The Legal Beat was developed as a way to showcase lawyers who have a certain level of expertise in a practice area. If you would like to be featured in an article, video, or podcast, click here.
Happy Leap Day everyone! It’s the one day every four years that begs the question, “Why isn’t it March yet?” Don’t worry all of you March fans out there, your day will come tomorrow. But for now, why not sit back and enjoy the extra 24 hours that you just got added to your year.
TOP FIVE REASON LAWYERS SHOULD LEAP
1. It’s Friday. Since you are reading the Friday Five, you already know that it is Friday, but you can still celebrate. Another grueling week behind you, it’s time to enjoy a few days off.
2. $$ Billable Hour $$. Sure, the price of a gallon of gas will soon be $4, but the hourly rate for attorneys is rising at an ever faster rate. With $1000/hr guys walking the streets, you can rest assured that you are well worth the money.
3. Your Job. With the state of the economy where it is, you are lucky to be comfortably employed. Either your firm sees your value or you are a solo practitioner still able to find and keep clients. However, if in fact you have been laid off, skip to #4.
4. Your Free Time. For those of you that have lost your job, you can take solace in the fact that more firms are laying people off now than ever before. Now you have some free time to evaluate where you are at. Maybe there is something you would rather be doing? Maybe you want to start your own practice?
5. Cheap, Easy Online CLE. I’d be lying if this fifth one wasn’t a little selfish, but why not leap for CLE? A bad economy means your time is very valuable. So now, you don’t have to worry about fitting in big, expensive CLE conferences and seminars. It’s all right at your computer anytime you need.
Whatever your reason, take this added day to enjoy yourself. After all, it’s not every year you get this kind of time, only every four.
As of February 28, 2008, all Pennsylvania attorneys can take Online Continuing Legal Education with Lawline.com. As an accredited provider, all of Lawline.com’s courses are approved for CLE credit in the state. According to the Pennsylvania CLE requirements, attorneys may only complete 4 of their 12 mandatory credits online each year, including one hour of ethics.
According to Pennsylvania mandatory CLE rules, lawyers must complete 12 hours of approved CLE programs every year. One of those hours must be in the subject of legal ethics. The reporting deadlines for the state vary depending on the first letter of the attorney’s last name, either April 30th, August 31st, or December 31st.
Lawline.com features three different one-click bundles for the state of Pennsylvania. Each of them contains 4 credits, including 1 hour of ethics. The price of these bundles is $125, which is 25% off the full price of those courses. Please follow the following link to view the Pennsylvania CLE Bundles.
If a one-click bundle is not what you are looking for, Pennsylvania lawyers have the option of choosing any courses in our growing course catalog. Lawline.com’s management team remains committed to providing the highest quality Online Continuing Legal Education experience in the country. Pennsylvania marks the 36th state in which Lawline.com is recognized as an Online CLE provider.
The area of Employment Law is as important an area of the law as any, and it is one that continues to grow and gain importance every day. One of the more prominent law firms around focusing solely on Employment Law is Schwartz & Perry LLP. Recently, we were lucky enough to be joined by three attorneys from Schwartz & Perry LLP, Murray Schwartz, Brian Heller, and Matthew Schatz.
Murray Schwartz, who has received a lot of positive feedback for his CLE programs on Lawline.com in the past, is back again with an interesting new style. This program was filmed as a roundtable discussion covering everything from how to handle a client to trying a case. It is a must see for anyone practicing in employment law, and a very interesting course for any attorney.
Below, please find a brief clip, in which Murray Schwartz explains a little of the planning that went into this program. He introduces his colleagues and discusses the main purpose behind presenting this material. And keep a look out for their course, which will be hosted exclusively on Lawline.com in the near future.
Is it me or has everyone in the world gone mad? Okay, so that may be a little over-dramatic but there is one issue in the news right now that really shocks me. I saw the headline, “Utah Students Hide Guns, Head to Class” on CNN.com and decided to investigate. Apparently, Utah has passed legislation that allows students and teachers at public universities to carry concealed weapons on campus. This, in the wake of the second major school shooting incident in a year.
