subscribe Via RSS  |
|
What's the Deal with Law Firm IPO's It seems like a total clash, the ultimate conflict of interest - Publicly traded law firms. But what was once just an idea is getting closer and closer to becoming a reality.
Articles and blog posts have surfaced all over the internet in recent days on this very issue. First, the popular business magazine, The Economist published an article about a change in British law that will allow some law firms to go public. Then, various reactions began to pop up about the possibility of this happening in the US, as well as positive and negative consequences of the notion. While law firms have high profit margins as well as growth potential, the most prominent downsides to publicly traded law firms are a conflict of interest with clients and management potential. Law firm management has always been the job of the managing partners, a public company would demand more scrutiny. Non-lawyers would most likely be brought in to run the firm, thus putting off the managing partners a bit. Costs would be analyzed, instead of the usual revenue building numbers. And law firms would begin to run differently than they have all along. Where it goes from there is nothing more than a guess. And with a new responsibility to shareholders, what happens to the best interest of the clients. If there is a conflict between a client’s needs and the wishes of majority shareholders, what happens? That is the main reason why the law is in place to keep law firms private. Getting rid of this rule seems like a direct threat to clients of a public law firm. We will see where all of this goes, as it may be a long time coming in the US. Read more here: The Economist, WSJ Blog
Police Brutality in NYC: Lawline Faculty Member in the News Justin Blitz, a Lawline.com faculty member, was featured in the New York Post today as a client of his is planning on suing the New York City Police Department who allegedly beat and sprayed him with mace while he was handcuffed in June 2008. Mr. Blitz's client, Raphael Jefferson, was stopped by cops after they approached him while he was talking with an acquaintance outside a store. Mr. Jefferson had just finished work doing demolition at a job site when he was stopped by the police. His acquaintance had been drinking a beer and as the cops approached, Jefferson began to walk away. Though Jefferson had not been drinking, the cops walked after him, eventually stopping him, throwing him up against the hood of a car and handcuffing him. Video, taken from neighbors who witnessed the incident, serves as evidence of the beating. After being handcuffed, Jefferson was verbally harassed, maced in the eyes, beaten with batons and kicked. He spent two days in a jail cell, pleaded guilty to disorderly contact, and was let out on time served. Now Justin Blitz, Jefferson’s attorney, has filed a notice of claim against the city on behalf of Mr. Jefferson. The next step in the process will come when Mr. Blitz will file suit after the 5-H hearing that is scheduled to take place in the next couple of weeks. They will be looking for an undisclosed amount of money from the city to pay for Mr. Jefferson’s injuries that were sustained that night.
Faculty Newsletter Announcement At Lawline.com, one of our main focuses has been to take care of our faculty. We regard those attorneys that teach courses for us as experts in their field. We love to take advantage of different opportunities to promote our faculty members both online and off. Our most recent endeavor has led us to create the first ever Lawline.com Faculty Newsletter. This project was so successful, not to mention fun, that we are planning on continuing it every quarter. The newsletter will be sent out every three months, featuring our newest and most prominent faculty members. It will also feature stories submitted by attorneys as well as highlighted articles from The Legal Beat. You can view a copy of the Faculty Newsletter here. For more information on being featured in upcoming issues, please contact us. We would love to hear your story or any feedback that you want to give us. In addition, you can sign up to receive new issues of the newsletter by emailing your mailing address to support@lawline.com. Be sure to include “Faculty Newsletter” in the subject line.
Friday Five: Build Internship Programs Here at Lawline.com, we keep an active internship program. We bring in students from local colleges, teach them the business, and work with them to continue to grow. It’s a practice that has produced the best possible results for both our company, and the many individuals that have passed through as interns. We have so much success with it, in fact, that we want each and every one of you to consider an internship program as well. Here’s why. Top Five Reasons Every Law Firm Needs an Intern Program 1. Fresh Minds. Bringing in new people can do many things. It adds a new energy to an office. It gets everyone motivated to work a little harder. And it puts fresh eyes on a system that may be stale or outdated. Interns can help a company or law firm develop better, more efficient ways of doing things. 2. Get the Work Done. Interns get things done, bottom line. Hiring interns allows you to concentrate on the work that you have wanted to do for a long time, but not had the time. A solid group of interns will work hard and finish projects that may have previously been pushed to the side. 3. Built in Recruiting. This is the ultimate benefit, one that usually goes unnoticed. A good internship program produces permanent employees. By building a rapport between the interns and the company, it allows you to judge whether or not they would make good full time employees. Sometimes, it is the easiest and most effective recruiting option available. 4. Training = Learning. When you are at a job for an extended period of time, it is easy to forget the little things. Training interns not only helps them learn the business, it gives the trainer a nice refresher and how things get done. It has been said that teaching somebody is the best way to get a grasp of it yourself, and this is an advantage to both sides of the internship program. 5. The Future of Law. Hiring interns helps give back to the future of the legal profession. You can give students a look at how the law works from a vantage point that they couldn’t get anywhere else. An internship program is not all about the employer, the interns add experience to their resumes and continue to move their own professional lives forward.
