SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California lawmakers on Tuesday rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags, after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.
It would have been the first statewide ban, although a few cities already prohibit their use.
The Democratic bill had been the subject of a furious lobbying campaign by the plastic bag manufacturing industry, which called it a job killer.
The Senate took final action at the very end of the legislative session, reflecting how difficult it had been to muster support. The bill received just 14 votes in the Senate, seven short of the majority it needed.
Supporters of AB1998 said the 19 billion plastic bags Californians use every year harm the environment and cost the state $25 million annually to collect and transport to landfills.
Sen. Gil Cedillo, who carried the measure on the Senate floor, said it offered California an opportunity to emerge at the forefront of a global trend.
"If we don't solve this problem today, if we don't create a statewide standard, if we don't provide the leadership that is being called for, others will," the Los Angeles Democrat said.
A handful of California cities already ban single-use plastic bags, after San Francisco became the first to do so in 2007. Palo Alto, Malibu and Fairfax have since followed, while a ban approved in Manhattan Beach is tied up in litigation, said Matthew King, a spokesman for Heal the Bay, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit that sponsored AB1998.
The bill called for the ban to take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would have applied to smaller stores in 2013.
Republicans and some Democrats opposed it, saying it would add an extra burden on consumers and businesses at a time when many already are struggling financially.
"If we pass this piece of legislation, we will be sending a message to the people of California that we care more about banning plastic bags than helping them put food on their table," said Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Lake Forest.
Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, was one of half a dozen Democrats to vote against the bill. She said the state instead should offer incentives for reducing the use of plastic bags before imposing a statewide mandate.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/09-01-2010/20100901000501_02.html
Ankit Rawal
Volvo asks Hausfeld to chase Pilkington for price-fixing losses -- Katy Dowell
Hausfeld has launched a High Court claim against Pilkington Group on behalf of motoring giant Volvo, almost three years after the car glass manufacturer was fined for price fixing.
Pilkington was handed a €140m (£100m) fine by the European Commission in 2007 for conspiring with three glass manufacturers - Asahi, of Japan; Guardian, of the United States; Saint-Gobain, of France - to fix the price of flat glass and allocate markets for car glass products between 1998 and 2003.Volvo has instructed Hausfeld partner Anthony Maton to pursue Pilkington for losses it suffered as a result of the price fixing.
Maton said: “The car glass cartel was fined at record levels by the Commission and caused substantial damage to our client Volvo and others in the struggling car industry.
“Volvo has therefore instructed us to recover the significant financial losses it suffered due to these inflated prices over a period of five years.”
Litigators across the City have reported a significant rise in the number of follow on actions arising from cartel investigations.
Last month British Airways went to the High Court to request that a number of international airlines, including Air France, KLM, Cathay Pacific, Cargolux, Qantas and Emirates, be named as co-defendants in a lawsuit over a price-fixing cartel for air-freight services.
BA pleaded guilty to price fixing to regulatory authorities in the US, Australia and Canada and were recently fined by the regulatory authority in South Korea. The EC, however, is yet to deliver a verdict on its investigation into the airline.
Slaughter and May partner Richard Swallow instructed Kenneth MacLean QC of One Essex Court to represent BA. Maton, who is representing two flower importers who claim to have suffered losses as a result of the alleged cartel, has instructed 20 Essex Street’s Iain Milligan QC to bring the claim.
That case is currently awaiting judgment from the Court of Appeal to decide whether Hausfeld can bring a representative action against BA.
http://www.thelawyer.com/volvo-asks-hausfeld-to-chase-pilkington-for-price-fixing-losses/1005213.article
Federal Lawsuits Seek $30 Million in Madoff Family Money -- Larry Neumeister
The court-appointed trustee seeking to recover billions of dollars lost by jailed financier Bernard Madoff sued three entities Thursday to get back more than $30 million that he said the Madoff family had invested, mostly in oil and gas properties and technology companies.
The three lawsuits filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan by Irving Picard are a follow-up to a lawsuit he filed in November seeking nearly $200 million from family members who he said lived lavishly while using the family finance business like a "piggy bank."
Picard wrote sarcastically in the latest lawsuits that Madoff was "quite generous" with the money he stole from thousands of customers in history's largest Ponzi scheme.
"Foremost among the recipients of Madoff's gifts of customer funds were his closest family members, including his wife Ruth Madoff, his brother Peter, his two sons Andrew and Mark and his niece Shana," Picard said.
"With respect to Mark and Andrew, the lawsuits are without merit, both factually and legally," said Martin Flumenbaum, a lawyer for Madoff's sons.
Peter Chavkin, a lawyer for Ruth Madoff, declined to comment.
Messages left with lawyers for Peter and Shana Madoff were not immediately returned.
The 72-year-old Madoff is serving a 150-year prison sentence after admitting that he never invested tens of billions of dollars he received from investors.
Defendants named in the lawsuits Thursday included Madoff Energy Holdings LLC, Conglomerate Gas Resources, Madoff Technologies, Madoff Brokerage & Trading Technology LLC, Primex Holdings LLC and Madoff Family LLC. Picard said the entities were controlled by Madoff family members, many of whom worked for Madoff.
The lawsuits sought more than $22 million invested in technology companies, more than $5 million invested in oil and gas properties and another $3 million from the Madoff Family Fund, which included investments in a hedge fund and a biotechnology company.
The lawsuits said the investments were used as vehicles to funnel money out of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.
According to the lawsuits, the investment arm of Madoff's business generated account statements in early December 2008 for approximately 4,900 open customer accounts that claimed they were worth about $68 billion. In reality, Madoff had lost all but a trace of the original $20 billion invested by his customers, the lawsuits said.
Madoff confessed in December 2008 to his sons and later to the FBI that his business had operated for about two decades as a Ponzi scheme in which some investors were paid off with the money provided by new investors.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464114009
The three lawsuits filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan by Irving Picard are a follow-up to a lawsuit he filed in November seeking nearly $200 million from family members who he said lived lavishly while using the family finance business like a "piggy bank."
Picard wrote sarcastically in the latest lawsuits that Madoff was "quite generous" with the money he stole from thousands of customers in history's largest Ponzi scheme.
"Foremost among the recipients of Madoff's gifts of customer funds were his closest family members, including his wife Ruth Madoff, his brother Peter, his two sons Andrew and Mark and his niece Shana," Picard said.
"With respect to Mark and Andrew, the lawsuits are without merit, both factually and legally," said Martin Flumenbaum, a lawyer for Madoff's sons.
Peter Chavkin, a lawyer for Ruth Madoff, declined to comment.
Messages left with lawyers for Peter and Shana Madoff were not immediately returned.
The 72-year-old Madoff is serving a 150-year prison sentence after admitting that he never invested tens of billions of dollars he received from investors.
Defendants named in the lawsuits Thursday included Madoff Energy Holdings LLC, Conglomerate Gas Resources, Madoff Technologies, Madoff Brokerage & Trading Technology LLC, Primex Holdings LLC and Madoff Family LLC. Picard said the entities were controlled by Madoff family members, many of whom worked for Madoff.
The lawsuits sought more than $22 million invested in technology companies, more than $5 million invested in oil and gas properties and another $3 million from the Madoff Family Fund, which included investments in a hedge fund and a biotechnology company.
