law attorney

Alleged Gunman in Pittsburgh Gym Shootings Was K&L Gates Staffer

2009-08-05T22:18:00.002-07:00

Negative news coming out of the legal industry has occasionally crossed over from word of business troubles to serious personal troubles and tragedy. The latest such instance comes out of Pittsburgh.

K&L Gates was hesitant to say much Wednesday about an employee who police said went on a shooting rampage Tuesday at a suburban-Pittsburgh L.A. Fitness, killing four people, including himself, and injuring nine others.

"K&L Gates is deeply saddened by last night's events, and offers its condolences to the families and friends of all who were involved in this terrible tragedy," the firm said in a statement.

K&L Gates is offering on-site counseling for employees through the firm's employee assistance program, a firm spokesman said.

The spokesman confirmed that the alleged shooter, George Sodini, 48, was a systems analyst in the finance department and had worked at K&L Gates since 1999. Prior to that, according to media reports and his profile on LinkedIn, Sodini worked at Development Dimensions International.

He left behind an online diary that has since been taken down. The at-times explicit entries began on Nov. 5, 2008, discussing how his plan -- allegedly to carry out the shooting -- had been delayed. It was in an April 2009 entry that he first mentioned he worked at K&L Gates and that the firm had recently completed a second round of layoffs. After complaining about the firm making cuts "unnecessarily," Sodini went on to praise the firm but suspected he wouldn't survive the next round of layoffs.

"Most people there are OK and I would never have a shoot 'em up there," he wrote. "They paid me for 10 years so far!"

It seemed from his entries that Sodini's job was one thing keeping him going and preventing him from carrying out the shooting earlier.

"I predict I won't survive the next layoff," he wrote. "That is when there is no point to continue. Right now, life is bearable and I can get by indefinitely. Something bad must happen. The pay check is all I have left."

In a later July entry, Sodini said he had been promoted and received a raise and his LinkedIn profile said he was now a programmer/analyst at the firm. K&L Gates spokesman Mike Rick said he couldn't discuss whether Sodini had recently been promoted and could only confirm that he worked at the firm at the time of the incident.

He also confirmed that a man listed by name in Sodini's blog under the category "idiots" was an employee of the firm. That man's LinkedIn profile shows he is the director of information systems planning and development at K&L Gates. The Legal Intelligencer has chosen not to publish the employee's name.

All of those killed or wounded were women attending an aerobic workout class at the club Tuesday night, Allegheny County Police Superintendent Charles Moffatt said at a press conference. Sodini was a member at the gym, and there was no reason to stop him when he walked in. Moffatt said Sodini was dressed in workout clothes and carrying a gym bag. It was later reported that the gym bag contained a note and the guns used in the shooting. Moffatt said there were 52 rounds of ammunition missing and presumed to have been shot. The shooting took place around 8 p.m. Tuesday.

"I don't think anybody could have stopped him," Moffatt said at the press conference, which was made available on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Web site. The majority of Sodini's diary entries discussed how alone he felt and how he hadn't had a girlfriend in years. A Jan. 6, 2009, entry said he had walked into the gym that day with loaded guns but "chickened out."

His final entry was posted Aug. 3, the day before the shooting. At the top of the diary, where it listed his name and place of residency, Sodini had his birth date, Sept. 30, 1960, and death date, Aug. 4, 2009, listed.

"I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make sure it is well polished," Sodini wrote in the final entry. "I need to work out every detail, there is only one shot."

He said he wouldn't add any more entries because the "computer clicking" distracted him. Sodini said the "practice papers" and notes in his gym bag could be freely published.

"I will not be embarrassed, because, well, I will be dead," he wrote.

The shooting occurred in Collier, Pa.; Sodini is from neighboring Scott Township.

Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer

Testimony at Sotomayor Hearing Opens Bloomberg to Deposition

2009-08-05T22:18:00.001-07:00

Citing New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's testimony during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings of 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a federal judge on Wednesday ordered the mayor to attend a three-hour deposition in a discrimination case claiming that two entry-level tests for city firefighters were flawed.

Bloomberg's remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that he had a "personal involvement in the events at issue" in the discrimination case, Eastern District of New York Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis concluded in , 07-cv-2067.

Connie Pankratz, a spokeswoman for the Corporation Counsel's Office, said the city "intends to honor the court's order."

Last month, Garaufis found that the two tests, which controlled the Fire Department's hiring of new firefighters from 1999 to 2008, had a disparate impact on black and Hispanic applicants.

During the confirmation hearing, opponents of Sotomayor's appointment questioned her qualifications based on her participation in an unsigned 2nd Circuit ruling upholding the decision of officials in New Haven, Conn., to throw out the results of a firefighter test because no blacks had passed it.

The Supreme Court in June reversed the 2nd Circuit, finding in Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658, that New Haven's discarding of the results discriminated against white applicants who had passed the exam.

In his July 16 testimony in Washington, D.C., Bloomberg referred to the lawsuit against the city after stating that he disagreed with the way New Haven officials had handled that city's test.

The mayor added that he had chosen to fight the suit against New York City.

"I think that in fact the tests were job related and were consistent with business necessity," he said. However, he also endorsed Sotomayor's nomination.

About a week after the confirmation hearing, Garaufis ruled in the New York City case that the tests administered by the Fire Department in 1999 and 2002 had a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics.

According to the plaintiffs expert, the use of the tests resulted in the disqualification or delayed appointment of about 540 minority applicants.

Each test had a threshold score that an applicant had to meet in order to be eligible for appointment. Those who met the threshold were then selected from a list based on their scores.

TWO CRITERIA MET

Garaufis found that the two criteria governing when a high public official could be ordered to attend a deposition had been met: The mayor had information relevant to the case that could not be obtained from any other source and three hours of questioning would not interfere with his official duties.

The mayor has previously been examined at two deposition sessions, lasting a total of eight hours, in a suit brought by 80 women employees of the media company he founded, Bloomberg L.P. The discrimination in that case was alleged to have taken place after Bloomberg left the company to run for mayor in 2001, and he testified as a witness, not a defendant.

The mayor is named as a defendant in the Eastern District case, which was initiated by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission in 2007. Garaufis subsequently allowed the Vulcan Society, a professional organization of black firefighters, and three minority firefighters to intervene.

Although Garaufis has ruled that the city tests had a disparate impact, he has yet to determine a second claim that has only been raised by the intervenors: that the use of the two tests reflected an intention on the part of city officials to discriminate.

If the plaintiffs can demonstrate intentional discrimination, they will be able to seek compensatory damages for minority applicants who took the two tests, said Darius Charney, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represents the intervenors.

Bloomberg's testimony is needed to prove the intervenors' claim of intentional bias, Charney said. The 2002 test was administered after Bloomberg took office, he added, and the intervenors will seek to elicit information he had as to the tests' discriminatory impact, and why his administration decided to continue using the test.

The city started using a new test in 2008, Charney said.

The finding of disparate impact discrimination permits the plaintiffs to seek a priority in future appointments and an order requiring the city to use a nondiscriminatory process, Charney said.

Pankratz, the Corporation Counsel's spokeswoman, said that discovery has yet to be completed.

A conference with Garaufis is scheduled for this afternoon to chart the course of the litigation.

The city was represented by Georgia Pestana, chief of the Corporation Counsel's labor and employment division, and William Fraenkel and James Lemonedes, both senior counsels.

Special Litigation Counsel Sharon A. Seeley, of the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C., was the lead counsel for the EEOC.

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

Bank of America to Pay $33 Million in Merrill Bonuses Case

2009-08-04T10:09:00.000-07:00

Bank of America agreed on Monday to pay $33 million for charges of allegedly misleading investors about billions in bonuses it agreed to pay Merrill Lynch & Co. executives when it was on the verge of acquiring Merrill for $50 billion in a 2008 merger.

The payment settles a civil suit filed in the Southern District of New York by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC charged that proxy materials sent to Bank of America shareholders on the proposed acquisition stated that Merrill Lynch had agreed not to pay performance bonuses and other compensation to executives prior to the closing of the merger when, in fact, Bank of America had already contractually authorized Merrill Lynch to pay up to $5.8 billion.

Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, released a statement saying, "Companies must give shareholders all material information about corporate transactions they are asked to approve. Failing to disclose that a struggling company will pay out billions of dollars of performance bonuses obviously violates that duty and warrants the significant financial penalty imposed by today's settlement."

Bank of America agreed to the settlement without admitting or denying the allegations.

"Bank of America believes that the settlement ... represents a constructive conclusion to this issue," company spokesman Scott Silvestri said in an e-mailed statement.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who referred the case to the SEC in April, said his investigation is continuing. The SEC said its probe also is ongoing.

Lewis J. Liman of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton represented Bank of America. David Rosenfeld, associate regional director for the New York regional office, was lead counsel for the SEC.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

3rd Circuit Upholds 10-Year Internet Ban in Child Porn Case

2009-08-04T10:08:00.001-07:00

A man who was indicted as the leader of a child pornography ring in Delaware has lost an appeal that challenged both his 20-year prison term and a ban on using the Internet for another decade after he is released.

Paul Thielemann, 26, pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and claimed in the appeal that his punishment was premised on conduct for which he was never formally charged -- encouraging others to commit acts of child molestation.

The appellate panel flatly rejected Thielemann's challenge to the length of his prison term, concluding that it was within the range suggested by the sentencing guidelines and not out of line with the sentences imposed on other leading members of the ring.

But the decision in United States v. Thielemann is legally significant because it helps define a still emerging area of the law that trial judges have found perplexing: how far judges can go in crafting the "conditions of release" that restrict a criminal defendant's behavior in the period just after a prison term.

In prior decisions, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned some restrictions as too harsh, such as a lifetime ban on using computers or barring a defendant from possessing all forms of pornography, including legal adult pornography.

But in the case of Thielemann, the 3rd Circuit concluded that the conduct was far worse and justified the harsh restrictions imposed by U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson because the evidence showed that Thielemann not only traded child pornography with nine other men, but also encouraged some of the men to engage in acts of child molestation and to share images of those acts on Web cams.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard I. Garth concluded that Robinson hadn't violated Thielemann's First Amendment rights when she barred him from possessing any "sexually explicit" materials.

"We hold that there is a significant nexus between restricting Thielemann from access to adult 'sexually explicit' material and the goals of supervised release, and that the restriction here is not overbroad or vague considering the content of the instant record," Garth wrote in an opinion joined by 3rd Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and visiting U.S. District Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Garth also found that Robinson had properly tailored a restriction that bans Thielemann from accessing the Internet for 10 years after his release unless he gets permission from his probation officer.