JD Supra Creates Legal Writing Community JD Supra, found online at jdsupra.com, is an online community for anyone in the legal field to post and search documents for free. Founded on the motto, Give Content, Get Noticed, believes in giving lawyers a platform to publish their court filings, decisions, forms, articles, alerts, and newsletters. In addition, they create unique profiles for contributors so their information is searchable in the website’s database, showcasing individual attorneys and law firms. With the abundance of information, users can search the website for free. This opens up new avenues for legal and journalistic research. As the community grows, attorneys will have access to a growing number of documents, and contributors will have a wider audience to expose their material to. Taking advantage of this network effect, JD Supra is sure to offer new and exciting opportunities for members of the legal community in the future.
Continuing Education and the Future of Web-based Courses In the blogosphere today you can find this post on Eductra.com. The topic of the post, continuing education. Author, Andy West discusses the growing popularity of continuing education in all fields. He cites the ease and convenience of online courses as the main reason for the rise in popularity in recent years.
Though Mr. West focuses his piece primarily on getting professional certification or advanced degrees to move forward professionally, much of what he says can apply to mandatory continuing education as well. Not only are online courses more convenient for those of us working full time, but the cost of these programs are much cheaper than live courses, both on and off-site. In addition, because of the nature of the internet, these courses can be conducted at your own time. The courses stay very current, and professionals who complete them are finding that they are getting just as much information as they would at a live seminar, if not more. The value of continuing education is quite clear, and now more than ever it makes sense for people in a growing number of professions. The internet is changing the way we get information, and the online education trend is one that is not going away.
Solar Panels Create Real Change at Cooley In our continuing effort to highlight law firms that are taking initiatives to operate in a more environmentally friendly way, we come across a law firm in California doing something remarkable. Cooley, Godward, Kronish LLP, with offices located in Palo Alto, has just finished installation of an 87 kW solar system on its rooftop. Cooley, Godward, Kronish LLP has 650 attorneys in offices located across the country. This move is one of many that the firm is taking to reduce their energy consumption costs and give back to the environment. With this solar panel installation alone, the firm will be saving the energy equivalent of driving five million miles in an average-sized car. Servicing Clean Technology clients, the firm has been inspired to take action. Not only is this a good move for the environment, it will help the firm operate at a lower cost, and open up new business opportunities.
More firms around the country are starting to see the benefits of green initiatives. Though the initial cost may throw off some, the long term benefits are too great to ignore. Cooley, Godward, Kronish LLP is taking strides toward becoming a more productive firm, and we commend them for that. Know of, or work in a law firm that is taking similar initiatives in their day to day practice? We would love to hear about them. Leave your comments here or email me at zach@lawline.com.
The Many Purposes of Continuing Legal Education You can’t say enough about the usefulness of a good CLE lecture. A course that provides interesting and up to date information will not only help you prepare for the future, but give you the basic information that you need to grow your practice right now. It allows you to help new clients, and also service current clients in new ways. This article from the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, MN talks about a Continuing Legal Education program that is based on a very targeted on a specific, relevant theme. The program will cover the basics of defending people arrested in demonstration and protest situations. Why is this so important in Minnesota right now? With the GOP National Convention happening in St. Paul this year, there are sure to be hundreds of those types of arrests to defend. The last two conventions, in Philadelphia and New York, led to a combined 2400 arrested protestors. The police can only do so much to prevent having to make such arrests, so it is a good idea for lawyers in the area to familiarize themselves with the laws regarding such situations. CLE can help you in the long term, that much we knew. But this type of CLE course can help a very niche market of lawyers in the very short term. Sounds like it is worth every penny.
Friday Five: Lawsuits that make you laugh The law is great for so many reasons. It provides us with a system of justice that keeps us safe. It gives CLE providers like Lawline.com a reason to be. And it gives us some of the weirdest lawsuits you can imagine. This week, the Lawline.com team has assembled five of the most uniquely infamous lawsuits of our time. Enjoy.