The lawsuits said the investments were used as vehicles to funnel money out of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.
According to the lawsuits, the investment arm of Madoff's business generated account statements in early December 2008 for approximately 4,900 open customer accounts that claimed they were worth about $68 billion. In reality, Madoff had lost all but a trace of the original $20 billion invested by his customers, the lawsuits said.
Madoff confessed in December 2008 to his sons and later to the FBI that his business had operated for about two decades as a Ponzi scheme in which some investors were paid off with the money provided by new investors.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464114009
Lawyer's Indecent Proposals to Female Clients Bring One-Year Suspension -- By Michael Booth
The New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday issued a one-year suspension to a Newark lawyer who offered discounted fees to female clients or their family members in exchange for sexual favors.
David Witherspoon might consider himself lucky. Two justices wanted him disbarred and said the court should set a bright-line rule like the one that mandates disbarment for trust-fund theft.
"One's bodily integrity is at least as important as the security of the finances one entrusts to an attorney," Justice Jaynee LaVecchia said in a dissent joined by Justice Barry Albin.
"The only appropriate measure of discipline that protects the public from respondent's intolerable behavior, and sends a zero-tolerance message toward lawyers who would consider preying on their clients, is disbarment."
But the rest of the court was more forgiving, saying the facts did not warrant imposing so extreme a punishment. This record … lacks the severity of the sexually-unethical behavior that we have previously considered to be worthy of disbarment," Justice Helen Hoens wrote for the majority in In the Matter of David Witherspoon, D-157-08.
For his part, Witherspoon says he disagrees with the court's assessment of what occurred between himself and his clients. "I have a decent record of providing affordable service to over 10,000 clients and will resume that level of service when this period is over," he says.
Witherspoon, a Newark solo, was charged with telling four female clients in bankruptcy cases that he would reduce or forgive fees in return for sexual favors. According to the stipulated fact record:
• In 2001, Witherspoon asked one client, S.S., about her personal life, asked if she would go out with him and made inappropriate sexual advances.
• In 2005, he told T.B., the daughter of a client, that he would forgive her father's debt of $300 in legal fees if she would meet him in a hotel room for three hours. Later in the case, he offered to forgive another $200 if she would dance for him in a bathing suit at his office.
• In 2005, when a client, S.B., visited Witherspoon's office accompanied by a female friend, he commented that many gay women "come on" to him and that if S.B. and her friend would "make out" he would file S.B.'s bankruptcy free of charge. Later, when S.B. told him that there was another creditor to be added to the petition, Witherspoon said he would do so only if S.B. lifted her skirt. On another occasion, he told her she could satisfy her outstanding legal fees by allowing him to watch her with her female friend or by letting him join in.
• In 2005, when a client, A.C., arrived for one of her appointments, Witherspoon said, "Oh, so you're the gay girl," and suggested that her lesbianism was caused by a bad experience with the male sex organ. On another occasion, he told her that he was a "breast man" and that if she joined him on his office couch, he would return to her $660 of the legal fees she had paid him.
None of the women accepted his offers. In his defense, Witherspoon said the atmosphere in his office was very relaxed and conversations on subjects of "a highly personal nature" were common. He also said the comments were made "purely in jest" and that he never intended to insult or demean any of the grievants. But the women all testified they believed he was proposing to exchange legal services for sex.
The District VI Ethics Committee that first heard the case found Witherspoon's respondent's explanations for his conduct unpersuasive and found he violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, among them RPC 1.7(a)(2) (conflict of interest) and RPC 8.4(g) (sexual discrimination or harassment).
The committee recommended a censure, along with mandatory sexual harassment sensitivity training and other supervisory measures.
The Disciplinary Review Board recommended, after de novo review, agreed with the committee on its findings but not as to discipline. The board urged a three-month suspension while two members would have imposed six months.
The DRB minority cited Witherspoon's prior disciplinary history. Admitted to the bar in 1994, he was on four prior occasions admonished, reprimanded and censured for shoddy recordkeeping and for failing to communicate with clients. That, together with his lack of contrition for his actions in the present case, evidenced "both arrogance and a lack of moral values," the minority said.
When the court heard his case last Dec. 1., Witherspoon offered apologies for his conduct. "I do want to express my regret for my behavior," he told the justices, admitting that until recently he did not take the attorney disciplinary system as seriously as he should have.
"It took me months to understand that the RPCs are there to help my practice," he said, recounting five steps he had taken to improve himself professionally. He said he had taken professional responsibility courses, hired an accounting firm, adopted a policy of immediately returning telephone calls and conducted his own audit of his business and trust accounts.
At the hearing, Witherspoon's attorney Bernard Freamon urged the court to impose the minimum suspension and consider appointing a proctor. "Mr. Witherspoon is trying to turn the corner," said Freamon, a Seton Hall University School of Law professor. "I don't believe you will see Mr. Witherspoon again."
In Thursday's opinion, Hoens said that the DRB majority's recommendation was "inadequate" but that there was no bright-line rule for the proper discipline to impose.
"Although we have cautioned that sexual offenses involving clients will be treated severely … there are few published decisions addressing such matters, and those decisions yield a variety of disciplinary outcomes,"
Hoens wrote.
Disciplinary cases involving sexual misconduct of a criminal nature have resulted in disbarment, she said, while others have led to periods of suspension ranging from three months to three years.
Only in certain cases -- such as willful misappropriation of funds or certain violent criminal offenses -- is there a bright-line rule mandating disbarment, Hoens said. Otherwise, "all discipline is fact-sensitive."
There were three reasons why the majority believed a one-year suspension was appropriate.
First, Hoens said, "As offensive as respondent's behavior was … none of the grievants accused respondent of forcing them to endure any unwanted physical contact or even attempting to do so; none of them felt sufficiently pressured that she even considered giving in; none sought therapy or treatment to overcome the experience; none has suggested the incidents were traumatic; and none pursued criminal charges."
Second, the record "lacks the severity" of behavior that in prior cases have led to disbarment. There was no evidence that Witherspoon was threatening or dangerous, Hoens said.
Third, while preying on clients goes directly to the heart of the attorney-client relationship, the majority could not go along with creating a bright-line rule mandating disbarment.
"[W]e cannot endorse the dissenters' automatic disbarment approach because of its broader implications," Hoens said.
"Carried to its logical conclusion, creating the zero tolerance' rule that they advocate based on this record would demand that we automatically disbar attorneys involved in non-criminal, non-threatening, non-traumatizing, purely verbal, sexual improprieties directed at other adults, simply because they are clients.
"In light of our disciplinary precedents making pain that not every conviction for a sexual offense will result in disbarment, we conclude that it would be disproportionate punishment indeed if respondent's behavior, although boorish, insensitive and offensive, but well shy of criminal, found itself on the far side of that bright line."
The Court said Witherspoon must undergo sensitivity training and institute accounting controls in his office before he can return to practice.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464064588
David Witherspoon might consider himself lucky. Two justices wanted him disbarred and said the court should set a bright-line rule like the one that mandates disbarment for trust-fund theft.
"One's bodily integrity is at least as important as the security of the finances one entrusts to an attorney," Justice Jaynee LaVecchia said in a dissent joined by Justice Barry Albin.