At first, I thought to myself, “Wow, people from Utah are a little different”. Then, after some further investigation, I saw that one other state (Colorado) has passed the same legislation, and it is pending legislation in about ten other states. What is going on here? Is it really a good idea to allow students to equip themselves with guns to prevent a shooting spree?
Before, if you saw a kid on campus with a gun, you know there is something wrong. That kid needs to be stopped immediately before he harms anyone. Now, we are trying to make it perfectly legal for everyone to carry a gun around. Basically, if you are 21 and have a permit, fair game. I would love to know what law makers are thinking, or were thinking, when they came up with this legislation. Am I the only one who thinks a college campus should be gun-free?
Here at Lawline.com, we feel that Lawyers who give CLE presentations should get the kind of recognition that they deserve. So, in honor of awards season, we are presenting the first ever Lawline.com CLE awards. All CLE courses filmed in 2007 were eligible and the winners were decided based on user feedback. Click on the link following each winner to view that course page. Here they are:
Best Costume Design (Self-Explanatory): Legal Issues Relating to the Purchase and Sale of Art, Malcolm Taub (View)
Best Supporting Actress (Female CLE Speaker in as part of a Pair): Amy Greenfield, Strategies for Litigation Communications (View)
Best Supporting Actor (Male CLE Speaker in as part of a Pair): Michael Ross, Ethics: Should Lawyers be Constrained by the Truth? (View)
Best Actor (Male CLE Speaker): Herald Price Fahringer, Strategies for Delivering Opening Statements (View)
Best Actress (Female CLE Speaker): Olivera Medenica, Basics of Operating an Online Business (View)
Best Screenplay (Written Materials): Michael Grossman, The Laws Governing Religion and Religious Corporations (View)
Best Picture (Overall Program Quality): Ethics: Should Lawyers be Constrained by the Truth, Joel Cohen with Michael Ross and James Bernard (View)
Congratulations to all of this year’s winners and participants, we look forward to seeing the great courses still to come.
Friday Five: Increase Your Online Exposure Posted: February 22nd, 2008 By: Zach Heller Category: Business Development Skills, Friday Five, Lawline.com, Marketing Tips, SEO
The internet is a quickly becoming the main focus of advertising and marketing for every industry, including the law. There is no substitute for online exposure, as many professionals are learning the hard way. You have to stay one step ahead of your colleagues if you are going to attract more potential clients your way. At Lawline.com, we have worked with numerous attorneys to help them build their “internet brand recognition”. The goal is to get your name out there as many places as possible to begin to develop your own online network. Here are some tips.
TOP FIVE WAYS TO INCREASE YOUR ONLINE EXPOSURE
1. Write Articles. One of the best ways to associate your name with a particular topic or area of expertise is to write about it. Attorneys are always trying to get published, and the internet makes it easier than ever. There are hundreds of websites out there that will take article submission from people in their network. Most of them are free to join. Submit your articles for people to read and your name will begin to gain exposure.
2. Join Networks and Directories. Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, Lexis Nexis, and the Lawline.com Featured Attorney Directory are just a few of the popular attorney directories online. There are many more like them and it is important to have yourself listed in as many as possible. You may have to spend some money on a subscription fee but the value is well worth the cost. These directories are well known and visited often.
3. Write a Blog. Blogs are a great way to get your name and ideas out into the online world. They are easy to start with many websites offering free blog hosting and templates. The only trick is you have to commit some time to stick with it. Add to it often, write about interesting news and trends that apply to your practice area, and people will read it. It is a great way to boost your search engine visibility.
4. Update Your Website. Websites today have begun to move away from the traditional one page information source, where all you see is a picture, an attorney bio, and a contact number. Many attorneys are starting to add more to their website to make it engaging and interactive. People visiting the site want to be interested. You have to stand out from the crowd to truly make a name for yourself online.
5. Continuing Legal Education Programs. CLE is moving online, and it is becoming much more of a marketing tool than ever before. If you speak on a topic that directly relates to your practice area, others will see it and hear about it. At Lawline.com, our faculty members gain immediate online exposure related to their Continuing Legal Education course. These courses are displayed online and show up in search engines. They are a great source of personal networking and referrals.