"Thielemann can own or use a personal computer as long as it is not connected to the Internet; thus he is allowed to use word processing programs and other benign software," Garth wrote.

Garth found there were sharp contrasts between Thielemann's case and that of Daniel Voelker, whose lawyers successfully argued in June 2007 that the trial judge had gone too far in imposing a lifetime ban on using computers.

According to court papers, Voelker was nabbed during an FBI investigation of another man, Wyndell Williams, when agents were monitoring a computer "chat" between Williams and Voelker.

During the online chat, Voelker briefly exposed the buttocks of his 3-year-old daughter over a webcam that was connected to his computer, and, when confronted by the FBI, admitted to downloading child pornography and to exposing his daughter. But Voelker insisted that statements he had made in the chat about sexual contact with minors or offering his daughter for sex were merely gratuitous statements in the nature of "role-playing."

Voelker pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 71 months in prison, but argued on appeal that the lifetime ban on using computers was too harsh.

In overturning the restriction, 3rd Circuit Judge Theodore A. McKee wrote: "Although Voelker's conduct was reprehensible, he did not use his computer equipment to seek out minors nor did he attempt to set up any meetings with minors over the Internet."

McKee found that the trial judge failed to tailor the restriction because "computers and Internet access have become virtually indispensable in the modern world" and a "lifetime ban on all computer equipment and the Internet is the functional equivalent of prohibiting a defendant who pleads guilty to possession of magazines containing child pornography from ever possessing any books or magazines of any type during the remainder of his/her life."

But in Thielemann's case, Garth found that the restrictions were less harsh because the ban lasts 10 years as compared to a lifetime ban, and that Robinson was justified by Thielemann's conduct, which went beyond mere possession of pornographic images.

"The parameters of the computer restriction in this case are far less troubling than those in Voelker," Garth wrote.

"Moreover, the restriction is not disproportionate when viewed in the context of Thielemann's conduct," Garth wrote. "Thielemann did more than simply trade child pornography; he utilized Internet communication technologies to facilitate, entice, and encourage the real-time molestation of a child."

As a result, Garth said, "the restriction on computer and Internet use therefore shares a nexus to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public, and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary in this case."

Thielemann was represented in the appeal by attorney Larrick B. Stapleton of Ardmore, Pa.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Edmond Falgowski argued the appeal for the government.

Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer

Two More 'Iqbal' Dismissals Emerge in Product Liability Cases

2009-08-04T10:06:00.001-07:00

The Supreme Court's May 2009 ruling in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (pdf) is quickly becoming the best thing to happen to the products liability defense bar since Daubert. We told you a couple of weeks ago about the dismissal of a false-marketing suit involving AstraZeneca's anti-psychotic drug Seroquel because it didn't meet the new, tougher pleading standard the Court laid down in Iqbal. Now we have word of two other recent Iqbal dismissals involving controversial products. No wonder Sen. Arlen Specter is on the warpath against Iqbal.

On July 23, Judge Herman Weber tossed manufacturing and design defect claims in Frey v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., in which Amanda Frey sued Novartis when she developed multi-organ failure after taking an epilepsy drug called Trileptal. In his 13-page opinion (pdf), Weber concluded that Frey's lawyers at O'Connor Acciani & Levy "have failed to allege any facts that would permit the court to conclude that a manufacturing defect occurred and that the defect was the proximate cause of Amanda Frey’s alleged injuries." Lead counsel for Novartis was Michael Junk of Hollingsworth LLP, who didn't immediately return our call. [Hat tip: Drug and Device Law.]

The Mass Tort Defense blog, meanwhile, has news of the July 24 dismissal of a class action against Playtex, alleging excess lead in baby bottle coolers. Chicago federal district court Judge Joan Lefkow wasn't as explicit in her reliance on Iqbal as Judge Eber, but she did cite the ruling in her discussion of the pleading standard she applied. Plaintiffs lawyers Mary Jane Feit and John Tangren of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz told the Litigation Daily that Lefkow's ruling actually demands that they meet an even higher pleading standard than that required by Iqbal because their class action alleges fraud. They said they will "probably" file an amended complaint against Playtex, and noted that they are awaiting Lefkow's rulings on motions to dismiss two related class actions, in both of which defendants have asserted that their complaints did not meet Iqbal standards.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs lawyer representing Amanda Frey in the Novartis case, had plenty to say about the Supreme Court's Iqbal pleading standard. "What a mess they have created with that," Alissa Magenheim of O'Connor Acciani told us. "I think it's going to become an insurmountable [pleading] standard if we're not careful." The problem, she said, is that the standard demands specificity that plaintiffs can't often show until they've been permitted discovery. "How do you have the facts unless you're an insider?" Magenheim said. "How do you get there if you're not allowed to go there?"

This article first appeared on The Am Law Litigation Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com.

Google Rebounds in AdWords Lawsuits

2009-08-04T10:05:00.000-07:00

Suits over the use of trademarks in Google ads appeared to have the glimmer of a new gold mine for plaintiffs lawyers, but the luster may be fading.

A favorable ruling for Rescuecom Corp. in April in a long-running case against Google Inc. has fueled more suits, including would-be class actions, against the search giant for selling trademarked keywords that trigger ads alongside its search results.

But in the last two weeks, two AdWords lawsuits -- from Daniel Jurin and Ascentive LLC -- have folded. It highlights the difficulties of the suits, experts say: It's a hard case to make and it's expensive to litigate against Google.

"We're starting to see some of these lawsuits crack," said Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University School of Law professor who follows the AdWords litigation closely on his Technology & Marketing blog. "My current hypothesis is that they never made sense in the first place -- the plaintiffs got all excited to go take down Google, but suing Google is a loser's bet because Google's going to fight to the death."

In these suits, advertisers accuse Google of selling trademarked keywords to anyone, including competitors. They claim that constitutes infringement because Google users could be confused by links to competitors' ads that appear alongside Google search results for the company's trademarked name.

Jurin sued Google in June in the Central District of California, claiming the company infringed on his StyroTrim trademark (it's a type of building material) by allowing competitors to "buy" the word -- meaning rival ads would appear when someone searched for Jurin's product. But on July 15, Jurin's lawyer, Scott Burroughs of L.A.'s Doniger Law Firm, filed a motion to withdraw because of "irreconcilable differences" over strategy and finances. Jurin dropped the case the next week.

Ascentive, a software company, had sued Google on June 25 in federal court in Pennsylvania. It accused Google of infringement and unfairly dropping it from the AdWords program. But on Thursday, Ascentive dismissed the case.

Jordan LaVine, a trademark lawyer with Flaster Greenberg in Philadelphia representing Ascentive, said his client and Google had resolved things, but there was no settlement.

"We came to an understanding and they agreed to reaccept our application for admission into the AdWords program," said LaVine (who does trademark work for Recorder parent company Incisive Media).

Google spokesman Andrew Pederson said that Ascentive didn't get paid for dropping the suit.

"We're pleased that Ascentive decided to voluntarily dismiss their claims against Google, which were meritless from the start," Pederson said in an e-mail. "There was also no money paid or value given to Ascentive by Google in order to resolve this dispute."

Google had suffered a setback in its AdWords case against Rescuecom when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal of the case. Google had persuaded the lower court to toss the case, arguing that its use of Rescuecom's trademark was internal and not a "use in commerce," which constitutes trademark infringement.

The 2nd Circuit's reversal inspired more AdWords suits, including two in Texas that aspire to be class actions. One, FPX v. Google, is being brought by a company owned by Audrey Spangenberg, the wife of famed "patent troll" Erich Spangenberg, The Prior Art Blog reported.

But professor Goldman said the trademark cases will prove more difficult than patent infringement cases for plaintiffs. Even with the Rescuecom ruling, plaintiffs still have to prove the other elements of trademark infringement, including confusion, in which the appearance of the ad next to the search term would lead consumers to believe the two products or companies were connected. This has yet to be proven in any of the cases, said Goldman, adding that there are now seven pending AdWords cases, following the two dismissals.

But there have been some apparent successes on the plaintiff side. American Airlines reached a confidential settlement in an AdWords trademark case against Google and felt good enough about it to go after Yahoo in a case that is still pending.

Google's Pederson said that Google's trademark policy is a fine one.

"We believe that our trademark policy properly balances advertisers' and users' interests, and we'll continue to vigorously defend it."

Ratings Agencies Hit With Suit Blaming Them for Economic Meltdown

2009-07-29T13:21:00.002-07:00

Well, no need to worry that Floyd Abrams will be sitting around twiddling his thumbs if newspapers go out of business. For the foreseeable future, the Cahill Gordon & Reindel partner and famed defender of the free press will be busy trotting out First Amendment arguments on behalf of ratings agencies accused of contributing to the economic meltdown via overly rosy evaluations of drecky high-risk securities. A couple of weeks ago we told you that the California Public Employees' Retirement System had thrown its $173 billion of muscle into the litigation against Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch. Now, a second pension fund, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, has joined the fight. On Friday the Mississippi fund filed a securities class action against the ratings agencies in federal district court in Brooklyn.

The complaint claims that Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch had a practice of misleading investors by bestowing high ratings on pools of high-risk subprime mortgage-backed investment entities. But unlike the CalPERS case, which was filed in California state court and focuses on only the pension fund's losses, the Mississippi class action purports to represent "all persons or entities who purchased mortgage pass-through certificates" sold by J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp.

We should note that the MissPERS class action against the ratings agencies is related to a pending class action against JPMAC in Brooklyn federal district court; MissPERS has moved to be lead counsel in that case, which was originally filed by a pension fund represented by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins. JPMAC is represented by Sidley Austin; defense counsel for the ratings agencies in the MissPERS case are not yet listed on the docket.

MissPERS counsel Marian Rosner of Wolf Popper declined to comment to the Am Law Litigation Daily on the suit against the ratings agencies, but it looks to us like the Mississippi pension fund complaint anticipates the First Amendment defense that has worked well for the agencies in the past. (We love the headline on Wall Street Journal reporter Nathan Koppel's story: "Credit Raters Plead the First.") But the MissPERS complaint contends Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch didn't merely tout the securities but actually worked with J.P. Morgan Acceptance to create them. "Since only the rating agencies knew how to structure the [mortgage-backed securities] deals so they could maximize the number of 'AAA' tranches produced," the complaint alleges, "the ratings agencies held the key to creating salable [securities]."

This article first appeared on The Am Law Litigation Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com.