"The only appropriate measure of discipline that protects the public from respondent's intolerable behavior, and sends a zero-tolerance message toward lawyers who would consider preying on their clients, is disbarment."
But the rest of the court was more forgiving, saying the facts did not warrant imposing so extreme a punishment. This record … lacks the severity of the sexually-unethical behavior that we have previously considered to be worthy of disbarment," Justice Helen Hoens wrote for the majority in In the Matter of David Witherspoon, D-157-08.
For his part, Witherspoon says he disagrees with the court's assessment of what occurred between himself and his clients. "I have a decent record of providing affordable service to over 10,000 clients and will resume that level of service when this period is over," he says.
Witherspoon, a Newark solo, was charged with telling four female clients in bankruptcy cases that he would reduce or forgive fees in return for sexual favors. According to the stipulated fact record:
• In 2001, Witherspoon asked one client, S.S., about her personal life, asked if she would go out with him and made inappropriate sexual advances.
• In 2005, he told T.B., the daughter of a client, that he would forgive her father's debt of $300 in legal fees if she would meet him in a hotel room for three hours. Later in the case, he offered to forgive another $200 if she would dance for him in a bathing suit at his office.
• In 2005, when a client, S.B., visited Witherspoon's office accompanied by a female friend, he commented that many gay women "come on" to him and that if S.B. and her friend would "make out" he would file S.B.'s bankruptcy free of charge. Later, when S.B. told him that there was another creditor to be added to the petition, Witherspoon said he would do so only if S.B. lifted her skirt. On another occasion, he told her she could satisfy her outstanding legal fees by allowing him to watch her with her female friend or by letting him join in.
• In 2005, when a client, A.C., arrived for one of her appointments, Witherspoon said, "Oh, so you're the gay girl," and suggested that her lesbianism was caused by a bad experience with the male sex organ. On another occasion, he told her that he was a "breast man" and that if she joined him on his office couch, he would return to her $660 of the legal fees she had paid him.
None of the women accepted his offers. In his defense, Witherspoon said the atmosphere in his office was very relaxed and conversations on subjects of "a highly personal nature" were common. He also said the comments were made "purely in jest" and that he never intended to insult or demean any of the grievants. But the women all testified they believed he was proposing to exchange legal services for sex.
The District VI Ethics Committee that first heard the case found Witherspoon's respondent's explanations for his conduct unpersuasive and found he violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, among them RPC 1.7(a)(2) (conflict of interest) and RPC 8.4(g) (sexual discrimination or harassment).
The committee recommended a censure, along with mandatory sexual harassment sensitivity training and other supervisory measures.
The Disciplinary Review Board recommended, after de novo review, agreed with the committee on its findings but not as to discipline. The board urged a three-month suspension while two members would have imposed six months.
The DRB minority cited Witherspoon's prior disciplinary history. Admitted to the bar in 1994, he was on four prior occasions admonished, reprimanded and censured for shoddy recordkeeping and for failing to communicate with clients. That, together with his lack of contrition for his actions in the present case, evidenced "both arrogance and a lack of moral values," the minority said.
When the court heard his case last Dec. 1., Witherspoon offered apologies for his conduct. "I do want to express my regret for my behavior," he told the justices, admitting that until recently he did not take the attorney disciplinary system as seriously as he should have.
"It took me months to understand that the RPCs are there to help my practice," he said, recounting five steps he had taken to improve himself professionally. He said he had taken professional responsibility courses, hired an accounting firm, adopted a policy of immediately returning telephone calls and conducted his own audit of his business and trust accounts.
At the hearing, Witherspoon's attorney Bernard Freamon urged the court to impose the minimum suspension and consider appointing a proctor. "Mr. Witherspoon is trying to turn the corner," said Freamon, a Seton Hall University School of Law professor. "I don't believe you will see Mr. Witherspoon again."
In Thursday's opinion, Hoens said that the DRB majority's recommendation was "inadequate" but that there was no bright-line rule for the proper discipline to impose.
"Although we have cautioned that sexual offenses involving clients will be treated severely … there are few published decisions addressing such matters, and those decisions yield a variety of disciplinary outcomes,"
Hoens wrote.
Disciplinary cases involving sexual misconduct of a criminal nature have resulted in disbarment, she said, while others have led to periods of suspension ranging from three months to three years.
Only in certain cases -- such as willful misappropriation of funds or certain violent criminal offenses -- is there a bright-line rule mandating disbarment, Hoens said. Otherwise, "all discipline is fact-sensitive."
There were three reasons why the majority believed a one-year suspension was appropriate.
First, Hoens said, "As offensive as respondent's behavior was … none of the grievants accused respondent of forcing them to endure any unwanted physical contact or even attempting to do so; none of them felt sufficiently pressured that she even considered giving in; none sought therapy or treatment to overcome the experience; none has suggested the incidents were traumatic; and none pursued criminal charges."
Second, the record "lacks the severity" of behavior that in prior cases have led to disbarment. There was no evidence that Witherspoon was threatening or dangerous, Hoens said.
Third, while preying on clients goes directly to the heart of the attorney-client relationship, the majority could not go along with creating a bright-line rule mandating disbarment.
"[W]e cannot endorse the dissenters' automatic disbarment approach because of its broader implications," Hoens said.
"Carried to its logical conclusion, creating the zero tolerance' rule that they advocate based on this record would demand that we automatically disbar attorneys involved in non-criminal, non-threatening, non-traumatizing, purely verbal, sexual improprieties directed at other adults, simply because they are clients.
"In light of our disciplinary precedents making pain that not every conviction for a sexual offense will result in disbarment, we conclude that it would be disproportionate punishment indeed if respondent's behavior, although boorish, insensitive and offensive, but well shy of criminal, found itself on the far side of that bright line."
The Court said Witherspoon must undergo sensitivity training and institute accounting controls in his office before he can return to practice.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464064588
Supreme Court Trims 'Miranda' Warning Rights Bit by Bit "Justice Sotomayor says the majority's latest decision 'turns Miranda upside down'" by Jesse J. Holland
You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.
You have a right to a lawyer -- before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?
The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.
The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
"It's death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."
The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group. "But I don't think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead."
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year's Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."
Lawyers -- and the Florida Supreme Court -- said that didn't make clear that lawyers can be present as the police are doing their questioning. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 7-2 majority decision, said all the required information was there.
"Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel's presence would be restricted after the questioning commenced," Ginsburg said. "Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward to and through the interrogation."
The next day, the court unanimously limited how long Miranda rights are valid.
The high court said for the first time that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. The 9-0 ruling pulled back from an earlier decision that said that police must halt all questioning for all time if a suspect asks for a lawyer.
Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer -- once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks -- without violating the person's constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.
"In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.
And finally, the court's conservatives used their 5-4 advantage to rule that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet if they want to invoke their "right to remain silent" and stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
All the criminal suspect needs to say is he or she is remaining silent, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which counter intuitively requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."
Police officers will look at these decisions and incorporate them into their training, said James Pasco of the National Fraternal Order of Police. "Officers are expected to adapt to changes required by the Supreme Court," Pasco said. "This will be no different."
But Fisher thinks the court's Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don't want to confess. "Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda," Fisher said.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464143411&Supreme_Court_Trims_Miranda_Warning_Rights_Bit_by_Bit
The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.