These are only a few of the ways attorneys can begin to market themselves on the internet. The best thing about the world of online marketing, you can be as creative as you want. The goal is to have your name associated with your individual area of expertise anywhere someone might look.
Fred W. Nelson, etc., respondent, v Stanley Kalathara, defendant, Claude Simpson, appellant. (Index No. 3167/07)
2006-09551
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 1313
February 13, 2008, Decided
Here, plaintiff is the guardian of an incapacitated seller of real property, and defendants were the attorneys for purchaser. Purchase funds went astray, going to incapacitated sellers former guardian [and a relative.] Seller’s Guardian unsuccessfully sued purchaser’s attorneys with whom he had no privity, and was unable to convince the court that there was fraud, or independent malicious acts necessary to bring an action against purchaser’s attorneys.
Plaintiff may not sue opponent’s attorneys, or attorneys who were not acting for plaintiff in the absence of independent fraud or malicious acts.
Tsvi Dallal, respondent, v Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., appellant. (Index No. 99/2003)
2007-06135
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 1295
February 13, 2008, Decided
Defendant attorney waited too long to bring a motion for summary judgment, which had to be brought within 60 days. Court cites two Court of Appeals cases on issue, Miceli and Brill.
SECOND CIRCUIT LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASES THIS MONTH
CELEBRITY CRUISES INC., and FANTASIA CRUISING INC., Plaintiffs, - against - ESSEF CORP., PAC-FAB, INC., and STRUCTURAL EUROPE N.V. (f/n/a SFC), Defendants.
96 Civ. 3135 (JCF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 568
January 4, 2008, Decided
This is a cruise line injury action. “After passengers sued plaintiff cruise line for injuries from an illness suffered while on a trip, the cruise line sued defendant manufacturer, which had designed, manufactured, and distributed the water filter in the whirlpool spa where the illness originated. After two damages trials, which resulted in an award of $ 15 million lost profits award for the cruise line, the parties filed various motions regarding damages.”
“This case has been litigated in installments. Having agreed to proceed before me for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties stipulated to determination of all liability issues--those arising out of Celebrity's claims as well as those related to the passengers' claims--in a single bellwether trial. That trial took place in May 2000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the passenger plaintiffs and against both Celebrity and Essef. The jury also found in favor of Celebrity on its claims against Essef, and a damages trial based [*4] on that determination was conducted in the spring of 2006. When the jury in the 2006 damages trial returned a verdict in favor of Celebrity for approximately $ 190 million, Essef moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. I granted that motion in part, awarding judgment to Essef on one category of damage claims and ordering the retrial of another. Celebrity Cruises Inc. v. Essef Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 440 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("Celebrity IV"). A second trial on damages was held in June 2007, and this time the jury found Essef liable to Celebrity for approximately $ 15 million in lost profits.
“Second, Celebrity points out that in a legal malpractice action brought by Essef against its former counsel, Squire, Sanders and Dempsey LLP, Essef has argued [*21] that it was injured by the firm's failure to seek a jury determination of comparative fault with respect to Celebrity's claims against Essef. This, according to Celebrity, estops Essef from contending that it did not waive the right to avail itself of principles of comparative negligence. (Celebrity Memo. at 10). But nothing prevents Essef from pleading in the alternative by, as in this instance, asserting a contingent or hypothetical claim: if Essef is found to have waived comparative negligence, only then does it have a malpractice claim arising out of that failure. See Lawser v. Poudre School District R-1, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1158 (D. Colo. 2001) (finding that HN3 contingent claim is permissible hypothetical pleading). The predicate pled for that contingent claim, however, does not operate as a binding admission. See Henry v. Daytop Village, Inc., 42 F.3d 89, 95-96 (2d Cir. 1994); Ascher v. Target Corp., No. 05-CV-4826, 522 F. Supp. 2d 452, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84015, 2007 WL 3287441, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2007).”
CITAK & CITAK et al., Plaintiffs, -against- THE ST. PAUL TRAVELERS COS., INC., Defendant.