TOP FIVE LAWSUITS THAT MAKE YOU SAY “ARE YOU SERIOUS?” 1. Hot Coffee. We all remember this one. A woman who bought a coffee at McDonald’s subsequently burned herself because the coffee was so hot. She sued the fast food chain because they neglected to warn her of the affects the hot liquid could have on her. She won and since then McDonald’s has made it well known to everyone that hot coffee can burn you. 2. Deaf Theft. A man was robbing a bank when one of the tellers noticed that he was hard of hearing. She triggered an alarm and the burglar was apprehended. He later sued the bank for discrimination because they took advantage of him based on a disability. Needless to say, the case was tossed out. 3. Under the Influence. A woman crashed her car on the way home from an office holiday party at which she had a bit too much to drink. She decided to sue her employer for allowing her to drive drunk. Amazingly, she won and was awarded money to pay for the damage and any legal penalties she incurred. 4. Mother and Son Take a Trip. A woman shopping at a clothing store sued for damages when she tripped over a toddler who was running wild around the store and broke her ankle. The store found this strange, however, because that toddler was her own son. Surprisingly, she lost the legal battle. 5. Poor Winnebago. A woman who bought a brand new Winnebago sued the company because her vehicle ran off the road and flipped out of control. She had been driving back from the dealership when she decided to put on the cruise control and go into the back to make herself a sandwich. After all, the manual never said anything about having to steer the car while it is set to cruise. She won, and the manuals were subsequently altered to include this “alarming” detail.
Thursday Attorney Malpractice Update 8/7/08 The Alter Ego in Legal Malpractice Single stockholder corporations are quite common. Entrepreneurs know that they must start a corporation, and they often equate the corporation's activities with their own, for they, of course, are the CEO, CFO, COO, and sole shareholder. Here is an example of what can go wrong. Baccash v. Sayegh is the story of a sole shareholder who probably has done well with her bridal gown business. She hears that a competitor is going to retire, and hires attorney to prepare sale/purchase documents. Here is where things go awry. Defendant prepares a stock purchase agreement rather than an asset purchase agreement, and plaintiff finds herself [or is it the corporation] indebted to a creditor for $ 50,000. Plaintiff pays off, and sues attorney. She wins at trial, only to have the verdict reversed and dismissed. "Here, the plaintiff's theory of the case was that she sustained damages because the stock purchase agreement which the defendant negotiated without her knowledge required her to assume responsibility for Peggy Peters' liabilities, consisting of trade debt and an outstanding bank loan. However, the proof presented at trial revealed that all payments of Peggy Peters' debts after the February 2001 purchase were made by Bridal Couture rather than the plaintiff, and that Bridal Couture also paid $6,000 in settlement of the creditor's suit brought against both Bridal Couture and Peggy Peters. Although it is undisputed that the plaintiff is Bridal Couture's sole officer and shareholder, a corporation has a separate legal existence from its shareholders even where the corporation is wholly owned by a single individual (see Harris v Stony Clove Lake Acres, 202 AD2d 745, 747; see also Rohmer Assoc., Inc. v Rohmer, 36 AD3d 990; Winkler v Allvend Indus., 186 AD2d 732, 734; New Castle Siding Co. v Wolfson, 97 AD2d 501, 502, affd 63 NY2d 782). Moreover, "the courts are loathe to disregard the corporate form for the benefit of those who have chosen that form to conduct business" (Harris v Stony Clove Lake Acres, 202 AD2d 745, 747). Furthermore, while the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil allows a corporation's separate legal existence to be disregarded to prevent fraud and achieve equity (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141; Millennium Constr., LLC. v Loupolover, 44 AD3d 1016; Rohmer Assoc., Inc. v Rohmer, 36 AD3d 990), the doctrine is typically employed by third parties seeking to circumvent the limited liability of the owners, and requires a showing of a wrongful or unjust act toward the plaintiff (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141-142). Even assuming that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil would be available to allow the plaintiff to disregard the corporate form in which she chose to do business, no evidence was presented to support the trial court's conclusion that Bridal Couture is, in fact, the plaintiff's alter ego. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's proof was insufficient to establish that she sustained actual damages as a result of the defendant's conduct (see Rogers v Ciprian, 26 AD3d 1, 6; Winkler v Allvend Indus., 186 AD2d 732, 734). Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice (see Carrasco v Pena & Kahn, 48 AD3d 395; Edwards v Haas, Greenstein, Samson, Cohen & Gerstein, P.C., 17 AD3d 517), and that branch of the defendant's motion which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint should have been granted. " More Patent Law Legal Malpractice News Yesterday we reported on a Nebraska case in which it was found that simply because a legal malpractice case came from a patent matter, it was not a federal question, sufficient for US District Court jurisdiction. "The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out a summary judgment win for Duane Morris in a lawsuit alleging that one of the law firm's partners bungled a trademark infringement case involving an LSAT test-prep company. The three-judge panel found on July 30 that the federal district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in granting summary judgment to the law firm, after deciding that the state law malpractice claim did not arise from the federal trademark law and therefore was not properly in federal court. The decision means that the plaintiff could revive the case in state court " Is Patent Law Legal Malpractice always a Federal Question? Jurisdiction in Federal District Court...harks back to the first few weeks of law school. Well, there's diversity...and...and federal question. So, a legal malpractice case arising from a patent transaction...state court or federal district court? Many the removed case has been found to have federal jurisdiction, but this Nebraska Case says that it may be brought in State Court. Here is the case. Can someone explain why this decision was not written by a Federal District or Circuit Court? Rogue Associate or Legal Malpractice in Thelen Reid Case "Thelen argued that the company "and/or" third parties contributed to the IP losses and that IVI waived the alleged conflicts of interest. The firm also said the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Thelen acknowledged that an associate reassigned an IVI patent to a Gardiner company and that an alleged Gardiner company replaced an IVI subsidiary as a party to a research agreement with Johns Hopkins University. However, Thelen's lawyers wrote, the latter change was made "pursuant to instructions from e-Smart," another IVI subsidiary.
John Gotti Arrested on Murder Conspiracy Charge It was announced today that John “Junior” Gotti, son of the infamous Gambino family mob boss John Gotti, has been indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit murder. The murders all took place in New York City in 1988, 1990, and 1991. If convicted, John Angelo Gotti and five others named in the indictment face life in prison. Gotti has been tried on three separate occasions for racketeering, though each has resulted in a mistrial. His father, John Joseph Gotti, died six years ago of throat cancer while serving out a life sentence in prison for crimes that included but not limited to 13 murders, racketeering and obstruction of justice. During the mid to late 1990’s, John “Junior” was the acting boss of the Gambino family. For more on this story, read the article on CNN.com.
Friday Five: Olympic Game Glory It’s the return of something magical, something the whole world can enjoy, something that provides entertainment to people of every generation. No, not the Olympics. The Friday Five. After some time off, I am bringing it back with a vengeance. And yes, the 2008 Summer Olympics are going to be coming to you live from China in the coming weeks. So let’s take a look at what those of you watching are most likely to enjoy.
Top Five Things to Look for in the Upcoming Olympics Games 1. Pollution. Despite the promises of Chinese officials, they failed to meet the standards set out to them by the International Olympic Committee. One major area that they fell short in was the pollution concerns of the region. Athletes and visiting fans alike will have to deal with a lack of clean air for the time being. 2. Iraqi Athletes. After originally banning the country from competition, the International Olympic Committee has allowed Iraq to compete in the games. The punishment was seen as unfair, and the ban was lifted earlier this week. I wonder how many gold medals they’ll win. 3. A US Basketball Team Gold Medal. After a few consecutive Olympic disappointments, the USA finally got the right idea when it comes to preparing a basketball team for international competition. Get the team you want, and keep the same players together from year to year. This builds chemistry and gets them accustomed to the rules and the coaching styles. Look for them to dominate in ’08. 4. Michael Phelps. For fans of the US, one man has taken the majority of the attention leading up to the Olympics. Swimmer, Michael Phelps says he ready to break even his own records as the games draw nearer. Look for a lot of gold medals and a lot of excitement in the pools this August. 5. Drug/Doping Scandals. With all the focus on Steroids in baseball, don’t rule out a “mistake” by an Olympic athlete when it comes to performance enhancing drugs. Though it may put a damper on medal ceremonies, you can never rule out something like this happening on the big stage these days.
Apple and their Intellectual Property Battles Apple is facing what seems like a never-ending onslaught of imitators in the computer market. With the increased popularity of Apple Computers and the Mac OSX, many small computer companies are trying to emulate their success. They do this by creating their own computer, similar in many ways to Apple’s offerings, and pre-installing the Mac operating system.