Home Restoration Client May Be Money Pit for Law Firms

2009-07-29T13:21:00.001-07:00

At least four law firms have been left hanging for millions of dollars in legal fees from a home restoration company whose former chairman pleaded guilty to fraud involving another corporation.

The latest firm left waiting for payment by Home Solutions of America Inc. is New Jersey-based Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti. Ironically, the firm was defending the company in a suit brought in Manhattan Supreme Court by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius over $2.5 million in unpaid fees.

In an order last week, Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman granted Riker Danzig's request to withdraw from the case. The firm has been owed $60,000 for work performed from November 2008 to April 2009, according to an affidavit by the firm.

Morgan Lewis meanwhile is awaiting a decision from Justice Goodman on its request to hold Home Solutions in default in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius v. Home Solutions of America Inc., 113917/2008.

At the same time, Fulbright & Jaworski and Hallett & Perrin, both in Texas, are trying to withdraw from defending Home Solutions in a class action against the company, also because of unpaid fees.

Morgan Lewis and Fulbright declined to comment. Lawyers at Riker Danzig did not return calls for comment. A call to numbers listed in regulatory filings for Home Solutions in New Orleans and Dallas reached messages that the numbers had been disconnected.

Dallas-based Home Solutions, which specialized in home restoration following disasters, had been having financial and legal difficulties for much of the last year, court and regulatory filings show. In January 2008, Home Solutions was delisted from the Nasdaq Stock Exchange after it missed deadlines for filing quarterly reports. Since then, the company has been divesting itself of its core assets. It is trying to sell or close all of its divisions not tied to New Orleans, according to an SEC filing in June.

Home Solutions turned to Riker Danzig in mid-November after Morgan Lewis filed suit. Morgan Lewis had taken on Home Solutions as a client in 2007, the firm said in a complaint filed in October through then-partner Mark Mandel in New York.

But in July 2008, Mandel gave notice that he was leaving to join Schulte Roth & Zabel. In e-mails cited in the complaint, Mandel told Morgan Lewis partners he had been in negotiations with Michael McGrath, the chairman of Home Solutions, to get the firm paid. In August 2008, McGrath offered Morgan Lewis $1 million to settle its accounts receivable. Morgan Lewis said it was owed $2.53 million. McGrath also asked for all the files to be transferred to Mandel, now at Schulte Roth.

Morgan Lewis then took the unusual step of suing Home Solutions, according to one exhibit.

"It is not the general policy of our firm to sue our former clients for unpaid fees, but the facts of this case were so extreme and the way that our firm was treated was so inappropriate and egregious that we had no option but to file suit," Morgan Lewis partner Bernard J. Garbutt III said in a November e-mail filed as an exhibit.

With Riker Danzig representing it, Home Solutions argued in February that Morgan Lewis "knew of the difficult financial condition of HSOA and the risk of nonpayment for some of the fees charged and disbursements." It also counterclaimed that Morgan Lewis had given faulty advice in connection with the issuing of preferred stock. Morgan Lewis denied the claim.

But in April, Riker Danzig said it wanted out of the case. In an affidavit, J. Alex Kress, the Riker Danzig partner who led Home Solution's defense, pointed to an investigation of McGrath by the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office.

Riker Danzig, knowing Home Solutions had "financial difficulties," had required McGrath to sign a personal guaranty for payment of fees and costs. But in February, McGrath resigned as chairman and shortly afterward, federal prosecutors froze "substantially all" of McGrath's assets because of allegations involving U.S. Mortgage Corp. in Pine Wood, N.J., where McGrath was president.

In June, McGrath pleaded guilty to mail and wire fraud and money laundering in what prosecutors described as a $139 million fraud. U.S. Mortgage filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February.

Riker Danzig said in affidavits that it communicated with Home Solutions after McGrath's departure, but its acting chairman and its then CEO refused to authorize it to proceed with a defense in Morgan Lewis's lawsuit.

Meanwhile, other firms were also struggling to collect fees. In March, Home Solutions had agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle a class action in Texas. While it has paid some of the money, the company has since advised the lawyers in the case that it will be unable to pay the remaining $900,000 "in the foreseeable future," according to its SEC filing.

Fulbright & Jaworski represented the company in the class action and a derivative suit, with Hallett & Perrin advising in the derivative action. Both firms have since moved to withdraw over lack of payment.

In April, Home Solutions turned to Mandel, by then at Schulte Roth, to defend it in a suit brought by the restructuring company, Alvarez & Marsal, seeking $605,800 in unpaid fees.

It is not clear if Schulte Roth has been paid. It has not filed papers to withdraw from the Alvarez or other litigation. Mandel declined to comment.

Top Eight Reasons Not to Go to Law School

2009-07-23T20:59:00.001-07:00

Top Eight Reasons Not to Go to Law School

[Update: H. Luiz is not in law school, he says in an e-mail.]

As far as I can tell from reading his blog, H. Luiz is currently in law school. That does not mean, however, that he is happy there (even if "happy law student" is an oxymoron). Luiz has compiled a list of the top eight reasons not to go to law school. Were it not far too late for me to reconsider, his list might well scare me away.

Consider his top reason -- law school is "financial suicide." "F*ck what you heard about how much money you’re going to make when you pass the bar in 3 to 4 years -- you’re going to need at least 12 years of paying off that loan," he warns. His advice for those electing to forge ahead: "If you have a house - sell it; if you have children - sell them (but try to buy them back later)."

And then there is this encouraging observation about law school's effect on the psyche:

Law School will suck the creativity out of you. Law school is designed to make you a logical, stringent person who can quickly analyze any situation. There’s no room for creativity. Imagination? Imagination is for artists, chefs, bloggers, children, writers, Entrepreneurs, happy people -- not lawyers.

OK, so law school empties your wallet and shuts down the right side of your brain. But the bad news does not end there, according to Luiz. What else can the aspiring lawyer look forward to?

The loss of your significant other. Law students have a break-up rate of nearly 80 percent, he says. (I would love to know who compiled that stat.)
A brutal, multi-day bar exam. "You will study like an animal for three months, only surfacing from your dungeon to eat and feel some sunlight on your face for one insane exam."
Future unemployment. Hoping to land a job after graduation? Good luck, says Luiz.
Insane hours. Those fortunate enough to land jobs soon grasp their misfortune -- a life of 70-hour workweeks.
Law professors. "Law school professors are some of the most pretentious and arrogant people on earth," Luiz reports -- as if we needed to be told.
Harassment. Not of the sexual kind, but of the bothersome kind, as family and friends pester you for free advice.

I read Luiz's post certain there would be at least some glimmer of light at the end, but I was wrong. For anyone considering law school, he cautions, "Think twice, then think again."

Attorney Misconduct, IP Litigation Among Resolution Topics at ABA Meeting

2009-07-23T20:58:00.001-07:00

When the American Bar Association meets in Chicago next week, its House of Delegates will consider resolutions on a wide range of topics related to everything from attorney misconduct to intellectual property litigation to pro bono conflicts of interest.

The house, which includes 555 members, will consider 36 bylaw and constitutional amendments plus other recommendations proposed by its various law sections and committees. The proposals will be considered during the last two days of the annual meeting, which runs from July 30 to Aug. 4. The 130-year-old ABA has about 400,000 members, most of whom are lawyers, and is led by the house.

In one proposal from the Criminal Justice Section, the house will vote on urging courts to distinguish between "attorney misconduct" and "attorney error." The recommendation encourages the courts "to refrain from declaring in any order, opinion, or other public statement that an attorney engaged in misconduct unless the courts finds [sic] that the attorney's act or omission was purposeful, knowing or intentional or otherwise violated an applicable disciplinary rule or law."

The house will also consider four different intellectual property recommendations all related to "the defense of unenforceability of a patent based upon inequitable conduct arising from proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." While one proposal opposes the elimination of the defense, the other three call for various restrictions on use of the defense.

In another recommendation, the house will vote on whether to urge corporate counsel to work with their outside counsel to waive potential conflicts of interest that would otherwise keep the outside lawyers from working on pro bono projects related to mortgage, consumer and bankruptcy finance. The proposal stipulates that waivers be granted only in keeping with rules of professional conduct.

Lynne Marek will be blogging the ABA annual meeting in Chicago next week. She can be reached at lynne.marek@incisivemedia.com.

Hacker Can Be Sued for Fraud Under Securities Exchange Act, Says 2nd Circuit

2009-07-23T20:57:00.000-07:00

A man who hacked into a computer network to gain advance information about a company's financial reports can be sued for fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 even though he owed no fiduciary duty to the company, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The circuit said there is nothing in the case law that "expressly imposes a fiduciary-duty requirement on the ordinary meaning of 'deceptive' where the alleged fraud is an affirmative misrepresentation rather than a nondisclosure."

The ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dorozhko, 08-0201-cv, reversed a decision by Southern District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald refusing to grant a preliminary injunction to the SEC that would freeze the alleged hacker's trading gains.

Buchwald had found that computer hacking cannot be considered "deceptive" unless there is a breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal was decided by Judges Jose A. Cabranes and Peter W. Hall and, sitting by designation, Southern District Judge Richard J. Sullivan.

Ukranian national Oleksandt Dorozhko invested $42,500 through his online trading account in October 2007 and spent almost all of it on "put" options in IMS Health, Inc., betting the company's quarterly earnings would disappoint and the stock price would drop.

IMS Health Inc., which had hired Thomson Financial Inc. to provide investor relations and Web-hosting services, was set to announce earnings on Oct. 17, 2007, at 5 p.m.

The SEC alleges that Dorozhko made $286,456 on the put options when the company's earnings came in below the expectations set by Wall Street analysts. They also allege he was the one who hacked into Thomas Financial's secure server and downloaded critical information about IMS Health in advance of the earnings call.

Buchwald denied the SEC's motion for preliminary injunction freezing Dorozhko's proceeds from the transaction on the theory that computer hacking cannot be "deceptive" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Cabranes, writing for the panel on the SEC's appeal, said the court recognized "that the SEC's claim against defendant -- a corporate outsider who owed no fiduciary duties to the source of the information -- is not based on either of the two generally accepted theories of insider trading": either where a corporate insider trades the securities of his own company based on material, non-public information or where someone misappropriates information through violation of a fiduciary duty and trades on it.

The district court, he said, relied on three U.S. Supreme Court decisions when it insisted on the presence of a fiduciary duty: Chiarella v. United States, 455 U.S. 222 (1980), United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997) and SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002).