07 Civ. 5459 (WHP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94040
December 26, 2007, Decided
This is a diversity jurisdiction case in which the law firm has asked for a declaratory judgment that it is covered by a subject legal malpractice insurance policy..
The Citak Firm “claims that St. Paul's refused to provide counsel and indemnify them for a malpractice claim tiled against them on November 3, 2006 in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by Stuart and Carina Marton (the "Marton Action"). The Martons allege that the Citaks' legal malpractice damaged them in their pursuit of an arbitration award against a contractor. (Harwood Decl. Ex. C: Complaint, Marton v. Citak & Citak, No. 116472-06 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 3, 2006.) The Martons seek "at least $ 60,000 in damages, with interest from November 29, 2000, together with plaintiffs' costs and disbursements in [the] action." (Harwood Decl. Ex. C at 9.) After an arbitrator awarded the Martons $ 62,367.32 against their contractor, the Citaks moved [*3] to dismiss the Marton Action arguing that, having won the arbitration, the Martons could not demonstrate that the Citaks' alleged malpractice had caused them any harm. On October 11, 2007, the New York State Supreme Court denied the Citaks' motion to dismiss because (1) "but for defendants' negligence, [the Martons] would have procured a judgment against [the contractor] while that entity had assets sufficient to satisfy the judgment;" and (2) the arbitrator denied the Martons' request for $ 36,632.11 in pre-judgment interest, finding that the Citaks, and not the contractor, were responsible for the nearly seven year delay in bringing the arbitration. (Decision and Order, Marton v. Citak & Citak, No. 116472-06 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 11, 2007) at 4.)”
It’s not every day that Continuing Legal Education, CLE, makes the news. So when it does, it makes sense to write about it. By now, many of you probably heard the story about a prominent Minnesota prosecutor who was found in violation of the state’s CLE requirements over a 20 year span. The penalty: $900 and a two year probation.
Now, I can understand an attorney might not like taking CLE courses, or might not see the value in some of the CLE programs that are out there. However, this is a blatant disregard for the rules and should have been met with a heftier punishment. The $900 fine amounts to only $45 for each year of non-compliance, a value far lower than the average attorney spends on CLE each year.
I think the real issue here is not necessarily the CLE, although that is what drives the problem, but the fact that the attorney was practicing when he should not have been. Perhaps his ability and skill as a lawyer was not affected by a lack of CLE compliance, but the point is that an attorney has an ethical responsibility to his clients to comply with all rules and regulations. And if that is too difficult, or too much of a hassle, something is wrong.
5 Steps to Starting Your Own Practice Posted: February 20th, 2008 By: Zach Heller Category: Business Development Skills, Career Corner, Entrepreneurship, Lawyer Profiles, SHOWCASE CORNER, Videos
Daniel Gershburg started his own law practice straight out of law school. To many people around him, this was a crazy decision, one that they did not understand. He had been a solid student with strong experience, and was on path to work for a large firm and earn a nice wage. But Daniel was looking for something different, and he felt strongly about doing his own thing. He recently shared with us his five step process to starting your own practice.
1. Get Mentors. Learn as much as you possibly can from as many people as you can meet. This will help you create personal and professional networks as well as increase and expand your knowledge of many legal issues.
2. Find Office Space. You will need to look as professional as possible, so it is important to have space where you can meet with clients. Virtual and home offices will not cut it if you truly want your practice to grow.
3. Get in Touch with Every Single Association Available to Help You. There are so many people out there to help you get started, the trick is just knowing where to look. Bar associations and business development organizations are a great place to start.
4. Good Client Relationships. Too many large firms are run like corporations, with little or no focus on client support. Adapt a customer service philosophy toward dealing with clients. Be there for them whenever they need you and you will get many more referrals.
5. Strong Web Presence. Your website is a great tool for marketing, referral generation, and client management. Use it wisely and it will save you money in addition to getting your name out there.