The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
"It's death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."
The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group. "But I don't think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead."
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year's Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."
Lawyers -- and the Florida Supreme Court -- said that didn't make clear that lawyers can be present as the police are doing their questioning. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 7-2 majority decision, said all the required information was there.
"Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel's presence would be restricted after the questioning commenced," Ginsburg said. "Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward to and through the interrogation."
The next day, the court unanimously limited how long Miranda rights are valid.
The high court said for the first time that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. The 9-0 ruling pulled back from an earlier decision that said that police must halt all questioning for all time if a suspect asks for a lawyer.
Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer -- once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks -- without violating the person's constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.
"In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.
And finally, the court's conservatives used their 5-4 advantage to rule that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet if they want to invoke their "right to remain silent" and stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
All the criminal suspect needs to say is he or she is remaining silent, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which counter intuitively requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."
Police officers will look at these decisions and incorporate them into their training, said James Pasco of the National Fraternal Order of Police. "Officers are expected to adapt to changes required by the Supreme Court," Pasco said. "This will be no different."
But Fisher thinks the court's Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don't want to confess. "Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda," Fisher said.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464143411&Supreme_Court_Trims_Miranda_Warning_Rights_Bit_by_Bit
Financial Reform Keeps Law Firm Banking and Securities Practices Busy -- By Sheri Qualters
Regulations for the recently enacted financial reform law are months away, but law firms with strong financial services practices are rolling out the welcome mat for client conferences and filling their calendars with client meetings.
Debevoise & Plimpton of New York, for example, attracted 325 attendees to a July 8 conference organized with one week's notice, including the July 4 holiday weekend, said Greg Lyons, co-chairman of the firm's financial institutions group for the Americas.
The conference predated the July 21 enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by a couple of weeks, but the firm assumed it wouldn't change much after it passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 30.
"We're going to be doing more of that [kind of event]," Lyons said. "[The law] really is a fundamental shift in some of the oversight regulations."
Lyons predicted clients will frequently need further guidance and discussion during the next 18 months to two years. He's already got nine client meetings scheduled through the middle of August and expects to travel to Europe in the fall to meet with foreign banks with U.S. operations.
"If you look at the number of provisions and rules and the summary of provisions, [that's] over 170 pages long -- it's a staggering amount of work," Lyons said.
Clients' initial questions have largely focused on the so-called Volcker rule, which generally bans banking institutions from investing in private equity or hedge funds or engaging in proprietary trading, he said. Private equity funds that have banks as advisers or significant investors, or do joint ventures with banks to set up funds, also want to know what it means for them, said Lyons.
The law is designed to be somewhat painful for institutions, but there's a silver lining for some banks. Section 613 of the law will enable national or state banks to open branches in other states as if they were chartered in those states.
"It allows banks to branch interstate without regard to state law, and some of our clients are interested in that," Lyons said.
More than 200 attendees were signed up for Shearman & Sterling's panel discussion Thursday on the global business and legal implications of the financial reform bill, said partner Brad Sabel, who co-heads the New York-based firm's financial recovery and reform advisory group.
Like their Debevoise & Plimpton counterparts, Sabel and other colleagues are meeting with individual clients. "Several of us are a movable feast," Sabel said.
In addition to getting clients up to speed on the Volcker rule, Shearman & Sterling is helping clients set up a plan for complying with the Lincoln Amendment, which will require banks to establish a separately funded affiliate for swap trading activities in two years' time. Once agencies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issue proposed regulations for comment, Sabel expects the firm to take an active role in helping clients draft comment letters.
"For big things like this, that can be quite a job," Sabel said.
In the past six months, New York's Proskauer Rose has held at least three webinars covering proposed legislation targeting private investment funds, including the Dodd-Frank bill and proposed European legislation, said Howard Beber, a Boston corporate partner and member of the firm's private investment funds group. Beber's group chiefly advises clients on the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 section of the financial reform bill. The private fund act calls for most hedge fund and private fund advisers to register with the SEC and implement compliance measures such as tapping a chief compliance officer, developing a written code of ethics and implementing policies to curb insider trading.
Beber said webinars are a good option for educating the firm's global client base of private investment fund clients. "The response to webinars has been tremendous," he said.
Although extensive regulatory scrutiny is a new phenomenon for private investment fund managers, the Investment Advisers Act dates back to 1940.
"While some particular rules [related to Dodd-Frank] have not yet passed, generally speaking the framework of what private investment fund managers are going to have to comply with is already in place," Beber said.
Aside from government scrutiny, financial services companies have to worry about bounty-seeking whistleblowers. The law calls for the SEC to pay whistleblowers cash rewards of between 10 percent and 30 percent of government sanctions from civil or criminal proceedings that top $1 million and are attributable to the whistleblower's information. The same standards apply to whistleblower information collected by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"There's going to be an intense focus on compliance" over the coming years, Lyons said.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464109685&Financial_Reform_Keeps_Law_Firm_Banking_and_Securities_Practices_Busy
Debevoise & Plimpton of New York, for example, attracted 325 attendees to a July 8 conference organized with one week's notice, including the July 4 holiday weekend, said Greg Lyons, co-chairman of the firm's financial institutions group for the Americas.
The conference predated the July 21 enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by a couple of weeks, but the firm assumed it wouldn't change much after it passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 30.
"We're going to be doing more of that [kind of event]," Lyons said. "[The law] really is a fundamental shift in some of the oversight regulations."
Lyons predicted clients will frequently need further guidance and discussion during the next 18 months to two years. He's already got nine client meetings scheduled through the middle of August and expects to travel to Europe in the fall to meet with foreign banks with U.S. operations.
"If you look at the number of provisions and rules and the summary of provisions, [that's] over 170 pages long -- it's a staggering amount of work," Lyons said.
Clients' initial questions have largely focused on the so-called Volcker rule, which generally bans banking institutions from investing in private equity or hedge funds or engaging in proprietary trading, he said. Private equity funds that have banks as advisers or significant investors, or do joint ventures with banks to set up funds, also want to know what it means for them, said Lyons.
The law is designed to be somewhat painful for institutions, but there's a silver lining for some banks. Section 613 of the law will enable national or state banks to open branches in other states as if they were chartered in those states.
"It allows banks to branch interstate without regard to state law, and some of our clients are interested in that," Lyons said.
More than 200 attendees were signed up for Shearman & Sterling's panel discussion Thursday on the global business and legal implications of the financial reform bill, said partner Brad Sabel, who co-heads the New York-based firm's financial recovery and reform advisory group.
Like their Debevoise & Plimpton counterparts, Sabel and other colleagues are meeting with individual clients. "Several of us are a movable feast," Sabel said.
In addition to getting clients up to speed on the Volcker rule, Shearman & Sterling is helping clients set up a plan for complying with the Lincoln Amendment, which will require banks to establish a separately funded affiliate for swap trading activities in two years' time. Once agencies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issue proposed regulations for comment, Sabel expects the firm to take an active role in helping clients draft comment letters.
"For big things like this, that can be quite a job," Sabel said.