"Chiarella, O'Hagan and Zandford all stand for the proposition that nondisclosure in breach of a fiduciary duty" satisfies the act's requirement of a deceptive device or contrivance, Cabranes said. "However, what is sufficient is not always what is necessary, and none of the Supreme Court opinions considered by the district court require a fiduciary relationship as an element of an actionable securities claim under §10(b)."

Cabranes said that here the SEC "has not alleged that defendant fraudulently remained silent in the face of a 'duty to disclose or abstain' from trading."

"Rather, the SEC argues that defendant affirmatively misrepresented himself in order to gain access to material, nonpublic information, which he then used to trade," the judge said. "We are aware of no precedent of the Supreme Court or our Court that forecloses or prohibits the SEC's straightforward theory of fraud."

The panel then remanded the case to Buchwald to determine "whether the computer hacking in this case involved a fraudulent misrepresentation that was 'deceptive' within the ordinary meaning of §10(b)."

Mark Pennington, assistant general counsel, appeared for the SEC.

Charles A. Ross of Charles A. Ross & Associates appeared for Dorozhko.

"We're considering options with regard to further proceedings including a petition for certiorari" to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ross said.

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

Indicted Lawyer Slaps Haim Saban With Sensational Civil Suit

2009-07-22T12:09:00.001-07:00

Indicted Lawyer Slaps Haim Saban With Sensational Civil Suit

A civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday reads like a script for a big screen Hollywood legal thriller. It's a case of the truth being stranger -- and far more complicated -- than fiction.

Hollywood tax lawyer Matthew Krane is suing his former client, entertainment industry billionaire Haim Saban, over a $36 million fee Krane was paid for referring Saban to an investment fund run by the Quellos Group. The suit charges Saban with attempting to get his hands on the $36 million, and in the process makes several provocative allegations.

According to the nine-page complaint, Krane states that Saban "spent decades trying to avoid paying taxes on the many billions of dollars in income he has received" and that the well-known Democratic fundraiser used political donations to "demand special treatment and favors."

Saban was the creator of hit TV franchises like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Krane was once a partner at former Los Angeles firm Pollack, Bloom & Dekom -- now the Beverly Hills-based firm of entertainment industry player Jacob Bloom. While there he served as Saban's longtime tax adviser. (The L.A. Business Journal has an excellent story on the complicated relationship between Saban and Krane.)

For the past year, Krane has been sitting in a cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal holding facility in downtown Los Angeles. He faces federal charges over money laundering, conspiracy, as well as related charges of passport fraud and identity theft in what federal prosecutors have called one of the largest tax evasion schemes in U.S. history. It's from there that he's taken up his fight against Saban.

THE SALE

Scene One in this drama is set in 2001, when Saban realized $1.5 billion in capital gains from the sale of his stake in the Fox Family Channel to Walt Disney. Saban tapped Krane -- a Harvard-educated lawyer with an exclusive Hollywood clientele, according to the Business Journal story -- to help the media mogul avoid hefty capital gains taxes. Krane had relied on a tax shelter to do this; that shelter is at the heart of the case filed against Saban.

In surprising testimony in 2006, Saban told the U.S. Senate that his limited formal education prevented him from understanding the shelter was illegal. He ended up paying $250 million in back taxes and penalties.

That would appear to end it for Saban. But several insiders, most of whom did not want to be identified by name, pointed out that since a trial is in Krane's future, it is possible that Saban or others could be touched by Krane's ongoing legal troubles.

Michael Holtz, a partner with L.A. firm Lavely & Singer representing Krane in the civil suit against Saban, tells The Am Law Daily that Krane created a legitimate tax plan to protect at least half of Saban's capital gain from taxes. Krane then sought a partner to protect the remaining 50 percent of Saban's windfall, eventually settling on the Quellos Group, the $18 billion Seattle-based hedge fund. After referring Saban's business to the group, Quellos paid Krane a $36 million finders fee. (Quellos sold its investment management unit to BlackRock for $1.7 billion in June 2007.)

"My client was paid a fee from Quellos for providing input, assistance, guidance, and advice helping create part of this tax plan that Saban used for his sale of the Fox Family stock," Holtz says. "This is not a situation where a client paid legal fees to a lawyer and then afterward wants their money back because they think they're the victim of malpractice."

For its services, Holtz says, Quellos negotiated separately with Saban for a percentage of the $1.5 billion. Quellos then struck another agreement with Krane, paying him a fee that Holtz describes as "commensurate with the advice, service, and consulting that he provided to them."

THE FRAUD

In 2006 a report by a Senate subcommittee suspected Quellos of engaging in tax evasion. Last month federal prosecutors charged Krane and two former Quellos executives -- CEO Jeffrey Greenstein and in-house lawyer Charles Wilk -- with 18 counts of tax fraud for signing off on tax shelters designed to save the firm's clients millions by crafting phony securities transactions to pass off as capital losses.

The government maintains that Krane, Greenstein, and Wilk netted $86 million in fees and allowed six clients to avoid paying $400 million in federal taxes. Krane was charged with money laundering for the $36 million fee -- prosecutors call it a kickback -- that he received from Quellos.

Holtz reiterates that Quellos paid Krane for bringing Saban's business to the firm and for constructing other tax structures used by the hedge fund with other high-profile clients. Holtz also argues that several Am Law 100 firms signed off on the tax shelters in question.