Daniel Gershburg is also a Lawline.com faculty member. Please look for his upcoming course entitled, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy: The Initial Meeting, which is coming soon. For a brief video interview with Daniel, click play below:
Friday Five: Lawyers as Presidents Posted: February 15th, 2008 By: Zach Heller Category: Career Corner, Friday Five, Lawline.com, Opinion Corner
On the Friday leading into Presidents’ Day Weekend, it only seems fitting to think about the oval office. Who’s been there, who’s going to be there next year, and what you are going to be doing on Monday instead of coming into work. And, as lawyers, it is important to note that of the 43 leaders this nation has had to date, 25 of them have been lawyers. This is a staggering number, one that does not go unnoticed. There are many reasons that a lawyer would make a good president, but only five that made our list below. Enjoy!
TOP 5 REASONS LAWYERS MAKE GOOD PRESIDENTS
1. Good Negotiators. Negotiation plays a key role in many aspects of a President’s responsibilities. You have to be able to negotiate with lawmakers to pass certain bills, as well as deal with other world leaders to work out deals and international laws. Negotiation is a give and take where both sides end up happy with the result, and lawyers have a lot of experience in this type of interaction.
2. Confident Speakers. Lawyers have to be able to convey their thoughts clearly in front of a group of people. They have to sound knowledgeable and accurate at all times. This is important in a President because a good speaker can have a calming effect on the country. In addition, the speeches that a President makes can have a lasting effect on the nation’s policies and affairs so it is vital to send the right message at all times.
3. Knowledge of the Law. This one is pretty obvious, as lawyers of course you will have a strong knowledge of the law, especially the area you practice. When a President has a knowledge of the law it adds to his ability to govern. Key areas such as constitutional law, international laws, and business and corporate law will play a huge role in policy decisions of any president. And we have seen what happens when a president takes action with no regard for the law whatsoever.
4. Problem Solving. Lawyers have the ability to see a problem from a number of different angles. As a trial attorney, it is key to learn all the facts of a case and choose the best course of action in order to win a case. As president, it is important to gather all the necessary information about every decision that needs to be made and choose based on the greater good of the people. Presidents need to be able to see all the possible solutions and outcomes, and then choose the best option.
5. Bullsh*t Ability. Let’s face it, the President will get into a tough spot from time to time. They all have. Most of the time it cannot be avoided, especially because of the constant media bombardment. It is important for a President to think and act on the fly in order to keep the nation’s confidence and support through the tougher times.
In the end, who’s to say what really makes a good president. Law has definitely proved to be a good launching point for a Presidential Nominee. 25 men have made it from the law office to the oval office, and we may see yet another one do it this year.
When most people think about the legal profession, the words humor, comedy, or laughter don’t come into play. But that is because they have never met or heard of Sean Carter. He calls himself the Legal Humorist, or Humorist at Law, and rightly so. Sean, who has spent most of his career practicing law, has now made a name for himself in the newly created world of legal comedy.
Sean Carter travels the country, speaking to large corporations, law firms, and bar associations. His speeches are far different than the traditional legal education programs that lawyers have become accustomed to, because his are comedic. He has dubbed the title Comedic Legal Education, and his “students” love him for it.
What started out as a firm understanding of the law and a natural flare for humor has turned into an interesting and successful “practice”. His programs offer lawyers a real chance to appreciate what they are doing and not to take everything so seriously all the time. He offers insight into the humor in the legal profession and makes people see the balance between work and life. In addition to these speeches, he has authored a book on the subject entitled, If It Does Not Fit, Must You Acquit? Your Humorous Guide to the Law.
But just because Mr. Carter’s speeches make you laugh, do not assume that they have no real educational value. In fact, many legal authorities believe the opposite. It is the opinion of many people that have heard him speak that the comedy adds to the learning process and actually gets the real message across more efficiently. For this reason the Legal Humorist continues to tour the country as his programs become more and more popular. He continues to offer insight into the lighter side of the law that we rarely see enough of.
Mainly because of the technology available in the world today, mandatory CLE requirements are now being considered and put in place in Canada. Citing new online CLE technologies, members of the Canadian National Law Society said that it was now easier and more cost efficient for attorneys in Canada to complete CLE courses. For that reason, it is more practical to impose requirements on those attorneys now than it ever was before.