In the past six months, New York's Proskauer Rose has held at least three webinars covering proposed legislation targeting private investment funds, including the Dodd-Frank bill and proposed European legislation, said Howard Beber, a Boston corporate partner and member of the firm's private investment funds group. Beber's group chiefly advises clients on the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 section of the financial reform bill. The private fund act calls for most hedge fund and private fund advisers to register with the SEC and implement compliance measures such as tapping a chief compliance officer, developing a written code of ethics and implementing policies to curb insider trading.
Beber said webinars are a good option for educating the firm's global client base of private investment fund clients. "The response to webinars has been tremendous," he said.
Although extensive regulatory scrutiny is a new phenomenon for private investment fund managers, the Investment Advisers Act dates back to 1940.
"While some particular rules [related to Dodd-Frank] have not yet passed, generally speaking the framework of what private investment fund managers are going to have to comply with is already in place," Beber said.
Aside from government scrutiny, financial services companies have to worry about bounty-seeking whistleblowers. The law calls for the SEC to pay whistleblowers cash rewards of between 10 percent and 30 percent of government sanctions from civil or criminal proceedings that top $1 million and are attributable to the whistleblower's information. The same standards apply to whistleblower information collected by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"There's going to be an intense focus on compliance" over the coming years, Lyons said.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464109685&Financial_Reform_Keeps_Law_Firm_Banking_and_Securities_Practices_Busy
What It Takes to Succeed in Online Marketing -- By: Debra Regan
Sixty-five percent of people in need of legal representation begin their search for an attorney on the Internet, according to a 2009 report in the New York State Bar Association Journal. How difficult is it for these potential clients to find a particular firm online and, once they do, are they motivated enough by what they find to take the next step and contact that firm? Some lawyers embrace online marketing and do it well, while others make mistakes that cost them clients, money and time.
Lawyers are highly educated and trained to write for the courts, where complex legal jargon is expected and well understood. Writing for the Web (and for prospective clients) is an entirely different animal. A law firm administrator should consider asking his or her nonattorney friends whether they find the law firm's site content easy to understand and compelling. If the answer is "no," the firm should consider hiring someone with experience writing for the Web. An experienced writer can help the firm communicate with prospective clients more efficiently and effectively, as well as include a strong call to action. Experts can also improve a firm's positioning on search-engine results by incorporating keywords into the copy that are relevant to the firm's practice and that prospective clients are most likely to input into search engines.
A law firm's website is the centerpiece of its online marketing efforts. It tells the world who the firm is, what it does and why it does it well. If a firm builds it right, the website can create a favorable impression of the firm, while generating quality leads. If a firm has developed a website that clearly describes its capabilities in terms of client needs, but no one is calling, it should try a couple of quick fixes that could get the phones ringing. A firm should always put its location and phone number prominently at the top of the website. It should include a strong call to action that will motivate prospective clients to call, such as, "For a free consultation, contact us now." Not fancy, but it works.
Additionally, law firm management should recognize that it can be intimidating to call a law firm, so it should include a contact form right on the site for prospects to fill out so the firm can contact them. Again, the firm should put this high up, above the fold on every page. If a firm has a good message on its website, those three simple steps should provide it with a noticeable lift in response. It shouldn't cost much or take a lot of time.
Search-engine marketing encompasses all efforts to promote a website or business online within search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo. There are two ways to employ search-engine marketing: through search-engine optimization, which works to improve a website's rankings within the body of search-engine results, and pay-per-click advertising, which allows the site owner to place sponsored messages along the top and right side of the main search-engine results. Lead activity (phone calls or e-mail contacts) increase by 45 percent when search-engine results are coupled with a pay-per-click campaign. See iCrossing Search Synergy Report, March 2007, www.slideshare.net/iCrossingDe/search-synergy-report. A law firm should hire an outside agency with expertise to help it establish a comprehensive strategy; then it should test it relentlessly and measure results.
A law firm administrator might see a few examples of high-ranking websites within an outside agency's portfolio and believe that the search-engine marketing (SEM) agency is good at what it does, but he or she would need to do further research before bringing an agency on board. For example, are the high-ranking websites ranking for the "best" (most traffic/leads) keywords? Are the high-ranking websites ranking for the right keywords for the law firm's marketing strategy? What is the SEM firm doing to drive higher rankings? Is it a breadth of SEM work or is it relying on only one tactic, thus putting the entire firm's SEM eggs in one basket? Finally, and most important: Is the agency employing legitimate and ethical practices to affect ranking? A firm should remember that, if it hires the agency, it is representing the law firm's brand: If the agency uses black hat (shady, unethical) tactics, the firm will have to deal with the fallout.
DON'T EXPECT IMMEDIATE RESULTS
Business owners who are unfamiliar with how search-engine marketing works tend to expect results in a matter of days. Law firm managers shouldn't get discouraged just because the phones aren't ringing off the hook after a couple of weeks. They should consider testing an SEM program on just one area of practice before investing the firm's money in all of them. From there, the firm can adjust and expand as needed. It should set reasonable goals and establish effective processes to track all phone and e-mail inquiries generated from the campaign. If a firm commits itself to the program, it will reap the rewards. Results from search-engine marketing take time; the firm will need to be patient. Typically, it will see results from a search-engine optimization program in approximately three to six months, during which time performance is monitored and the program is tweaked for optimal results. Although one can see immediate results from a pay-per-click program, it takes about one to three months to set it up properly.
In the legal services business, in which people work very closely with their attorneys, it is crucial for a firm to incorporate a video on its website so that potential clients can see who they might be hiring. The vast majority of U.S. citizens are accustomed to viewing online video, and including at least one video on the site can help bring a firm to life for prospective clients. An effective online video can also increase a firm's exposure on search engines, and adding the video to YouTube, legal directories and other video distribution sites can extend that reach. A firm should create a professionally produced video that runs up to two minutes and includes an actionable invitation to connect with the firm by phone or e-mail. It should include three key messages within the first 30 seconds, as viewers might not retain any more than that. A firm should measure pre- and post-publish statistics to identify page views, downloads and other metrics to determine how well the video is performing.
Each month, millions of people visit online legal directory sites to find information and local lawyers who can help them confront a pressing legal concern. That's why a paid profile on one of these sites should be part of a law firm's marketing strategy. The more information a firm includes about its expertise, the better. The firm should make sure to include information that is critical to prospective clients, such as years of experience, areas of practice, languages spoken, office hours and payment options. A firm should include a compelling tagline that can set it apart from others. Establishing a profile on one of these sites will drive more qualified leads to the firm.
A firm should make sure to tailor its tagline associated with search-engine sponsored results and sponsored links to the area of practice and geographic region the ad is targeting. For example, an ad for bankruptcy in Chicago should have a different tagline than an ad for personal injury in Dallas. Likewise, for sponsored results, the landing-page URL for the "view website" link should also be tailored to each specific ad. Ensuring that the taglines and landing-page URLs are distinctly relevant to the ad will present a better experience for the user and will increase the potential for more leads -- and better-quality leads.
