Green, it’s the buzzword of the decade.  But what does it really mean to say that businesses are going green?  Well, for different businesses it can mean different things.  But overall, it means that the company is making efforts and strides to reduce waste, conserve energy, become more sustainable, and give a little something back to the environment.  Companies have started to see that not only is going green good for the environment and public relations, it can actually be a real money saver in the long term.

When most people think of companies going green, they might think about various environmental service businesses or tech companies.  But today, it is important for every industry to begin to see the light, even law firms.  And as it turns out, there are some law firms that have already seen value in taking the initiative.

Wendell Rosen Black & Dean of Oakland, Ca. has been recognized as a green company since 2003.  Some of the main practices that they took on as a part of the process was eliminating paper waste, and switching over every possible piece of office equipment and décor to more bio-friendly products.  As a result, they have seen much better client relations and a reduction in overall costs of doing business.

Other law firms all over the country have started the process as well.  It is important to realize that in the effort to go green, any action is a step in the right direction.  It does not necessarily take an entire revamp of the way you do business to get started.  Little things here and there can make a big difference in the long run.  And as more companies across a wide variety of industries begin to make the switch and realize the benefits, we will be much better off both environmentally and economically.

Lawyers are notoriously slow adapting to change.  Changes in the way we do business, in the way we hire new employees, in the way we reach out to the public, are never headed up by the legal community.  It is a profession marked by long standing traditions and a very specific set of values and standards.  But now, as new technologies continue to open up doors for all businesses every single day, it is important that even lawyers and law firms try to keep up.

I recently read this blog, which addressed the issue of banning certain websites in large law firms.  Citing a survey, it was argued that banning social networking sites can hurt recruiting efforts for new hires because today’s young professionals have grown up with these online communities.

I would take this a step further and say that smaller law firms can use social networking sites and blogs to help their recruiting effort against large firms.  The big law firms have always had an advantage when it comes to recruiting the best talent out of law school for the simple fact that they can pay more.  But recruiting talent is as important as ever, so why not look for new ways to do it?  Treat your potential employees as if they are potential clients.  Actively go after their “business”.

Speaking directly to law students and young lawyers via blogs, online communities, and other web formats allows employers to tap into a whole new world, one that is inhabited almost entirely by the next generation of workers.  Already many other businesses are starting to see the potential in taking advantage of these new online communication platforms, and it is time for the law to take notice.
Instead of banning such websites, use them to their fullest extent.  

Don’t hide from the future, embrace it.  The next generation of lawyers are out there looking for a place to work.  Go and find them.

Welcome back to Friday and the return of the Friday Five.  After a week off, we decided that it was time to get back to the old ball game.  Being located in New York City has its advantages, just not when the Pope is in town.  Try getting from point A to point B when all points are closed.  Difficult is an understatement.  Anyways, today the Pope spoke before the UN and addressed some pressing international issues.  I feel he may leave the U.S. without addressing some of our most pressing issues.  What issues am I speaking of, find out below.

TOP 5 ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY THE POPE DURING HIS U.S. VISIT

1. Steroids in baseball.
2. Whether or not Barack Obama is an elitist.
3. Polygamist compounds.
4. The credit crunch.
5. Mandatory CLE.

Now, I know most of you are used to seeing a longer description for each of the items on the list, but if the Pope is too busy to mention them, then so am I.  Happy Friday!

New York, NY - April 17 -- Lawline.com, a leading provider of Online Continuing Legal Education nationwide, has launched its brand new Refer-A-Friend Program.  The program allows members of the site to refer other lawyers to Lawline.com, for which they will be compensated with Free Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Credits.  In addition, those attorneys that are referred will be offered a one-time discount of 15% off of their initial purchase.

The program, which is designed to allow customers to spread the word about Lawline.com’s stress-free CLE experience, also helps attorneys save their colleagues and friends money.  There is no limit to how much you can save as each attorney can refer as many people as they want.  And because Lawline.com offers CLE courses accredited in 32 states across the country, there is no limit to who can sign up.  The free CLE credits are added to the attorneys account after successful completion of the initial purchase by those that they refer.