In British Columbia, they just recently set new guidelines establishing a 12 credit requirement each year. The British Columbia Law Society says that Online CLE and other distance learning options eliminate the need to travel or allot a substantial amount of time to Continuing Legal Education courses. Now attorneys can take the necessary courses from their home or office computer.
Soon, we will start to see other provinces impose such standards as the practice of CLE becomes required nationwide. In the US, we are very close to a nationwide CLE requirement, as it is now mandatory in 42 of 50 states. The trend will only continue as legal governing bodies can see the benefits of mandatory CLE among attorneys everywhere.
I read an article today boasting that South Korea held its first “trial by jury” today as part of a larger overall judiciary reform. This means, that in a country where trials were heard and decided by a judge alone, are now heard by a jury and decided by a judge.
At first, like most other people who read the article I am sure, I was very content with the direction the country is moving. I thought to myself, that’s the first step, now keep it up. But that got me thinking. As an American, am I so biased to our judicial system that I think every other country should operate the same way. Who am I to say what type of judicial system would work the best in any country? Is a trial by jury any more fair or just than a trial heard and decided by a lone judge?
In my mind, I think it very American of each and every one of us to assume we know the solution to everyone’s problems. We like to think that we do things the right way and that everyone else had better do it our way or else they are doomed to fail. But for once, I think this topic could get the conversation started on whether or not we really know what we are doing at all. I am interested to hear back from all attorneys, judges, and civilians alike to see what types of thoughts people have on this subject. More to come…
Sex offenders are pursuing potential victims online. This is an ever growing issue that many social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace face on a daily basis. And now government action is being taken for the first time. NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced last week that he and legislative leaders have agreed on a bill restricting activities of New York’s registered sex offenders to their use of the internet to attract potential victims. How will this be accomplished? By putting it the hands of the sex offenders!
According to the bill, registered offenders would be required to report all email addresses, instant-messaging screen names and social networking monikers to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services. In addition, the statute appears to be silent as to penalties for sex offenders who fail to report their information.
Now while I agree that something needs to be done on this issue, should we really trust the offenders to be completely honest in giving up their information? How is this to be monitored? That is like asking anyone who commits a crime to let us know when and where they plan to commit the next one beforehand. It would be great if it worked, but who is that stupid? Listen, registered sex offenders obviously have a problem, and I don’t think asking them to help us stop them is the right answer.
As an Online CLE provider, Lawline.com deals a lot with legal assistants and paralegals who are interested in our Continuing Legal Education programs. That got us to thinking, what makes a good paralegal or personal assistant? Attorneys, like any employer, should know the fundamental skills and talents they are looking for when they decide to hire. A bad hire, whether it is a personal assistant, secretary, or paralegal, can cost you unnecessary time, money, and stress. This week’s Friday Five is our guide to a successful hire.
TOP FIVE THINGS ATTORNEYS SHOULD LOOK FOR WHEN HIRING HELP
1. Communication Skills. This is crucial. The ability to communicate in person, on the phone, and through email is as important as any other skill. To limit wasted time and effort on your part, you need to be able to rely on your assistants to communicate with clients and other personnel as if it was you the whole time. The more they can do and say on their own, the less time you will have to spend clearing up mistakes or dealing with insignificant tasks.
2. Professionalism. These people that you hire will be interacting with your clients on a daily basis. In a way, they represent you and your practice just as much as you do. You need to make sure that they appear professional and well-mannered at all times in order to give the people they see the right impression. That all starts with how they dress and act on the initial interview, so pay attention.
3. Career Goals and Aspirations. This does not necessarily mean that they are using the job as a stepping stone to bigger and better things, but a good employee should be able to tell you about their goals. If they have a clear vision of what they desire in a job and future positions, you know that they are confident and determined workers. They will be more likely to put in the extra effort to get things done.
4. Proven Analytical Skills. This is obviously very important in the legal profession. Employees need to be detail oriented and willing to do some in depth research. Even the smallest mistakes can be costly if you are working on a case, so make sure whoever you hire understands that. This can be hard to identify in the interview process, but experience with some type of research is always a good thing to look for.