New Laws Effective July 1, 2009

2009-07-22T00:05:00.001-07:00

Minnesota
House of
Representatives
Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Speaker
PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES
175 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-2146
Fax: 651-297-8135
800-657-3550
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: June 30, 2009
Contact: Lee Ann Schutz
651-296-0337
leeann.schutz@house.mn
New Laws Effective July 1, 2009
Note: The following is a listing of selected new laws passed during the 2009 legislative session that
take effect July 1, 2009.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s unallotment plan to balance the 2010-2011 biennium is waiting to be finalized
and will be effective after July 1. As currently proposed, it shaves nearly $2.68 billion from state
government spending; however, many of the proposed cuts won’t take place until fiscal year 2011.
A complete summary of all laws passed by the 2009 Legislature will be available online from House
Public Information Services after July 1, 2009. Go to www.house.mn/hinfo/NewLaws/NewLawsmain.asp.
AGRICULTURE
Agriculture funding focuses on job retention, core services
Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar) and Sen. Jim Vickerman (DFL-Tracy) sponsor the omnibus
agriculture and veterans affairs finance law that, for the 2010-2011 biennium, appropriates
approximately $116.8 million to the Veterans Affairs Department, $75 million to the Department of
Agriculture, $41.7 million to the Military Affairs Department, $10.4 million to the Board of Animal
Health and $5.6 million for the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute.
There is an approximate 3.3 percent overall reduction to the departments’ base budgets. Both the
governor and Legislature aimed to protect the Veterans and Military Affairs departments from cuts. To
do so, money was made available by delaying $6 million in ethanol producer payments, and shifting
funds from the little-used state G.I. bill account for other uses.
Marketing of the state’s agriculture products and funding for development programming will see
$9.56 million over the biennium.
In the next two fiscal years, the Minnesota Grown program will be allocated up to $372,000. In
addition to $200,000 for grants to farmers setting up sustainable agriculture demonstration projects, the
law allocates $100,000 to increase Minnesota Grown promotional efforts in retail food establishments,
grocery stores and convenience stores. (Art. 1, Sec. 2)
Other agriculture funding includes:
• $24.3 million for ethanol producer payments;
• $1.5 million for continuation of the dairy development and profitability enhancement program; and
• $1 million to Second Harvest Heartland for purchase of milk for distribution to Minnesota food
shelves. (Art. 1, Sec. 3 and Art. 2, Sec. 1)
HF1122*/SF1779/CH94
CRIME
Courts, corrections and employment
Sponsored by Rep. Debra Hilstrom (DFL-Brooklyn Center) and Sen. Mee Moua (DFL-St. Paul), the
omnibus public safety policy law addresses some employment issues and strengthens protection for
domestic assault victims.
Effective July 1, 2009, correctional officers who are subject to an agreement, merger or consolidation
of correctional facilities must receive credit for accumulated vacation and sick leave time. Additionally,
if a correctional officer becomes employed by a new entity because of the agreement, merger or
consolidation the officer is “considered to have begun employment with the new entity on the first day
of employment with the governmental unit employing the correctional officer immediately preceding the
creation of the new entity.” (Art. 4, Sec. 5)
A prosecutor must now provide victims of domestic assault and harassment with information on civil
protection orders. The law adds victims of criminal sexual conduct to that statute.
The law also increases from 12 to 24 hours the time an officer may arrest a person whom the officer
has probable cause to believe committed domestic abuse. An arrest can be made even if the officer did
not witness the act. (Art. 2, Secs. 1, 3)
HF1301*/SF993/CH59
DEVELOPMENT
Employer-paid fee increased to minimize DEED cuts
A new law funds jobs, housing and cultural heritage programs for the next biennium. Sponsored by
Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia) and Sen. David Tomassoni (DFL-Chisholm), it authorizes
$260.1 million in General Fund spending.
Major appropriations, reflecting cuts from earlier projected funding bases, include:
• $115.9 million to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (a 4 percent cut);
• $86.8 million to the Housing Finance Agency (a 3.5 percent cut);
• $46 million to the Minnesota Historical Society (a 6 percent cut);
• $20.2 million to Explore Minnesota Tourism (a 9 percent cut);
• $17.2 million for the Minnesota State Arts Board (a 16.6 percent cut); and
• $4 million for public broadcasting (a one-time 3 percent increase that includes grant money for new
equipment).
The law prevents deeper cuts to DEED programs by temporarily increasing a fee paid by employers
into the state’s workforce development fund. The fee hike is expected to raise $15.5 million over the next
biennium. It expires June 30, 2011. (Art. 2, Sec. 23)
HF2088*/SF1926/CH78
EDUCATION
K-12 funding law keeps school funding stable
Funding for public school districts and charter schools, early learning programs, special education
services and the Education Department is at $13.9 billion with $500 million of that from federal
stabilization funds for the 2010-2011 biennium. The funding will increase to $14.1 billion the following
biennium, under a new law sponsored by Rep. Mindy Greiling (DFL-Roseville) and Sen. LeRoy Stumpf
(DFL-Plummer).
Major appropriations for the 2010-2011 biennium include:
• $10.7 billion in general education aid;
• $1.4 billion in regular special education;
• $220.7 million in special education, excess;
• $130.8 million in integration aid;
• $44.9 million in nonpublic pupil transportation;
• $35.1 million for nonpublic pupil education aid (textbooks, standardized tests and support services);
• $30.3 million statewide testing and reporting system; and
• $22 million inter-district desegregation/integration transportation grants.
More than $20.9 million is appropriated each year of the biennium to the Education Department for
agency operations; $11.9 million per fiscal year to the Minnesota State Academies for the Deaf and the
Blind and $7.1 million each year to the Perpich Center for Arts Education. (Art. 7, Secs. 3-5)
The law appropriates $87.2 million for Adult Basic Education aid; $45.5 million for early childhood
family education aid; $40.2 million for Head Start; $20.2 million for school readiness programs; and
$7.5 million for health and developmental screening. (Art. 6, Sec. 11)
A voluntary, standards-based quality rating and improvement system framework is established to
ensure that children have access to quality early learning settings promoting kindergarten readiness. The
system is based on a 2008 Minnesota Early Learning Foundation pilot program. (Art. 6, Sec. 4)
HF2*/SF1328/CH96
ENERGY
Policies focus on renewables, conservation
Sponsored by Rep. Bill Hilty (DFL-Finlayson) and Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon (DFL-Duluth), and
appropriated annually through 2012, $5 million is directed for the Initiative for Renewable Energy
and the Environment at the University of Minnesota. The funds are to study environmentally sound
production of energy from renewable sources, energy storage methods, development of energy
conservation and utilization technologies, and to analyze policy options. An annual report is due to the
Legislature.
HF863/SF550*/CH110
ENVIRONMENT
E-waste law modified for electronics manufacturers
Under incentives built into a 2007 electronics recycling law, manufacturers collected far beyond their
required amount of discarded household televisions, computer monitors and other electronic devices.
A new law, sponsored by Rep. Brita Sailer (DFL-Park Rapids) and Sen. Linda Higgins (DFL-Mpls),
tweaks the Electronics Recycling Act so that manufacturers will continue to have incentives for product
stewardship.
The new law removes a three-year expiration for redeeming recycling credits and bases manufacturers’
recycling obligations on national sales data, using a formula that multiplies the weight of devices sold
nationally times the quotient of the state’s population divided by the U.S. (Sec. 1).
HF1648/SF1486*/CH42
Environment and energy law appropriates $737 million
A $737 million environment and natural resources appropriations law helps pay for work performed
by, among others, the Department of Commerce, Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural
Resources, Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Public Utilities Commission.
The law requires that departments and agencies that receive state appropriations display their budgets
on a Web site, making their financing transparent to the public.
Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL-Mpls) and Sen. Ellen Anderson (DFL-St. Paul) are the sponsors.
HF2123*/SF2099/CH37
Natural Resources
Nearly $489.1 million of the law is for the Department of Natural Resources, including:
• $135 million for fish and wildlife management;
• $134.7 million for parks and trails management;
• $77.8 million for forest management, including money to prevent forest fires and invasive species on
state forest land;
• $63 million for enforcement activity;
• $28.4 million for ecological services;
• $23.5 million for water resources management;
• $20.8 million for land and mineral resources management; and
• $6 million for operations support, including $320,000 for both the Como and Duluth zoos.
Other allocations include $17.76 million to the Metropolitan Council for parks operation and
maintenance; $13.5 million for the Minnesota Zoo; $2.3 million for the Science Museum of Minnesota;
and $1.9 million for the Minnesota Conservation Corps. (Art. 1, Secs. 4-9)
Air, water quality
The PCA is to receive $181.5 million in the biennium.
Of that total, $67.1 million is for water-related provisions, including $15.1 million for completion of
20 percent of the statewide assessments of surface water quality and trends.
To prevent water pollution on farms and feedlots, nearly $4.3 million is made available; $2.5 million is
allocated for assessment and monitoring of lakes, rivers and streams; and $500,000 is allocated in fiscal
year 2010 “to develop minimal impact design standards for urban storm water runoff.” (Art. 1, Sec. 3)
The PCA will receive $7.2 million and work with the Department of Agriculture to clean up soil and
water contaminated by leaking underground storage tanks, a task largely funded through a dedicated
remediation account. In areas of contamination, $1 million is dedicated to environmental health
monitoring and biomonitoring of a sample of the population, including “indigenous people and people
of color.” paid for through money transferred into the Department of Health. (Art. 1, Secs. 3, 54)
BWSR is to receive $31 million, including $7.8 million for natural resources block grants to local
governments, $7 million for soil and water conservation districts, $1 million for feedlot water quality
grants for feedlots under 300 animal units where there are impaired waters and another $1 million for
implementation and enforcement of the Wetland Conservation Act. (Art. 1, Sec. 5)
The PCA is to develop standards or other tools to enable and promote low impact development and
other stormwater management techniques. (Art. 1, Sec. 37)
Energy
Energy appropriations total almost $61.18 million spread between the Commerce Department and
Public Utilities Commission.
Included in the $8.2 million for the Office of Energy Security is $2 million for grants “to promote
renewable energy projects and community energy outreach and assistance.”
It also includes $1.3 million for community energy technical assistance and outreach on renewable
energy; $400,000 for financial rebates for new solar electricity products; $300,000 for the Natural
Resources and Research Institute at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, to develop statewide heat flow
maps that may be used to determine the state’s geothermal energy potential; and $25,000 to “manage a
stakeholder process on green jobs that would integrate the work of the state Green Jobs Task Force and
the mayors’ initiative on green manufacturing.”
GAMBLING
Rating charitable gaming outlays
A new star system aims to provide transparency for where gambling funds are directed. Sponsored by
Rep. Joe Atkins (DFL-Inver Grove Heights) and Sen. Tony Lourey (DFL-Kerrick), a new law directs the
Minnesota Gambling Control Board to conduct a 12-month review of licensed organizations, rating them
based on the percentage of lawful expenditures as compared to gross profits.
An organization that expends at least 50 percent of gross profits on charitable purposes will receive
the highest rating — five stars. An organization that fails to expend at least 30 percent of annual gross
profits on charitable purposes is automatically on probation for one year. The organization must increase
its rating to a minimum of 30 percent or be subject to sanctions by the board. If an organization fails to
meet the minimum standard after a one-year probation, the board may suspend the organization’s license
or impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000.
Licensed organizations will be given more leeway to conduct lawful gambling at events off-premises.
If approved by the board, an organization could hold lawful gaming at up to four events per year in
connection with a county fair, state fair, church festival or civic celebration, not to exceed three days per
event.
The law restricts who may participate in lawful gambling. Most notably, it will be considered a
misdemeanor for any licensed organization or its employee to allow any person under age 18 to
participate in lawful gambling. An organization’s gambling manager, employee or volunteer involved
with the lawful gaming activity or the lessor and the immediate family may not participate in the activity.
HF1511/SF1284*/CH124
GOVERNMENT
State government finance law cuts budgets, boosts accountability
Less spending and more accountability are the hallmarks of a new law that funds state government
operations for the 2010-2011 biennium.
Sponsored by Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Mpls) and Sen. Don Betzold (DFL-Fridley), the law funds the
Legislature, the state’s constitutional offices and several state agencies, including:
• Minnesota Management and Budget;
• Department of Revenue;
• Department of Administration;
• Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board;
• State Board of Investment; and
• Office of Enterprise Technology.
In all, the law will have a net General Fund impact of $580 million, which amounts to a 7 percent
reduction from the February forecasted base. A new $41.5 million tax compliance initiative is reflected
in the law.
The Legislature and the governor’s office will see 3 percent cuts from their forecasted base funding.
The Office of the Secretary of State and the Office of the Attorney General will be cut 5 percent and
4.5 percent, respectively. The Office of the State Auditor will actually see a 3.7 percent budget increase
to help oversee and report on the use of federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. Most executive agencies will see a 5 percent reduction in their operating
budgets. (Art. 1)
The law also clarifies that knowingly misusing state funds is a gross misdemeanor and grounds for
employment termination. It strengthens the state’s internal financial controls by requiring Minnesota
Management and Budget to take responsibility for internal controls across the executive branch.
Additionally, the law directs the Legislative Audit Commission to make recommendations to the
Legislature on improving internal controls. (Art. 2, Secs. 3, 44, 47)
Other policy provisions include:
• laws enacted on or after July 1, 2009, must not be named for living people, and laws
may not name councils, buildings, roads, or other facilities or entities after living people (Art. 2, Sec. 17);
• requiring the state demographer to release a state demographic forecast to coincide with the November
economic forecast from MMB (Art. 2, Sec. 7);
• authorizing the secretary of state to investigate complaints regarding student exchange organizations
(Art. 2, Sec. 16);
• officially changing the name of the Department of Finance to the Department of Management and Budget,
which may also be referred to as Minnesota Management and Budget (Art. 2, Secs. 21-23, 40);
HF1781/SF2082*/CH101
HEALTH
Funding for health and human services
The omnibus health and human services finance law contains cuts to state-funded public programs,
hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care facilities and disability community services.
The law, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Huntley (DFL-Duluth) and Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-Mpls), has
a General Fund cost is $9.2 billion after the governor’s veto of the General Assistance Medical Care
program funding. An additional $110 million of federal stabilization funds is appropriated.
HF1362*/SF695/CH79
Children, family programs
The law makes changes to meet the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
of 2009 that could result in an additional $20 million to increase the number of children on public health
insurance. The change will add an additional 22,000 children to MinnesotaCare. (Art. 5, Secs. 60-63)
Child care service and child care technical assistance grants are to be increasingly awarded for
activities that improve provider quality. (Art. 2, Secs. 3-4)
All pregnant noncitizens who meet MA eligibility requirements qualify to receive 60 days of
postpartum coverage. (Art. 5, Sec. 23)
State services
The human services commissioner is to determine how much a client can pay for participation in
state-operated community-based programs, including regional treatment centers and nursing homes. If
the commissioner determines the client can’t afford the full cost for care, the spouse and then the client’s
parents will be asked to provide documentation on their ability to pay. (Art. 3, Secs. 4-5)
In addition to limiting the number of hours for a personal care attendant, a recipient must need help
with at least one activity of daily living — dressing, grooming, bathing or toileting — to qualify for
public assistance. (Art. 8, Sec. 20)
Adult foster care facilities can expand to five beds, if the additional beds don’t increase the overall