To learn more about the program or to begin Referring Your Friends, please visit http://www.lawline.com/cle/refer-a-friend.php.  Current members of Lawline.com will find an option to refer other attorneys upon signing in to their Lawline.com account.  This is an easy way to earn free credits for your next reporting cycle or finish up this year’s requirements before the deadline.

Lawline.com remains committed to providing innovative ways to help attorneys improve their professional skills in an efficient, inexpensive manner.  The Refer-A-Friend Program saves attorneys money and allows them to view a wide variety of high quality CLE programming offered by Lawline.com’s expert faculty.

CASES THIS WEEK IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE

Jusuf Becovic, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v Poisson & Hackett, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.

3142, 118056/04

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 2644; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2594

March 20, 2008, Decided
March 20, 2008, Entered

Plaintiffs were physically injured, and the placement and maintenance of a garage sign was an important element of the personal injury case.  They lost and sued the attorneys.  The legal malpractice case was dismissed on summary judgment.  Note the parting comment on discovery.

“In this legal malpractice action, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they would have succeeded in the underlying personal injury action "but for" defendants' conduct (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434, 866 N.E.2d 1033, 834 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2007]). Contrary to the motion court's conclusion, plaintiffs cannot show that the defendants in the underlying action created the allegedly dangerous condition by an affirmative act of misfeasance (see Mercer v City of New York, 88 NY2d 955, 670 N.E.2d 443, 647 N.Y.S.2d 159 [1996]; Kelly v Berberich, 36 AD3d 475, 476-477, 828 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2007]),  [**2] and the claim that said defendants failed to maintain the garage sign that was purportedly the instrumentality that resulted in the injury is not sufficient for this purpose. Plaintiffs also failed to raise an issue of fact regarding notice of the condition, since their sole opposition was hearsay (see Wertheimer v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 85 AD2d 540, 541, 444 N.Y.S.2d 668 [1981]). In view of the dismissal of the instant action, we need not address the arguments on plaintiffs' cross appeal for spoliation sanctions. We note, however, that plaintiffs' position is lacking given the long period of inaction  [*2]  by their attorneys in this action in failing to avail themselves of the opportunity to seek third-party discovery.”

Naida I. Velazquez, etc., appellant, v Bruno Decaudin, et al., defendants, Arnold Streisfeld, etc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 3191/06)

2006-10455, 2007-05614

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 2575; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2514

March 18, 2008, Decided

As the Appellate Division notes, this is a strange and disturbing real estate deal for the beneficiaries of their mother’s estate.

“The complaint alleges, insofar as is relevant here, that Jose, believing, on the basis of misrepresentations by certain of the defendants, that he was refinancing to save his mother's property from foreclosure, entered into a contract to convey the property to Decaudin for $ 390,000. The property allegedly was worth $ 600,000 at the time. When the closing was scheduled, Jose  [**5] allegedly was advised that only he had to attend the closing, but that he should bring with him his mother's social security card and driver's license. At the closing he allegedly was introduced to Streisfeld, and was told that Streisfeld was his attorney.

 [*3]  The complaint alleges that, prior to the closing, Streisfeld had been provided with a copy of the power of attorney by which Jose was purporting to act in connection with the closing. The power of attorney, which had been executed by Jose's mother, appointed Jose and his sister, the plaintiff, Naida I. Velazquez, acting jointly, as attorneys-in-fact for their mother. Despite the requirement that Jose and the plaintiff act together, however, the complaint alleges that Jose acted alone in connection with the conveyance of the property and that the plaintiff was unaware of his actions in that regard.

According to the complaint, the closing proceeded only after a lengthy meeting, from which Jose was excluded, between Streisfeld, the representative of the defendant Old Town Abstract Company, LLC (hereinafter Old Town), which was the agent of UGT, and the mortgage brokers, financial advisors, and other attorneys involved in the transaction.  [**6] When the closing did proceed, Jose was taken into a room separate from the other participants, where he was advised that he was required to execute a deed, as well as a use and occupancy agreement and an option to purchase agreement. The use and occupancy agreement provided that Jose, who resided elsewhere, could continue to reside in the premises for a period of 12 months as long as he paid Decaudin's mortgage payments in a timely fashion during that period. The option-to-purchase agreement provided that as long as he did not default in his obligations under the use and occupancy agreement, Jose could purchase the property during that year for $ 370,500, which was the total amount of the two mortgages that Decaudin executed in favor of the defendant Sunset Mortgage Company at the closing.