LEVERAGING RATINGS AND RANKINGS
Ratings are critical to driving new business in the digital age. Lawyers need to understand that "buyers" of legal services are turning to the Web in record numbers to research lawyers and read online ratings and reviews that include peer assessments, as well as client feedback regarding a lawyer's legal ability, cost, perceived value, ability to communicate and other factors. If a firm has established a favorable peer-based rating through a credible, third-party ratings resource, it should make sure that rating is featured prominently on its website and encourage satisfied clients to post reviews of the firm's performance on matters no longer before the courts. If the firm gets negative feedback through one or more of these sources, it should use that as an opportunity to assess weaknesses in its approach and as an opportunity to address the concerns of potentially unhappy clients. A firm is going to get reviewed, rated and ranked whether or not it actively pursues these assessments, so it's better to engage and leverage positive reviews to the fullest.
Lawyers are notoriously slow adopters of new technologies, but the general population is blogging, tweeting and flocking to sites like Facebook and LinkedIn by the millions. Limited time and resources make in-person networking more difficult than ever. However, involvement in social media offers limitless opportunities to find, connect and engage with prospective clients. If a law firm administrator is unsure how to start or needs help refining an approach, he or she should talk to an expert with a proven track record in helping lawyers leverage social media for business development. Then he or she should spend the necessary time up-front establishing concrete and reasonable goals.
A social-media expert can help a firm decide whether it should devote time to creating a blog, establishing a presence on one or more professional networking sites, setting up a Twitter account or all of the above and more. Social media are collections of "communities," each with its own culture and rules of conduct. A law firm administrator should take some time to observe and learn before throwing the firm into the mix. Once a firm does jump in, it should do so in the spirit of connecting with and helping others in the community by providing useful information. It should avoid any overt sales pitches. Business inquiries will come as the firm establishes trust and credibility in various online forums.
Debra Regan is a vice president at LexisNexis -- parent company of Martindale-Hubbell and Lawyers.com -- where she helps lawyers attract new clients with website development and search-engine marketing/optimization services.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202459200700
Lawyers are highly educated and trained to write for the courts, where complex legal jargon is expected and well understood. Writing for the Web (and for prospective clients) is an entirely different animal. A law firm administrator should consider asking his or her nonattorney friends whether they find the law firm's site content easy to understand and compelling. If the answer is "no," the firm should consider hiring someone with experience writing for the Web. An experienced writer can help the firm communicate with prospective clients more efficiently and effectively, as well as include a strong call to action. Experts can also improve a firm's positioning on search-engine results by incorporating keywords into the copy that are relevant to the firm's practice and that prospective clients are most likely to input into search engines.
A law firm's website is the centerpiece of its online marketing efforts. It tells the world who the firm is, what it does and why it does it well. If a firm builds it right, the website can create a favorable impression of the firm, while generating quality leads. If a firm has developed a website that clearly describes its capabilities in terms of client needs, but no one is calling, it should try a couple of quick fixes that could get the phones ringing. A firm should always put its location and phone number prominently at the top of the website. It should include a strong call to action that will motivate prospective clients to call, such as, "For a free consultation, contact us now." Not fancy, but it works.
Additionally, law firm management should recognize that it can be intimidating to call a law firm, so it should include a contact form right on the site for prospects to fill out so the firm can contact them. Again, the firm should put this high up, above the fold on every page. If a firm has a good message on its website, those three simple steps should provide it with a noticeable lift in response. It shouldn't cost much or take a lot of time.
Search-engine marketing encompasses all efforts to promote a website or business online within search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo. There are two ways to employ search-engine marketing: through search-engine optimization, which works to improve a website's rankings within the body of search-engine results, and pay-per-click advertising, which allows the site owner to place sponsored messages along the top and right side of the main search-engine results. Lead activity (phone calls or e-mail contacts) increase by 45 percent when search-engine results are coupled with a pay-per-click campaign. See iCrossing Search Synergy Report, March 2007, www.slideshare.net/iCrossingDe/search-synergy-report. A law firm should hire an outside agency with expertise to help it establish a comprehensive strategy; then it should test it relentlessly and measure results.
A law firm administrator might see a few examples of high-ranking websites within an outside agency's portfolio and believe that the search-engine marketing (SEM) agency is good at what it does, but he or she would need to do further research before bringing an agency on board. For example, are the high-ranking websites ranking for the "best" (most traffic/leads) keywords? Are the high-ranking websites ranking for the right keywords for the law firm's marketing strategy? What is the SEM firm doing to drive higher rankings? Is it a breadth of SEM work or is it relying on only one tactic, thus putting the entire firm's SEM eggs in one basket? Finally, and most important: Is the agency employing legitimate and ethical practices to affect ranking? A firm should remember that, if it hires the agency, it is representing the law firm's brand: If the agency uses black hat (shady, unethical) tactics, the firm will have to deal with the fallout.
DON'T EXPECT IMMEDIATE RESULTS
Business owners who are unfamiliar with how search-engine marketing works tend to expect results in a matter of days. Law firm managers shouldn't get discouraged just because the phones aren't ringing off the hook after a couple of weeks. They should consider testing an SEM program on just one area of practice before investing the firm's money in all of them. From there, the firm can adjust and expand as needed. It should set reasonable goals and establish effective processes to track all phone and e-mail inquiries generated from the campaign. If a firm commits itself to the program, it will reap the rewards. Results from search-engine marketing take time; the firm will need to be patient. Typically, it will see results from a search-engine optimization program in approximately three to six months, during which time performance is monitored and the program is tweaked for optimal results. Although one can see immediate results from a pay-per-click program, it takes about one to three months to set it up properly.
In the legal services business, in which people work very closely with their attorneys, it is crucial for a firm to incorporate a video on its website so that potential clients can see who they might be hiring. The vast majority of U.S. citizens are accustomed to viewing online video, and including at least one video on the site can help bring a firm to life for prospective clients. An effective online video can also increase a firm's exposure on search engines, and adding the video to YouTube, legal directories and other video distribution sites can extend that reach. A firm should create a professionally produced video that runs up to two minutes and includes an actionable invitation to connect with the firm by phone or e-mail. It should include three key messages within the first 30 seconds, as viewers might not retain any more than that. A firm should measure pre- and post-publish statistics to identify page views, downloads and other metrics to determine how well the video is performing.
Each month, millions of people visit online legal directory sites to find information and local lawyers who can help them confront a pressing legal concern. That's why a paid profile on one of these sites should be part of a law firm's marketing strategy. The more information a firm includes about its expertise, the better. The firm should make sure to include information that is critical to prospective clients, such as years of experience, areas of practice, languages spoken, office hours and payment options. A firm should include a compelling tagline that can set it apart from others. Establishing a profile on one of these sites will drive more qualified leads to the firm.
A firm should make sure to tailor its tagline associated with search-engine sponsored results and sponsored links to the area of practice and geographic region the ad is targeting. For example, an ad for bankruptcy in Chicago should have a different tagline than an ad for personal injury in Dallas. Likewise, for sponsored results, the landing-page URL for the "view website" link should also be tailored to each specific ad. Ensuring that the taglines and landing-page URLs are distinctly relevant to the ad will present a better experience for the user and will increase the potential for more leads -- and better-quality leads.