statewide capacity in homes that are not a primary residence of the license holder, over the licensed
capacity in such homes on July 1, 2009, as identified in a county plan submitted to the human services
commissioner. (Art. 1, Sec. 3)
A dental care pilot project is authorized that would establish special payment rates for urgent dental
services as an alternative to emergency room visits. The pilot is an attempt to reduce the state cost for
dental services for those on public programs by reducing emergency room costs for preventable and
nonemergency dental services. (Art. 4, Sec. 10)
HIGHER EDUCATION
Tuition caps, budget cuts focus of new law
Sponsored by Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia) and Sen. Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul), a new law
sets higher education funding in the 2010-2011 biennium at $3.1 billion. This includes funding for the
University of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system, the Mayo Foundation
and the Office of Higher Education, which includes student aid and other programs.
The total includes nearly $138 million in fiscal stabilization funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. The $3.1 billion represents an approximate 2 percent cut for total higher
education funding.
The law caps undergraduate tuition increases at MnSCU institutions to no more than 3 percent in the
first year and 5 percent in the second year of the biennium. Similarly, the law asks the university to cap
its tuition increases at $300 in the first year and $450 in the second year.
HF869/SF2083*/CH95
Office of Higher Education
OHE programs face a 0.2 percent total cut, with funding for many programs remaining essentially flat.
(Art. 1, Sec. 3)
The largest change in OHE funding is a 54 percent reduction ($10.3 million) to the Achieve
Scholarship program. Technical changes are also made to the eligibility requirements and scholarship
awards for the program. (Art. 2, Secs. 16-20)
With this exception, student aid programs get a boost in the law, which raises the four-year tuition
maximum for students in the state grant program by $650 to $10,488 per individual. It also raises the
maximum allowance for living and miscellaneous expenses $800 to $7,000 per individual.
Child care assistance grants get an 8 percent increase ($1 million) and American Indian scholarship
funding is increased 7 percent ($250,000). Work-study funding will get a 20 percent increase ($5 million).
Other funding changes in the law include:
• interstate tuition reciprocity funding is increased 57 percent to $5.5 million;
• Intervention for College Attendance Program grants are increased 50 percent to $1.5 million;
• the Minnesota College Savings Plan receives a 31 percent cut ($640,000);
• a 100 percent cut ($480,000) to the Campus Compact program; and
• Midwest Higher Education Compact funding is increased by 6 percent to $190,000.
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
The MnSCU system will receive a 2 percent overall funding reduction. The system’s total funding for
the 2010-2011 biennium stands at $1.3 billion, which includes $63.9 million in federal stimulus funds.
(Art. 1, Sec. 4)
The law includes some new MnSCU funding initiatives, including:
• $9.6 million for the Learning Network of Minnesota (a transfer from the OHE);
• $2 million for the Northeast Higher Education District for a vocational education partnership with area
high schools; and
• $450,000 for the eFolio Minnesota workforce development initiative.
University of Minnesota
The University of Minnesota will receive $1.38 billion, which includes $74 million in federal stimulus
funds. This represents a 2 percent cut for the university. Only one new funding initiative is included in
the law: $692,000 to support up to 12 resident physicians in the St. Cloud Hospital family residency
program to prepare doctors to serve in rural areas. (Art. 1, Sec. 5)
State funding for the University of Minnesota may not be used for research that involves human
cloning, partially defined as “generating a genetically identical copy of an organism at any stage of
development.” (Art. 1, Sec. 5)
SAFETY
‘Brandon’s Law’ is now law
“Brandon’s Law” expands the state’s missing children’s law to include adults who go missing under
dangerous circumstances.
The law, sponsored by Rep. Marty Seifert (R-Marshall) and Sen. Dennis Frederickson (R-New Ulm),
is named after Brandon Swanson, who went missing after his car was stuck in a ditch near Taunton in
southwest Minnesota on May 14, 2008. He has not been seen since.
The law requires law enforcement to take a missing persons report without delay after notification
of any missing person no matter the person’s age; immediately conduct a preliminary investigation to
determine if the person is missing, and whether the person is endangered; and promptly notify all other
law enforcement agencies of the situation. It clarifies that the agency taking the report be the lead agency
in the investigation.
Law enforcement will be required to seek additional information — including DNA samples, dental
records, X-rays, photographs and fingerprints — if the missing person is not found within 30 days.
A working group will be convened to create a standardized form for law enforcement to use when
taking a missing persons report, and to develop a policy missing person cases. Its work is to be complete
by Sept. 1, 2009.
HF1242*/SF1146/CH38
Restraint required for young riders
Youth in a motor vehicle must be in a child passenger restraint system until their eighth birthday or
they reach 4 feet 9 inches tall.
Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL-Brooklyn Park), who sponsors the law with Sen. Jim Carlson (DFLEagan),
said that an improperly fitted adult safety belt could cause the lap belt to ride up over the
stomach and the shoulder belt to cut across the neck. A backless booster seat, which raises a child so the
belt properly goes across the shoulders and hips, costs less than $20.
Violation of the law will be a petty misdemeanor, with the driver fined up to $50. However, the fine
will be waived if within 14 days the operator proves he or she has purchased a system for use. A peace
officer is permitted to provide information to a violator on obtaining a free or low-cost child passenger
restraint system.
HF267/SF99*/CH82
Public safety, courts and corrections funding
A new law contains reforms for the court system and Corrections and Public Safety departments.
Rep. Michael Paymar (DFL-St. Paul) and Sen. Linda Higgins (DFL-Mpls) sponsor the $2.02 billion
law, including $1.81 billion allocated from the General Fund, to cover corrections, courts, human rights,
victim services and public safety and other programming.
HF1657/SF802*/CH83
Corrections
Unlike most state agencies and departments that face a biennial funding decrease, the Corrections
Department will receive a $3.6 million base bump to $942 million. The department is also to receive
federal stimulus dollars.
To help with department efficiencies, the law requires at least a 1 percent per diem decrease, or 89
cents per day per prisoner. Additional per diem savings must be put toward treatment beds. If this cannot
be achieved, the difference is to be cut from the department’s operations support division.
Nearly $633.4 million from the General Fund will go toward correctional institutions, but coupled with
$38 million in federal stimulus dollars and $1.2 million in special revenue funds, it equals
$672.5 million in spending.
The short-term offender program that allows offenders with less than six months remaining on their
sentence to serve that time in a local jail is eliminated, effective for those sentenced on or after July 1,
2009, meaning no state inmates should be in local facilities after Dec. 31, 2009. (Art. 1, Sec. 14 and Art.
3, Secs. 19, 24)
Courts
After lawmakers heard about potentially reducing services and hours or not charging some criminal
activity, the law provides the courts an overall biennial funding decrease of less than 1 percent.
The Supreme Court is to receive $87 million, a $1 million reduction from the 2008-2009 biennium.
The court must also apply for all federal stimulus fund grants to continue drug court programs, make
technology improvements and it shall not certify a judicial or referee vacancy “until it has examined
alternative options, such as temporarily suspending certification of the vacant position or assigning a
retired judge to fill the position.” (Art. 1, Sec. 3)
Other court biennial spending includes:
• $500.2 million for district courts, a $4 million decrease;
• $132.1 million for the Board of Public Defense, a $4 million decrease;
• $20.6 million for the Court of Appeals, a $170,000 decrease;
• $1.6 million for the tax court, a $14,000 decrease;
• $912,000 for the Board of Judicial Standards, a $8,000 decrease; and
• $102,000 for the Uniform Laws Commission, a $2,000 decrease (Art. 1, Secs. 4-9).
Some of the funding decrease is to be offset by $38.93 million in fee increases and $7.82 million in
revenue adjustments, including:
• initial filing fee in a district court civil action ($240 to $310);
• initial filing fee in a marriage dissolution action ($270 to $340);
• motion fees ($55 to $100);
• certified and uncertified copies of any document from a criminal proceeding ($10/$5 to $14/$8);
• depositing a will ($20 to $27);
• filing fee in conciliation court ($50 to $65);
• filing fee for an appeal ($500 to $550); and
• surcharge attached to parking violations ($4 to $12).
It also clarifies that a criminal and traffic surcharge can only be imposed once per case, even if the
defendant is convicted of more than one offense. (Art. 2, Secs. 21-25)
Public safety
The biennial appropriation for the Department of Public Safety is $321.1 million, of which
$160.9 million is from the General Fund, $136.9 million is from state government special revenue,
$19.3 million is from special revenue funds, $3.88 million is in trunk highway funding and $138,000 is
environmental funds.
The Office of Justice Programs is to receive $71.2 million. It must give priority to awarding federal
stimulus money grants to the following programs: mentoring grants for children of incarcerated parents;
youth intervention programs; the Network of Better Futures; trafficking victim programs; nonprofit
organizations providing resources to families of persons who have died traumatically; juvenile detention
alternatives; restorative justice programs; and judicial branch efficiency programs.
The law further states that the following victims’ services programs cannot be reduced by more than
3 percent of their fiscal year 2009 funding: crime victim reparations, battered women shelters and
domestic violence programs, general crime victim programs, sexual assault victim programs and youth
intervention programs. (Art. 1, Sec. 10)
TAXES
Sales tax increase could generate nearly $400 million annually for dedicated areas
The majority of state voters approved a sales tax increase in November 2008 with some uncertainty as
to how the anticipated revenue would be spent. A new law provides clarity.
Rep. Mary Murphy (DFL-Hermantown) and Sen. Richard Cohen (DFL-St. Paul) sponsor the omnibus
cultural and outdoor funding resources finance law that allocates how money from the voter-approved
sales tax increase will be appropriated in the first year.
Beginning July 1, 2009, the state’s sales tax will increase from 6.5 percent to 6.875 percent. The tax,
which expires in 2034, is expected to generate $396.8 million annually to be divided into four dedicated
funding areas: wildlife habitat, clean water, parks and trails, and arts and culture.
HF1231*/SF1651/CH172
Outdoors and Environment
Natural resources funding for the 2010-2011 biennium includes:
• $75.7 million to the Department of Natural Resources split among prairies; wetlands; forests; and fish,
game and wildlife habitat;
• $51.3 million to the Pollution Control Agency for grants, drinking water protection, Minnesota River
Water Quality testing and wastewater treatment monitoring;
• $38.2 million to the Board of Water and Soil Resources to purchase and restore permanent
conservation easements, grants to improve watershed management practices and shoreland protection;
• $36.9 million to the DNR for grants and the state parks and trails legacy; and
• $32.7 million to the Public Facilities Authority for grants among for community wastewater
treatment technical assistance and construction and phosphorus reduction. (Art. 1, Sec. 2; Art. 2, Secs.
3-4, 6; Art. 3, Sec. 2)
Arts and Cultural Heritage
The law also provides a plan to guide the distribution of the legacy amendment money over the 25-
year life of the tax. All appropriations are one-time because priorities will be annually reviewed.
Funding for the 2010-2011 biennium include:
• $43 million to the Minnesota Board of the Arts for grants to Minnesota artists and arts organizations;
• $22 million to the Minnesota Historical Society for a variety of things, including grants, assistance to
local historical societies and the Minnesota History Educational Network; and
• $14.4 million to the Department of Administration for grants to, among others, Minnesota Public
Television Association; Minnesota Public Radio; program development at Minnesota, Como and Lake
Superior zoos; restoration, renovations and repair of the State Capitol; the Minnesota Center for the
Humanities; and the Legislative Coordinating Commission for a Web site specific to the dedicated
funds. (Art. 4, Sec. 2)
Efforts to preserve and revitalize use of Dakota and Ojibwe languages can expect to see a $150,000
grant underwritten by the Indian Affairs Council. To strengthen the program, an additional $500,000 is
awarded to the Niigaane Ojibwe Immersion School and the Wicoie Nandagikendan Urban Immersion
Project to expand K-12 curriculum, provide fluent speakers in the classroom, develop appropriate testing
and evaluation procedures, and community-based training. (Art. 4, Secs. 3-4)
TRANSPORTATION
Short-term transit funding fix provided
Sponsored by Rep. Bernie Lieder (DFL-Crookston) and Sen. Steve Murphy (DFL-Red Wing), the
transportation finance law calls for nearly $4.29 billion worth of funding, with $194.27 million from the
General Fund, a $14.8 million decrease from the 2008-2009 biennium. More than $3.9 billion comes
via user-generated highway funds, including $2.64 billion from the Trunk Highway Fund, $1.02 billion
from the County-State Aid Highway Fund and $275.4 million from the Municipal State-Aid Street Fund.
Three smaller accounts make up the remainder.
HF1309*/SF1276/CH36
Transit funding, policies
The Metropolitan Council — which operates Metro Transit — needed roughly $76 million to meet its
transit needs and Greater Minnesota transit needed $6 million. However, no revenue source exists to help
to that extent.
Dollars from the motor vehicle sales tax are currently split so that, in fiscal year 2012, 60 percent of
revenue will go to highways, 36 percent to Metro Transit and 4 percent for Greater Minnesota Transit.
None of that changes, under the law.
However, the law makes minor percentage changes in the short-term, so that Greater Minnesota
Transit receives 4.75 percent of motor vehicle sales tax revenue in fiscal year 2010, before dropping
back to 4 percent in future years, while metropolitan area transit gets 31.5 percent in fiscal year 2010
and 35.35 percent in fiscal year 2011. The additional funding for transit is made available by reducing
the allocation to the highway user tax distribution fund (which funds state and local highways) by 4.5
percent over two fiscal years, or about $19 million. (Art. 1, Sec. 3 and Art. 3, Sec. 19)
The Metropolitan Council will receive a $12.8 million General Fund base reduction; however, to
help Metro Transit, the agency is permitted to transfer in fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011 a percentage
of money not committed to grant or loan awards to its transit operating budget, from its tax base
revitalization account, metropolitan livable communities demonstration account and right-of-way
acquisition loan fund. Current and future balances in the metropolitan livable communities fund can also
be transferred. The agency is expected to receive about $13 million in MVST acceleration. (Art. 1, Secs.
10, 11) Free public regular route service for disabled veterans is required of the Metropolitan Council,
suburban opt-outs and operators providing contracted route service. Public providers receiving aid from
MnDOT must also offer free public transit for disabled veterans. (Art. 1, Sec. 4 and Art. 3, Secs. 12, 14,
20)
Airport funding
A $2.3 million increase in airport development grants is authorized for fiscal year 2010. The money
comes from a balance in the State Airports Fund; it does not represent additional money for the fund.
(Art. 1, Sec. 3)
The law also attempts to restore some of what was lost from the State Airports Fund in 2008 by
requiring the $15 million transferred from the fund to balance the state’s budget be restored once money
is available in the state’s General Fund, but after four other priorities are addressed: state’s cash flow
account, state budget reserve, aid payment for school districts and restoration of some net aid reductions.
Three user taxes comprise the fund dollars: an aircraft fuel tax, aircraft registration tax and an airline
flight property tax. (Art. 3, Sec. 1)
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Affairs get funding boost
The Veterans Affairs Department was among the few agencies receiving a biennial funding increase;
but it took some creative maneuvering to make it happen.
The funding provisions are contained in the omnibus agriculture and veterans affairs finance law,
sponsored by Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar) and Sen. Jim Vickerman (DFL-Tracy). The law provides
$116.8 million, a more than $900,000 increase to the department’s base funding, and more than $4.5
million increase to the biennial base for the state’s five veterans homes. The increased funding comes by
deferring $6 million in ethanol producer payments, and decreasing the relatively unused Minnesota G.I
Bill fund.
Biennial funding provides:
• $87.5 million for the state’s five veterans homes, including nearly $1 million for increases in pharmaceutical
costs, $420,000 for expanding the mental health program at the Hastings Veterans Home and
$282,000 to help the homes receive Medicare certification;
• $29 million for veterans services, including $500,000 for homeless veterans programming through the
Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans; and
• $23.6 million for Minnesota National Guard enlistment incentives (Art. 3, Sec. 2 and Art. 4. Sec. 2).
HF1122*/SF1779/CH94
- 30 -