One such company that Apple has sued over these claims is getting ready to go to trial. Psystar, a company based out of Florida, retained a law firm to deal with the lawsuit. Another company, Open Tech Inc., is the most recent imitator and Apple has yet to take legal action against them. We will see how this plays out, but in the end it will most likely be a long legal battle that Apple will win. Their technology is protected in such a way that the operating system is safe from potential competitors or knockoffs. The physical design of the computers is less of an issue than the Mac OSX that will run off of them. For more information, read this article on ZDNet.
Ex-NBA Referee Tim Donaghy Sentenced to 15 Months Former NBA referee Tim Donaghy was sentenced to 15 months in prison yesterday for gambling on NBA games. The sentence is no surprise, despite the fact that Donaghy cooperated with government officials throughout the entire process. Two other defendants involved both got at least one year in prison for their roles in aiding Donaghy. “In deciding her sentence for Donaghy, U.S. District Judge Carol Amon assessed the extent to which Donaghy actively ‘chose’ to commit crimes,” reported SI.com. The main defense from Donaghy’s attorneys was that his addiction to gambling impaired his judgement. They said that he did not willingly bet on games that he was involved in, the equivalent of pleading temporary insanity in a murder trial. In the end, the severity of the crime won out. The NBA insisted that this sentence, along with the many new practices they have put in place for hiring and training officials will severely cut down the likelihood of something like this happening again. Only time will tell if this is the end of the NBA’s betting problems, but this was a giant step forward for the league.
Computer Forensics Interview Q&A with Keith Jones, Computer Forensic Expert Witness and Senior Partner of Jones Dykstra & Associates (www.jonesdykstra.com) Topic: How can lawyers successfully select and work with a computer forensic expert witness? Keith Jones: Legal professionals can employ many different methods for finding an expert witness in the field of computer forensics. Many people claim to be computer forensic experts, but they do not have enough knowledge or experience to provide iron-clad testimony, should the need arise. Asking for referrals from a trusted source is usually the best way to find a quality person. Realize that you are hiring an individual expert, so even though the company you’re hiring has a great reputation, be sure you know the credentials and background of the specific person who will work on your case. Once you have a few candidates, do your own research on those potential experts – verify their resume and background. Remember that opposing counsel will be doing their homework on this, in an effort to possibly discredit your witness. In addition to having impeccable credentials as an expert witness, the computer forensic specialist should also have excellent communication skills. If the case goes to trial, he or she will need to effectively explain complicated technical subjects to judges and juries that may have had no prior technical training. Q: What kinds of credentials and certifications should a lawyer look for in a qualified computer forensic expert? Keith Jones: Legal professionals should inquire about whether the individual (not company) that they are considering as an expert has at least one or more the following non-product-oriented certifications: - Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) Also, lawyers should be aware of the following forensic software packages, which are often used to properly collect and preserve electronic evidence. - EnCase® by Guidance Software. Note that training certifications on the above products do not automatically qualify someone as a computer forensics expert. They only mean that the person has gone through the training course and passed the exam that was created by the vendor. The expert’s previous testimony record and other “in the field” computer forensics experience are often more valid points for evaluation. Q. What should a lawyer be vigilant about when working with a computer forensic witness? Keith Jones: The most damaging thing to a lawyer/expert witness relationship is the possibility of miscommunication. The attorney and the expert need to be on the same page when it comes to which pieces of information are important, and which are less so. The legal professional needs to challenge the expert as much as possible and ask bold questions to pull out the salient points and expose vulnerabilities. This leads to fewer gaping holes that opposing counsel can exploit to discredit your client and your witness. Also, remember that many criminal investigations result from low-profile administrative or civil disputes. Therefore, all electronic evidence must be handled with the utmost care and attention, in case the data becomes relevant on a much more serious level. The legal professional would be strongly advised to keep copies of evidence inventory and chain of custody documentation. Failure to handle evidence properly can be a damaging or fatal blow to your client’s future case down the line, if not during the matter at hand.