LEVERAGING RATINGS AND RANKINGS
Ratings are critical to driving new business in the digital age. Lawyers need to understand that "buyers" of legal services are turning to the Web in record numbers to research lawyers and read online ratings and reviews that include peer assessments, as well as client feedback regarding a lawyer's legal ability, cost, perceived value, ability to communicate and other factors. If a firm has established a favorable peer-based rating through a credible, third-party ratings resource, it should make sure that rating is featured prominently on its website and encourage satisfied clients to post reviews of the firm's performance on matters no longer before the courts. If the firm gets negative feedback through one or more of these sources, it should use that as an opportunity to assess weaknesses in its approach and as an opportunity to address the concerns of potentially unhappy clients. A firm is going to get reviewed, rated and ranked whether or not it actively pursues these assessments, so it's better to engage and leverage positive reviews to the fullest.
Lawyers are notoriously slow adopters of new technologies, but the general population is blogging, tweeting and flocking to sites like Facebook and LinkedIn by the millions. Limited time and resources make in-person networking more difficult than ever. However, involvement in social media offers limitless opportunities to find, connect and engage with prospective clients. If a law firm administrator is unsure how to start or needs help refining an approach, he or she should talk to an expert with a proven track record in helping lawyers leverage social media for business development. Then he or she should spend the necessary time up-front establishing concrete and reasonable goals.
A social-media expert can help a firm decide whether it should devote time to creating a blog, establishing a presence on one or more professional networking sites, setting up a Twitter account or all of the above and more. Social media are collections of "communities," each with its own culture and rules of conduct. A law firm administrator should take some time to observe and learn before throwing the firm into the mix. Once a firm does jump in, it should do so in the spirit of connecting with and helping others in the community by providing useful information. It should avoid any overt sales pitches. Business inquiries will come as the firm establishes trust and credibility in various online forums.
Debra Regan is a vice president at LexisNexis -- parent company of Martindale-Hubbell and Lawyers.com -- where she helps lawyers attract new clients with website development and search-engine marketing/optimization services.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202459200700
Closure of McDonough Holland & Allen Puts Lawyers in Play -- By: Cheryl Miller
Attorneys scrambled behind the scenes in the wake of Friday's announcement that McDonough Holland & Allen,
Firm leaders have not spoken publicly about the closure other than to issue a three-paragraph statement saying that a "variety of reasons," including attorney departures, had led to a decision to "wind down ... operations" with a Labor Day target date.
The 80-attorney firm, with a branch office in
"Going forward, individual and small group announcements will be made as transition plans are finalized," the statement read.
Industry observers said Monday that the
Sources were also eyeing the
"Obviously, to bring them all in and integrate them with [Stoel Rives], the numbers didn't work out," said Tom Chase, a
McDonough Holland maintains a large public law practice; its attorneys represent dozens of municipalities, including numerous redevelopment agencies. That group could be enticing to other firms, Chase said.
Donald Oppenheim, chief operating officer of Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, said his Oakland, Calif.-based firm, with its emphasis on public law practice, is "always" in the market for talented attorneys, but he declined to say if conversations had taken place with McDonough Holland partners.
Much of the debate on the reasons behind McDonough Holland's demise has focused on the March departure of the firm's 10-person health care group to DLA Piper. For years, McDonough Holland had been tied to regional health care groups and hospitals, including
"That was a huge hit for the firm," said Chase. "They were a very, very profitable group."
The group's leader, Stephen Goff, said Monday that he did not know about the firm's impending closure until after Friday's announcement and added that he had not spoken with anyone at the firm. He declined further comment.
Goff's departure followed the firm's May 2009 move to high-end office space on three floors of a newly constructed downtown
"That put a lot of pressure on the partners who were still at the firm," said Chase.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202462917757&Closure_of_McDonough_Holland__Allen_Puts_Lawyers_in_Play
N.J. Disciplinary Review Board Rejects Sanction Recommendation for Estate Lawyer -- By: Charles Toutant
It's rare indeed that a New Jersey district ethics committee recommends a sanction and the state Disciplinary Review Board disagrees, but it happened June 18 in the case of a Rockaway solo accused of dragging his feet in an estate case and then refusing to cooperate with substituted counsel.
Not only had Jeffrey Grow not neglected the case, but he actively tried to assist the client even after being discharged, the DRB found.
"In sum, we find no clear and convincing evidence that respondent's actions failed to protect the estate in any way," the board held, dismissing all charges.
Arthur Hoffman died on Feb. 22, 2007, leaving his estate in equal shares to his four sisters, including his executrix, Helen Mantooth. She retained Grow.
In April 2007, Grow supervised the sale of Hoffman's house for $425,000. The buyer's attorney held $67,000 of the proceeds in escrow, pending receipt of an inheritance tax waiver. In May, Grow filed an inheritance tax return. That November, after receiving the tax waiver, Grow asked the buyer's attorney to return the $67,000, but the funds were not received until February 2008.
On April 28, 2008, Grow received a letter from New Providence solo Juan Ryan, who said he was hired by the estate to recover the proceeds from the home sale. Ryan accused Grow of "inexcusable delay," asserting that he had ignored requests by Mantooth for an accounting and distribution of the proceeds. Ryan threatened to sue Grow and to report him to disciplinary authorities.
Grow replied on April 30 that he had not yet distributed the proceeds because of the late discovery of a second bank account belonging to Hoffman -- necessitating the filing of an amended tax return -- and the belated receipt of the buyer's escrow.
On June 30, sister Evelyn Whitley filed a grievance, accusing Grow of not complying with numerous written requests for information, and in July, Mantooth terminated him.
On July 15, Ryan wrote Grow to ask about what he saw as errors in a proposed final accounting sent to Mantooth. On Sept. 23, Grow sent Ryan an amended version of the accounting. On Nov. 24, Ryan wrote to Grow about checks from a pension plan and a life insurance company that did not appear in the final accounting, and on Dec. 18, complained to the District XB Ethics Committee investigator that Grow did not respond to his inquiry about the checks.
In testimony before the committee, Ryan said Grow overreported the estate's income by $100,000 on a tax return by failing to use a $25,000 deduction for each sister and overpaid estate taxes by $9,000. In addition, Grow's accounting lumped together assets, liabilities and expenses, Ryan said.
During his testimony, Grow, who appeared pro se, admitted he made the tax return error but said it was rectified when he obtained a refund.
He disputed the characterization of his accounting methods as improper and said he had sent Mantooth copies of all relevant documents. He also said he eventually realized that the sisters were not on speaking terms with each other and that was hampering communication in the case.
In addition, he said that before he was contacted by Ryan, he heard from at least two other attorneys on behalf of the sisters, but those attorneys were never heard from again and he assumed Ryan would "disappear" as well.
He said after Ryan contacted him, he called Mantooth to find out whether his representation was terminated, but was unable to reach her, Grow said.
The committee found Grow made "numerous mistakes" in his accounting and stuck his "head in the sand" when avoiding Ryan. The committee alleged that he violated New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), gross neglect, and RPC 1.16(d), failure to turn over a client's file to subsequent counsel, and it recommended censure.
But despite Grow's failure to respond to many of Ryan's requests for information, he performed the job expected of an attorney administering a will, the DRB concluded.
Grow did not neglect the case, "as evidenced by all that he accomplished during his tenure for the estate," the DRB wrote.
Grow presided over the sale of Hoffman's house, probated the will, prepared and filed numerous documents for tax purposes and "generally marshaled the assets of the estate," the DRB said.
While Grow should have replied to Ryan's November 2008 letter about the checks not included in the estate accounting, Ryan also could have investigated that matter with his client or the bank, the DRB said.