Federal Judge Grants Attorney Fees in BAR/BRI Case but Slashes Amount

2009-07-22T00:01:00.001-07:00

A federal judge in Los Angeles, ruling on an issue that had been remanded to his court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has granted attorney fees to two law firms that objected to the $49 million settlement in an antitrust class action against the publisher of the BAR/BRI bar examination review course.

However, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California, who originally had denied fees to the objectors, granted significantly less than the attorneys had requested. He also refused to grant fees to several pro se objectors.

The 2007 settlement came in a case filed on behalf of 300,000 class members who claimed to have overpaid, on average, about $1,000 for BAR/BRI's bar review course because its parent company, West Publishing Corp., conspired to monopolize the market in a deal with Kaplan Inc., which sells preparatory courses for the Law School Aptitude Test.

The class sought $300 million, triple the estimated antitrust damages.

Before the settlement was finalized, several objectors raised questions about the incentive awards, valued at $25,000 to $75,000, that five of the seven class representatives were to receive as part of the deal.

Real rejected the incentive awards but otherwise approved the settlement.. He also refused to grant attorney fees to the lawyers for the objectors.

In April, the 9th Circuit reversed Real's decision on the fees, concluding that the objectors' efforts in raising the incentive award issue deserved some relief of legal costs.

On July 13, Real granted $8,125 to John W. Davis of the Law Office of John W. Davis in San Diego, who represented eight objectors, and $16,250 to C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick & Nutley in Pasadena, Calif., who represented five objectors.

Davis had been seeking $42,655 in fees and $884 in costs; Nutley initially requested $108,000 in fees.

Both attorneys declined to comment on the judge's decision.

Real did not address the $12 million in attorney fees granted to the plaintiffs firm, McGuireWoods of Richmond, Va., as part of the settlement.

In its April order, the 9th Circuit directed Real to consider the influence the incentive awards might have on the granting of those fees. Because the incentive awards were tied to the settlement, the 9th Circuit concluded, counsel created a "disturbing appearance of impropriety."

Dreier's Apartment Fetches $8.2 Million at Bankruptcy Auction

2009-07-21T23:59:00.001-07:00

The luxury midtown Manhattan apartment of disgraced attorney Marc S. Dreier was sold at auction Tuesday for $8.2 million, about $2 million less than the $10.43 million he paid in 2007.

The sale of the condominium at 151 E. 58th St. came just one week after Southern District Judge Jed S. Rakoff sentenced Dreier to 20 years in prison for orchestrating a multiyear Ponzi scheme that fleeced more than $400 million from clients of Dreier LLP and investors to whom he sold bogus promissory notes.

Forty-six bidders registered for the auction held at Southern District Bankruptcy Court. In just five minutes, the price of Dreier's 3,000-square-foot apartment in the Bloomberg Building at One Beacon Court rocketed to $8.15 million from an initial bid of $3 million.

"You'd look good on the terrace," auctioneer Peter Maltz of David R. Maltz & Co. quipped as he successfully elicited the final $8.2 million price.

The winning bidder, whose auction paddle bore the number 288, declined to identify himself, joking, "I have buyer's remorse."

However, a source said the buyer is Indian-born Ajit Jain, head of the reinsurance business of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., who has been touted as a possible successor to Warren Buffett at Berkshire.

Dreier, 59, spent his last weeks of freedom under the watch of around-the-clock armed guards at the apartment. Since his sentencing, he has been jailed at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, pending assignment to a federal prison.

Rakoff recommended that Dreier serve his sentence at the low-security prison in the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex, located in the foothills of Pennsylvania's Allegheny Mountains. However, the Federal Bureau of Prisons frequently rejects such recommendations.

On Monday, as potential bidders roamed through Dreier's unit admiring the sweeping East River views from its massive terrace, remnants of the now imprisoned attorney's lavish past remained.

Photos of rocker Jon Bon Jovi and former New York Giant Michael Strahan, celebrity clients of Dreier LLP, which imploded days after its sole equity partner's December arrest, lined the walls of the entryway.

A poster for "After Innocence," a Showtime documentary written by former Dreier associate Marc Simon that follows the lives of wrongfully convicted men freed by DNA evidence, was propped up against a living room wall next to a photo of a sun-tanned Dreier at what appeared to be a country club.

In the kitchen, one of the auctioneer's employees dumped a bottle of walnut oil down the sink and threw a jar of capers into a large green trash bag. A 2003 bottle of Chateau d'Yquem and a bottle of Ruinart Champagne Brut Blanc were still chilling in a wine fridge.

A wood-framed mirror occupying nearly a full wall of the master bedroom faced Dreier's bed. A woman's black camisole was rolled up next to one of the nearly 30 pairs of shoes the attorney left behind in his closet.

The Harvard Law School-educated attorney also left behind bags of mail for his son, Spencer, and boxes filled with court documents filed in his criminal case.

Despite the $150,000 self-irrigating system Dreier reportedly had installed, the plants on the terrace appeared withered and brown.

'A GOOD DEAL'

Dreier's apartment came fully furnished, save for light fixtures hand-blown by glassmaker Dale Chihuly, reportedly purchased by Dreier for $180,000.

Monthly common charges on the unit are $4,180, while annual real estate taxes, with exemptions and abatements, total roughly $16,500.

Anu Bhartiya, who runs a consulting firm and made a $4.4 million bid for Dreier's condominium, thought the apartment fetched a "little bit higher" than current market value, which he pegged at $21.22 per square foot.