5. Experience/Interest in your Practice Area. Experience in the legal profession is definitely preferred for the simple fact that is cuts down costly training. The less you have to coach and train someone, the more you can get done. Even better is if someone has experience in your particular practice area, because they will be familiar with certain types of cases, forms, procedures, etc.
In the end, it is not easy to say what makes a person a good employee. A lot of employers use trial and error techniques, basically hoping that they get the type of worker they need. Hopefully the tips above will give you a basic starting point to build off of. But just like anything else, you learn from experience, and the more people you hire, the clearer it will be exactly what you are looking for.
STEPHEN F. BRUMMER, PLAINTIFF, v TOWN OF TONAWANDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. CHRISTOPHER A. SPENCE, P.C., APPELLANT; THE BARNES FIRM, P.C., SUCCESSOR TO CELLINO & BARNES, RESPONDENT.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 871
February 1, 2008, Decided
Attorney 1 represents a construction accident plaintiff up to the point of a motion for summary judgment against the employer on Labor Law section 240. He is replaced by Attorney 2, who continues the case through settlement. In the ensuing attorney fee dispute Attorney 2 claims that Attorney 1 committed legal malpractice and is due no fees. The court holds that the question of attorney malpractice may be raised only by plaintiff, if it chooses to sue Attorney 1. Query: will Attorney defend such a suit with a collateral estoppel argument?
Samuel Cosentino, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., Defendant-Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 625
January 31, 2008, Decided
Complaint dismissed when plaintiff cannot show “but for” causation, and makes wholly conclusory arguments. This formulation by the court is often simply another way of saying that they do not like the case. One day’s conclusory allegations are the next days satisfactory complaint. Here, the court did not like the ethical rule violations argument at all.
Brian Cohen, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Michael Weitzner, Esq., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 618;
January 31, 2008, Decided
“Plaintiffs allege that the settlement required them to pay more in taxes than they had anticipated based on a spreadsheet prepared for them by defendants in which, due to a typographical error, their tax liability for the year 2000 was understated by $ 121, 000, and that they have been damaged in that amount by defendants' misrepresentation. However, plaintiffs' tax liability was correctly reflected in the returns they filed before retaining defendants and entering into the settlement agreement. In any event, their tax liability was not the subject of the negotiations with the IRS. Thus, plaintiffs fail to allege how defendants' error damaged them.”
Elaine Lupo, Plaintiff-Respondent, against Alan M. Cass and Alan M. Cass & Associates, Defendants-Appellants.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 50170U;
January 29, 2008, Decided
“Plaintiff's first cause of action alleging legal malpractice was sufficiently pleaded to survive defendants' CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss. The alleged facts if accepted as true, accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and evaluated only as to whether they fit within any cognizable legal theory sufficiently stated plaintiff's claim that but for defendants' negligence in their representation of plaintiff in a Worker's Compensation proceeding, she would have prevailed on the underlying claims.”
Here, plaintiff’s worker’s compensation case was lost when defendants showed up for a medical causation hearing without a physician, but worse, had the opportunity to notify the court and did not. The court would not adjourn the hearing, and found against the plaintiff.
By now, everyone has heard the news. Microsoft made a $44.6 Billion bid to acquire Yahoo late last week. The deal, which would be the biggest that the technology industry has seen, has raised a lot of concerns on all sides. At $31/share, Microsoft has set the bar very high and it is unlikely that other bidders will be able to compete. Even rival Google, who appears to be the target of the takeover, will most likely stay out of a bidding war with Microsoft. Instead, they have offered to do whatever they can to help Yahoo avoid a takeover attempt.
Google could use their political presence to urge lawmakers to scrutinize this deal. Certainly, the combination of two internet powerhouses will bring about antitrust concerns in Washington. And Google will most likely have something to say about every facet of the deal as they try to maintain their huge competitive edge in the online search and advertising markets.