Keith Jones: It’s a fine line. Usually when an expert starts a case, he or she doesn’t want to know too much to reduce any question of bias. If the attorney is bringing a case to trial, he or she already believes his side of the story. If somebody is accused of stealing something, then the attorney already believes that the crime did occur. The expert cannot allow him/herself to be convinced of any such conclusion prior to examining the evidence, so the lawyer must be careful not to attempt to persuade the expert prior to the investigation. Computer forensic experts need to examine electronic evidence in an unbiased manner. The lawyer needs to give them just the most essential information, so they don’t get biased, but so they can ask pertinent and probing questions. If the lawyer gives the expert too much information, that can work against you. As an expert, though you want to know the whole story, you have to decide what you absolutely need to know, and what you don’t really need to know. Q. You've served as a computer forensic witness on many high-profile cases, including US v. Duronio. How did you effectively communicate highly technical information to the jury? Keith Jones: The Duronio case was very complicated in terms of explaining computer logs and showing how data got from point A to point B. I had to walk the jury step by step to show how the defendant placed a “logic bomb” of malicious computer code inside the computers of his employer (Paine Webber). I had to explain the basics of how a computer functions to show how I figured out that the digital bomb was placed on the company’s IT system by Mr. Duronio. A computer forensic witness often needs to explain very simple things like that, even though they may seem obvious. In this case, I had to go a lot further and prove that what I was saying was true, even when the defense was calling it untrue. Experts need to be able to break down the information to a digestible form that can be understood by the jury. Also, they must be prepared to back up their statements, even when questions come from an unexpected or contradictory direction. Q: What are the primary keys to a successful attorney/expert witness relationship? Keith Jones: First, the lawyer and the expert witness need to acknowledge that they come from completely different backgrounds. The attorney shouldn’t assume that the expert is going to know anything about law, and the expert shouldn’t expect attorney would know anything about computers. The terminologies and subject matter for both fields are vastly different. Both need to thoroughly understand what the project entails. The attorney has to realize that people can’t see electronic data – it’s not a tangible object, it’s abstract. Therefore, the attorney and witness need to work together to make it “real” for the audience – the judge and jury. Q: In your experience, what are the most dangerous pitfalls for attorneys when working with an expert witness - what mistakes are made most often? Keith Jones: The biggest mistake I’ve seen attorneys make is when they hire computer forensic experts who are not the “cream of the crop.” If the self-proclaimed expert has no college degrees, and just a bunch of certifications from software vendors, that’s pretty hard to defend against when attacked by opposing counsel. I’ve seen people’s backgrounds explode on them and the attorney who hired them, and I’ve seen “experts” make up their own methodology to do computer forensics without basing it on any proven expertise or approach. Unfortunately, there’s no universally agreed-upon certification that distinguishes a quality expert from a charlatan. This is why exclusively using experts who come recommended by credible sources is such an important priority for the lawyer to consider. Keith Jones: Any type of visual presentation is good. However, I’ve seen other experts put up tables and graphs images blown up on poster board and that puts even me to sleep. Ideally, you want a movie that’s very visual; at minimum, use PowerPoint or something that moves a little bit. Granted, you can’t do this in every single scenario - it depends on the level of your case. When I have the ability to use PowerPoint to get our point across, it makes my job a lot easier and my testimony is more easily understood and absorbed. Q. What concrete steps can an attorney take to maximize chances of success in selecting and working with a computer forensic expert witness? Secondly, let the buyer beware when working with large computer forensic firms. A lot of major consulting companies will do a “bait and switch” – the people that present their credentials to you in the selling phase aren’t necessarily the individuals that will be your assigned experts. Be sure to ask and investigate who would actually work on your account, so there are no surprises later in the game. Lastly, verify people’s backgrounds. You would be shocked to know what some so-called professionals will fabricate to get the job. As legal professionals, you are used to doing your homework, so a decision about hiring an expert witness should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and due diligence that you bring to your substantive legal work.
Super Lawyers Desire their “Super” Status be Known James Quirk reported Tuesday in The Bergen Record that attorneys may soon be allowed to advertise their “Super Lawyer” status. Those attorneys who were honored with the prestigious title have challenged the advertising ban. Retired Appellate Division Judge Robert Fall issued a recommendation for the state after researching the issue. His recommendation, to ease the advertising ban and make the ranking methodology transparent to the public, will be important in the court’s review of its previous ruling. The ban, known as Opinion 39, was issued by the court to prevent attorneys from misleading clients with unreasonable expectations. Attorney advertising laws in New Jersey are very strict compared to their New York neighbors. Fall states in his report, “It is evident that the Twenty-First Century consumer is more sophisticated than ever and actively seeks information prior to making purchase choices, including the selection of legal representation.” A date has not been set for the court to review Opinion 39.
Thursday Attorney Malpractice Update 7/17/08 Judiciary Law 487 in the Second Circuit and the Court of Appeals Judiciary Law 487 is a statute which defines a misdemeanor and creates a private cause of action, with treble damages, §487. Misconduct by attorneys. |