Grow says the committee members could have seen that the allegations were unfounded "but they chose not to. Thank God the central ethics committee saw it for what it is," Grow says.
"One thing is very clear -- in this day and age, people are way too aware that the way to control their attorney's behavior or to keep from paying them is to simply file an ethics charge," says Grow.
Ryan says he is not surprised that the charges were dismissed. He says Grow's acts were "clumsy" but "not particularly egregious."
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202462918536&NJ_Disciplinary_Review_Board_Rejects_Sanction_Recommendation_for_Estate_Lawyer
Not only had Jeffrey Grow not neglected the case, but he actively tried to assist the client even after being discharged, the DRB found.
"In sum, we find no clear and convincing evidence that respondent's actions failed to protect the estate in any way," the board held, dismissing all charges.
Arthur Hoffman died on Feb. 22, 2007, leaving his estate in equal shares to his four sisters, including his executrix, Helen Mantooth. She retained Grow.
In April 2007, Grow supervised the sale of Hoffman's house for $425,000. The buyer's attorney held $67,000 of the proceeds in escrow, pending receipt of an inheritance tax waiver. In May, Grow filed an inheritance tax return. That November, after receiving the tax waiver, Grow asked the buyer's attorney to return the $67,000, but the funds were not received until February 2008.
On April 28, 2008, Grow received a letter from New Providence solo Juan Ryan, who said he was hired by the estate to recover the proceeds from the home sale. Ryan accused Grow of "inexcusable delay," asserting that he had ignored requests by Mantooth for an accounting and distribution of the proceeds. Ryan threatened to sue Grow and to report him to disciplinary authorities.
Grow replied on April 30 that he had not yet distributed the proceeds because of the late discovery of a second bank account belonging to Hoffman -- necessitating the filing of an amended tax return -- and the belated receipt of the buyer's escrow.
On June 30, sister Evelyn Whitley filed a grievance, accusing Grow of not complying with numerous written requests for information, and in July, Mantooth terminated him.
On July 15, Ryan wrote Grow to ask about what he saw as errors in a proposed final accounting sent to Mantooth. On Sept. 23, Grow sent Ryan an amended version of the accounting. On Nov. 24, Ryan wrote to Grow about checks from a pension plan and a life insurance company that did not appear in the final accounting, and on Dec. 18, complained to the District XB Ethics Committee investigator that Grow did not respond to his inquiry about the checks.
In testimony before the committee, Ryan said Grow overreported the estate's income by $100,000 on a tax return by failing to use a $25,000 deduction for each sister and overpaid estate taxes by $9,000. In addition, Grow's accounting lumped together assets, liabilities and expenses, Ryan said.
During his testimony, Grow, who appeared pro se, admitted he made the tax return error but said it was rectified when he obtained a refund.
He disputed the characterization of his accounting methods as improper and said he had sent Mantooth copies of all relevant documents. He also said he eventually realized that the sisters were not on speaking terms with each other and that was hampering communication in the case.
In addition, he said that before he was contacted by Ryan, he heard from at least two other attorneys on behalf of the sisters, but those attorneys were never heard from again and he assumed Ryan would "disappear" as well.
He said after Ryan contacted him, he called Mantooth to find out whether his representation was terminated, but was unable to reach her, Grow said.
The committee found Grow made "numerous mistakes" in his accounting and stuck his "head in the sand" when avoiding Ryan. The committee alleged that he violated New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), gross neglect, and RPC 1.16(d), failure to turn over a client's file to subsequent counsel, and it recommended censure.
But despite Grow's failure to respond to many of Ryan's requests for information, he performed the job expected of an attorney administering a will, the DRB concluded.
Grow did not neglect the case, "as evidenced by all that he accomplished during his tenure for the estate," the DRB wrote.
Grow presided over the sale of Hoffman's house, probated the will, prepared and filed numerous documents for tax purposes and "generally marshaled the assets of the estate," the DRB said.
While Grow should have replied to Ryan's November 2008 letter about the checks not included in the estate accounting, Ryan also could have investigated that matter with his client or the bank, the DRB said.
Grow says the committee members could have seen that the allegations were unfounded "but they chose not to. Thank God the central ethics committee saw it for what it is," Grow says.
"One thing is very clear -- in this day and age, people are way too aware that the way to control their attorney's behavior or to keep from paying them is to simply file an ethics charge," says Grow.
Ryan says he is not surprised that the charges were dismissed. He says Grow's acts were "clumsy" but "not particularly egregious."
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202462918536&NJ_Disciplinary_Review_Board_Rejects_Sanction_Recommendation_for_Estate_Lawyer
Calif. Trial Lawyers Welcome Latest Ruling on Recovery of Medical Expenses -- By: Mike McKee
The Recorder
The ruling by
The fact that both rulings favor plaintiffs didn't worry David Ettinger, a partner with Encino's Horvitz & Levy who was on the losing side of Thursday's opinion.
"Really," he said, "until the Supreme Court speaks I don't think we can make any judgments."
In Thursday's ruling in Yanez v. SOMA Environmental Engineering Inc., A123893, the 1st District held that an Alameda County judge erred by reducing a negligence award from $150,000 in damages -- including more than $44,500 for past medical expenses -- to about $18,000. The lower amount represented the actual payment plaintiff Ana Yanez's doctors accepted under their contracts with the woman's insurers.
The appeal court invoked the collateral source rule, which says damages shouldn't be reduced simply because the victim receives benefits from other sources, such as insurance companies.
"The rule," Justice Sandra Margulies wrote, "reflects a policy preference favoring the tort victim over the wrongdoer since not applying the rule allows the wrongdoer to profit from the victim's investment in purchasing insurance or from the generosity of those who come to the victim's aid."
The 4th District came to a similar conclusion in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 686.
"[Rebecca] Howell, as a person who has invested insurance premiums to assure her medical care, should receive the benefits of her thrift," Justice Gilbert Nares wrote. "And
Both Yanez and Howell were injured in traffic accidents.
Defense lawyers had argued that basing damages on the full cost of medical services -- rather than just for the amount actually accepted by doctors -- would give plaintiffs an undue windfall.
Margulies noted, however, that the collateral source rule applies "even when it unquestionably does confer a windfall benefit on the tort plaintiff."
In a concurrence in Yanez, Justice Kathleen Banke stated it might be wise to re-examine the evidentiary aspect of the collateral source rule.
"It is time, therefore," she wrote, "to trust juries to heed limiting instructions in this context, as in others, and to let juries hear all the relevant evidence on the 'reasonable value' of medical services."
Scott Sumner, a partner with Walnut Creek, Calif.'s Hinton, Alfert & Sumner who represents Yanez, warned, though, that Banke's proposal "would turn every run-of-the-mill rear-end auto collision case into a graduate-level medical financing and insurance exposition."
If that logic is followed, he added, jurors should also be told that defense lawyers have been paid by the hour "and that the plaintiff's lawyer has not been paid, and will not be paid ... unless and until the jury compensates plaintiff for all the harm the defendant's carelessness inflicted on them."
Ettinger called the ruling a "big deal" because the number of personal injury claims filed in
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463110835&Calif_Trial_Lawyers_Welcome_Latest_Ruling_on_Recovery_of_Medical_Expenses
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)