The complaint further alleges that, at the closing, Jose, Decaudin, Streisfeld, and the attorney for the lender executed an escrow agreement, pursuant to which no funds were to be disbursed, no documents were to be recorded, and no title insurance was to be issued until an original power of attorney in favor of Jose had been delivered to Old Town. The escrow agreement further provided that if the  [**7] power of attorney were not delivered, the closing documents were to be returned to the respective parties. The complaint alleges that even though the power of attorney was never delivered to Old Town, the funds were disbursed and the closing documents were not returned, but were recorded, and UGT issued a policy of title insurance. The complaint alleges that the closing documents reflect that Decaudin paid approximately $ 295,000 to satisfy the outstanding mortgage indebtedness on the property and that the remaining $ 95,000 that had been borrowed from Sunset was disbursed to the defendants, rather than to the owner of the property, the plaintiff's decedent.

Several months later, Jose defaulted in his obligations under the use and occupancy agreement that was executed at closing and DeCaudin initiated a summary dispossess proceeding, in which he was represented by the defendants Ira S. Clair, an attorney, and Clair and Gjertsen (hereinafter collectively Clair). The proceeding resulted in the issuance of a judgment in favor of Decaudin and a warrant of eviction. The complaint alleges that in a motion to vacate the judgment and warrant, Clair was made aware of the alleged defect in Decaudin's  [**8] title but negligently failed to examine the relevant documents or do anything else to ascertain the true state of Decaudin's title.”

April 16, 2008 – New York, NY - Lawline.com, a national provider of Online Continuing Legal Education, is announcing the launch of brand new CLE programs sponsored by Pincus Professional Education.  The courses will be hosted exclusively on Lawline.com starting April 15, 2008.  Pincus joins Lawline.com as a partner, providing course content to a growing list of CLE programs featured on Lawline.com.

Pincus Professional Education is an online educational company located in Paradise, California.  They provide attorneys with live in-person programs and teleconferences designed to improve professional skills for the practicing attorney.  The company was founded by Faith Pincus, Esq. on the concept of making attorneys better practitioners by hearing tips straight from the experts.

The new courses include such titles as “Immigration Practice in the 9th Circuit”, “Public Speaking for Attorneys”, and “Persuasive Appellate Brief Writing”.  All new courses can be found by visiting www.lawline.com/cle/index.php.  In addition, attorneys can purchase our brand new Pincus CLE Bundle, which consists of 15 Credits (including 1.5 Ethics) for a limited time special price of $550.

Lawline.com continues to offer the highest quality Continuing Legal Education online.  Their goal is to make CLE as easy and as interesting as possible.  With courses accredited in 32 states nationwide, and a growing variety of CLE course subjects, attorneys can fulfill their CLE requirements on Lawline.com easier than ever before.

Another Big Law Bankruptcy Legal Malpractice Case

Bankruptcy Legal Malpractice cases are on the rise.  Trustees have greater powers than do regular plaintiffs, there are longer statutes of limitation in Bankruptcy situations, and the numbers are really big.  Here is a case from the NY Lawyer site.

"Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is the latest law firm to be named in a suit stemming from the breakdown of the commodities firm Refco, Inc. The action, filed by liquidators and the trustee for Sphinx Funds, a family of funds that collapsed after doing business with Refco, was filed March 8 in New York trial court; a notice of removal to federal district court in Manhattan was filed by one of the defendants March 28. 

Refco filed for bankruptcy in October 2005. Several lawsuits and criminal proceedings have followed. This latest action claims the funds lost $263 million as a result of Refco¹s meltdown; Gibson, Dunn's representation of various Sphinx entities also contributed to the loss, the suit claims. 