This will not be the first time that Google and Microsoft go head to head in Washington. Microsoft successfully delayed Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company that Google bought last year. But if Yahoo takes the deal, or Microsoft goes hostile, the deal is most likely to pass through Congress with little trouble. If anything, it provides increases competition in an industry currently dominated by Google.
Still in its infancy, this deal has to go through a lot in order to be completed. For right now, we will all continue to speculate and comment on what could be. Yahoo will need plenty of time to evaluate the bid and shop for other solutions. This kind of thing will take a long time to settle but when it does, it could mean a new age of Google – Microsoft competition.
Last night’s Superbowl lived up to the hype. It was a great game made even greater if you are a Giants fan (or just a Patriot’s hater). And I have a feeling that the blog I wrote last Friday helped the cause just a bit. But now it’s Monday morning, and even though the Giants and Pats will be taking some time off, the rest of us are back at work.
Unfortunately for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, he will be back to work quicker than expected as well. The commissioner will meet with Senator Arlen Specter to discuss the issue of the Spygate controversy involving the Patriots illegally taping games to gain an edge over opponents. The Senator says that the way the whole situation was handled has to be questioned, and it could lead to Senate hearings on the subject down the road.
The legal implications of this could be larger than we expect. Though they will most likely pale in comparison to Baseball’s Steroid Investigation, an investigation into the practices of “cheating” in the NFL will do nothing but bring about negative publicity for the sport and Roger Goodell. If it is found that Goodell ignored the issue for the most part and then destroyed evidence of further cheating, he could be in trouble. And Patriots officials have to be careful as well, because there have already been further accusations that have surfaced about additional illegal filming activities. We will have to see how this situation unfolds, but it will certainly be a main topic of discussion this offseason.
It’s the one weekend a year where everyone is a football fan, and the NFL reigns supreme over everything. Not even the primary elections can compete with the attention that the Superbowl will get over the next few days. Even today’s Friday Five is all about this year’s Superbowl matchup between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants. The Patriots, coming in at 18-0, are trying to become the only team to go undefeated and win the Superbowl since the Miami Dolphins did it in 1972. The Giants will be trying to pull off the upset and complete a magical run through the postseason. And, being that we are a New York based company, guess who I’ll be rooting for?
TOP FIVE REASONS THE GIANTS WILL PULL OFF THE UPSET
1. Eli Manning has no idea where he is. I think it is pretty clear when you watch Eli Manning speak that he is lost to the world. Now most people might think that would hurt his chances on Sunday. I beg to differ. He has an uncanny ability to remain calm and cool in pressure situations, never showing too much emotion. That will help him control the game against a sterling Patriots defense.
2. Tom Brady broke a bone in his foot (I suspect). I know we have all seen the video and heard the news by now. Tom Brady has been wearing a walking cast on his foot over the last week or so. He has been very limited in practice, and even though he will most likely play, it is very probable that his injury will limit his effectiveness this weekend.
3. Week 17. In the final game of the regular season, the Giants just missed an opportunity to end the Patriots run at perfection. Now, they get a chance to do it again. Now they are more confident and have more experience facing Tom Brady and the Patriots offense. This will prove to be valuable and could increase their odds of success this time around.
4. Spygate. Back in week 2, the Patriots and head coach Bill Belichick got caught cheating by “spying” on the other team’s sideline to learn signals and play calls. Now, even though the NFL basically dismissed this with a minor slap on the wrist, the football gods took notice. There is no way that they would allow the greatest season in history to be marked with an asterisk. So, that is why this will not go down as the greatest season in history, but as the biggest upset of all time.
5. Heart. Let’s face it, even given the fact that the Patriots are playing for perfection, the Giants have to want this win more. They have not been to the Superbowl since 2000 and have not won it since 1990. The Patriots, on the other hand, have won it 3 times in 6 years. Tom Coughlin, Eli Manning, Michael Strahan and the group must finally be feeling that this is their time and it will show on the field.
If you are lucky enough, or rich enough, to be attending this game, you will be sure to witness one of the best Superbowls ever. For the rest of us sitting at home or at the bar, watching it on the big screens and diving into our (insert Superbowl party food here) will have to do. Either way, I’m excited!