Gibson, Dunn represented Sphinx Funds and its investment manager, PlusFunds, Inc., as well as fund directors and entities controlled by those directors. 

Work for those entities was a conflict of interest that the firm never disclosed, the complaint says. The plaintiffs also charge Gibson, Dunn with helping to conceal the nature of numerous loans made by Refco to Sphinx directors that were in fact payments to those directors in exchange for Sphinx's business with Refco. "

Patent Law, Legal Malpractice, State Court and Wisconsin

Here , in AccuWeb, Inc., Raymond Buisker, v.  Foley & Lardner, Harry C. Engstrom, Quarles & Brady LLP and Nicholas Seay, we find one of the rare state court patent legal malpractice cases.  Generally, as patent law is a federal question, one of the parties either brings the action in Federal District Court or removes it there.  Here is the decision on a motion for summary judgment:

"This case centers on whether AccuWeb, at the summary judgment stage, put forth sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether the alleged failure of the Respondents to prevent the premature expiration of AccuWeb's 5,072,414 patent (the 414 patent) was a substantial factor in causing AccuWeb actionable damages, thus preventing summary judgment. The second issue is whether AccuWeb presented sufficient evidence to allow a fair and reasonable estimate of the amount of such damages, so that there was a genuine issue of material fact, thus preventing summary judgment as to the amount of those damages. We address the second issue because it was addressed by the circuit court. This case involves the interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. § 802.08 (2003-04),[2] the Wisconsin summary judgment statute. "

$ 3.7 Million Verdict is "Too Small" in Legal Malpractice Case
We've been following this case.  Bank is scammed by person running a structured settlement company, and clients' structured settlement funds are lost.  Bank sues the attorney who recommended the structure guy, and on Friday, a jury awarded the bank $ 3.7 million in damages.

Here is the story of the verdict in Magna v. Coburn.

"The day after he won $3.7 million in a legal malpractice case, East St. Louis lawyer Rex Carr said he would ask that part of the case be retried because he believes the jury should have awarded his client more money. 

Carr had asked the jury for more than $11 million for his client, Regions Bank, then named Magna Bank. The bank had sued the St. Louis law firm of Thompson Coburn, alleging that bad legal advice opened the bank to liability in the meltdown of financial scam artist James Gibson in the 1990s. 

Gibson's scheme involved the establishment of trusts for people, mostly accident victims, who had won large civil suit awards or settlements. Gibson initially invested the money with various banks, including Magna, but eventually took direct control of the money through a series complicated court cases. 

Gibson then lavishly spent the money on himself and his family and squandered most of it on a failed attempt to resurrect the National supermarket chain. In the end, 155 investors lost some or all of their funds, more than $60 million at the time and more than $150 million in promised payments over time. Gibson was sent to prison for 40 years. "

In yesterday’s issue of the New York Law Journal, there was an article that caught my eye.  As someone who has spent a good amount of time analyzing internet based laws and legal issues, the headline “Law Would Restrict Internet Use-Based Ads” could not have gone unnoticed.  In fact, reading the article got me so fired up that I knew I had to make mention of it here.

The basic issue being discussed is a new bill proposed that would restrict the use of new behavioral advertising technology online.  Behavioral advertising is the process by which online advertisers can target users based on internet use and activity.  Meaning, they keep track of what you search for and what you look at, then deliver ads that are more pertinent to your perceived interests.  It is quite fascinating.

At the same time, it constantly brings up privacy concerns from people who are unfamiliar with the fact that almost everything you do online is traceable.  The new bill, proposed by New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, flies in the face of third party advertisers and all the money they have spent perfecting this use-based technology.  It is certainly an issue that will come up again and again, as the internet becomes a vital role in all of our lives.

The question really is, when you are in the privacy of your own home or at your own “private” computer, but in the “public” world of the internet, where is the privacy line drawn.  The internet is a public domain, with no regulating body, and therefore law makers will have a difficult time restricting the amount of data collection that is taking place.  

I would love to hear some different legal opinions on this issue, so if you have a particular stance please comment below.