But Asher Alcobi, president of Peter Ashe Real Estate, said he thought the price was on the low side.

Last year, 38D, a 2,410-square-foot apartment in the building without a terrace, sold for $10 million, according to Alcobi.

There are reportedly no more than five terraces at One Beacon Court.

A trader, who declined to give his name and bid $6.5 million on the condo, said the winning bidder got a "good deal."

However, while his friend, also a trader, was impressed with the apartment's "incredible views," he said its "size was a little disappointing."

After the auction, Maltz said the auction was "very successful," adding that the winning bid was higher than expected.

Salvatore LaMonica, the trustee charged with liquidating Dreier's personal estate, also was pleased with the results.

"I think we did a great job" and maximized the apartment's value, said LaMonica of Wantaugh, N.Y.-based LaMonica Herbst & Maniscalco.

"I know that there won't be many people shedding tears but in a certain way, the sale of the apartment closes the chapter on a life gone inexplicably wrong," said Dreier's criminal lawyer, Gerald Shargel, who did not attend the auction.

When do I have the right to an attorney?

2009-07-21T23:40:00.005-07:00

When do I have the right to an attorney?

U.S. Constitutional law provides that a person has the right to counsel at the initiation of criminal proceedings. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that a defendant in a criminal matter is entitled to be represented by counsel in an adversarial judicial proceeding. But what is initiation of criminal proceedings? What is an adversarial proceeding? Generally speaking, the right to counsel does not attach before formal charges are filed, irrespective of whether the person is in police custody. Many of our clients have asked us why they were not given a lawyer to talk to the minute they were arrested. The short answer is, because criminal proceedings had not yet taken place.

However, in some circumstances the right to an attorney attaches even before formal charges have been presented. For instance, if during custodial interrogation, the accused asks to speak to an attorney, the interrogation must stop and cannot resume again until the accused has had his consultation. Further, a person who is subjected to a live line up is allowed to have counsel present to assure the relative fairness of the procedure.

Free counsel must be provided to people who can prove they are without funds to pay, i.e. indigent. The decision to appoint counsel is left to the discretion of the presiding judge where the case is assigned. Normally, defendants who are unable to bail out of jail will be appointed an attorney if one is requested. Defendants free on bail will find it much more difficult to convince the Judge that they are indigent, since they obviously had the funds to make bail.

How long does it take to get someone out of jail?

2009-07-21T23:40:00.003-07:00

How long does it take to get someone out of jail?

Expect a wait of about eighteen hours after arrest. If it takes longer than twenty-four hours you might have cause to become concerned.

Currently, the law states that if a person has been arrested for a misdemeanor and has not been taken before a magistrate for probable cause determination within 24 hours, he is required to be released on a bond not exceeding $5000. For a felony arrest, he must be released on a bond not exceeding $10,000, no later than 48 hours after arrest.

How do I find out, if there is a warrant for my arrest?

2009-07-21T23:40:00.001-07:00

How do I find out, if there is a warrant for my arrest?

If you are concerned about a Harris County criminal charge, you can call a professional bondsman and ask him to find out about a possible warrant. Most reputable bondsmen are connected to the Justice Information Management computer at Harris County and will provide this service for free. If you are worried about a warrant outside of Harris County, you must call the Sheriff's Department in that county.

If it is a federal warrant you are monitoring, you would be better off meeting with a good criminal defense lawyer and discussing it with him. For various important reasons, that lawyer will be much more capable than you in finding out that information.

How do I get someone out of jail?

2009-07-21T23:36:00.000-07:00

t depends on why the person is in jail in the first place. In most situations, the quickest way to free someone from jail is by bonding him or her out. If a person is charged with a state crime, he can be bonded out by a professional bondsman. A professional bondsman has entered into an agreement with the County of incarceration to guarantee the appearance of the accused at future court dates. The County will release the accused on a bondsman's guaranty. A professional bondsman normally charges 10-20% of the bail amount for his service. We recommend Bail Bonds at ur local city You can avoid the bondman's charge by paying the bail in cash. it may take the County Sheriff several weeks after the case is over to return the money you have paid.

How To Find An Attorney

2009-07-21T23:08:00.000-07:00

Background

When the United States handed down its decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona which struck down state laws prohibiting lawyers from advertising as an unconstitutional interference with free speech, it was widely thought that it would then be easier to find an attorney. This belief was based on the premise that since lawyers were allowed to compete in the same way as other businesses do, it would be easier to meet one's needs for legal representation and that the costs would go down.

It is true that lawyer advertising has made it easier to find an attorney. However, there is still a problem in finding the right attorney for one's particular needs. If the selected lawyer is inexperienced, incompetent, or lacks the willingness or ability to communicate effectively with a client, the client will not be satisfied with the lawyer's service. Furthermore, the consequences for the client could be catastrophic, such as losing a business or being unable to recover for injuries the client sustained at the hands of a liable third party. In order to find the best attorney, one needs more than a list of names, even if these are specialists in the relevant legal area. Clients are best served by asking questions before they decide on an attorney to retain.

Consumer dissatisfaction with lawyers has become a major problem. A survey taken in 1995 by Consumer's Union revealed that out of 30,000 respondents, one–third were not well satisfied with the quality of their attorneys' services. The reasons for this dissatisfaction varied, ranging from attorneys failing to keep their clients informed on the progress of their cases, failing to protect clients' interests, failing to resolve cases in a timely manner, and continually charge unreasonable fees. The reason for this widespread dissatisfaction is linked to the lack of knowledge by consumers on how to find attorneys experienced with the kinds of problems they are facing as well as knowing what questions to ask a lawyer they are considering retaining. The results of a one thousand person survey reported in the Florida Bar Journal revealed that the average time spent in finding a lawyer was two hours or less. Nearly one half of those surveyed said it was hard to find a good lawyer, and over a quarter of them said they did not know how to find a lawyer. It is remarkable that 80 per cent of respondents said they wished there was a source for information on lawyers' credentials.

Why It Is Difficult to Find an Attorney?

One difficulty in finding the appropriate attorney is the ever expanding number of specialties practiced by lawyers. Specialization makes selection more complicated. Law has become more specialized because changes in technology have necessitated the development of new areas, such as Cyberlaw and Internet law. New areas of law have also been created by recently enacted laws and regulations from such federal administrative bodies as the Environmental Protection Agency. This could impact and complicate the problems of a person acquiring a business and trying to determine whether the seller or the buyer is liable for cleaning up a toxic waste site. The increasing number of laws and regulations have forced lawyers to become more specialized in order to keep up with new developments. Furthermore, many general areas of the law in which an attorney could become proficient, have now been split up into specialties. In business law, there are specialists for mergers and acquisitions because of the complexity involved in these transactions. Even criminal law is not immune to this trend since some lawyers now specialize in white collar crime.

When Do I Need A Lawyer?

Potential clients should retain a lawyer for any of the following reasons:

If they have been charged with a felony
If they have been served with papers naming them as defendants in a lawsuit
If their insurance coverage is less than the amount a third party is claiming due to their negligence
If they are making a will or changing it
If they wish to adopt a child
If someone with whom they are involved in a business setting breaches his or her contract with the client
If they are resulting in substantial harm, or if the person suing them has a lawyer.

If a person is a DEFENDANT in a civil lawsuit and fails to appear in court, a DEFAULT JUDGMENT will be entered by the court against them, and for all practical purposes, they will be unable to overturn it.

Avoiding the Dishonest or Unethical Lawyers

This situation is easy to fall into because with the exception or Oregon, at least some part of the disciplinary process is kept private. This means that potential clients have no way of knowing whether a complaint has been made against a lawyer if no action has been taken. Although some complaints against lawyers are frivolous, the consumer has no way of knowing whether the decision by the state bar not to take any action was made in GOOD FAITH. Furthermore, the action taken may only amount to a private reprimand in the form of a letter sent to the attorney. According to a recent investigation by the Washington Times, lawyers guilty of serious ethical violations and felonies are at the most only suspended for a limited period of time and made to make RESTITUTION to the client. Even the most severe punishment, disbarment, is not permanent since in most states the attorney can apply for reinstatement in five years.

Not only are the actions taken against lawyers found guilty of ethical violations not published in many states, this information is unavailable even in publications and databases relied upon by consumers to avoid this problem. There are attorneys listed in the well–respected Martindale–Hubbell Lawyers Directory who may be under suspension, disbarred, or imprisoned. The database set up by the American BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA) to allow consumers to find out whether a lawyer has been sanctioned is a great deal less than helpful since no details are given as to the offense charged or the punishment given.

Out of all the complaints made against lawyers, only one half of one per cent result in disbarment, and a total of only one and one half percent result in any SANCTION at all including private reprimands.

Methods of Finding an Attorney

By Advertisement

In an advertisement, consumers cannot obtain the information you need in order to make a wise decision. There is nothing upon which to judge the legal skills of the attorney, whether his style would be conducive to achieving specific goals as to how to resolve specific problem, or whether there have been any complaints against the attorney resulting in a reprimand, suspension or disbarment. It also cannot determine from an advertisement whether the attorney will be accessible enough so that they can communicate effectively with their clients and willing to take the time necessary so that they understand the possible outcomes of handling the client's case in a given manner.

By Personal Referral

Friends and business acquaintances whose judgment is trusted is a good source in finding an attorney, if they have used the attorney for the same kind of problem that a consumer is facing or at least practices in a specialty pertaining to the consumer's situation. An even better source is a friend or acquaintance who actually is an active or recently retired lawyer or judge. Such persons can inform potential clients as to attorneys' reputation in the legal community.

By Published Directories

Martindale Hubbell Law Directory

This annually published directory is the oldest and best known of those available today. It includes lawyers practicing in the United States as well as 159 other countries. This coverage of foreign countries will continue to become more important as laws in the United States are affected by foreign and international law.

Each individual lawyer entry will contain the date of birth, the year first admitted to a state bar, numeric codes indicating where all listed educational degrees were earned Specialized areas of law in which they practice, and a listing of representative clients, the firm where the lawyer practices, and contact information. If the entry has the bar registry designation (BR), it means that they are also listed in the Martindale Hubbell Directory for Pre–Eminent Lawyers.

Despite its enormous size, not all practicing attorneys are listed. In order for an attorney or firm to be included in this directory, they must send the appropriate information to the publisher.

Many, but not all of the attorneys and firms listed, are rated according to their degree of legal skill and whether they follow the highest ethical standards. The rating "AV" is the highest rating given. A "BV" rating is still above average in terms of legal skills and an indication the attorney subscribes to the same high ethical standards as those given the "AV" rating. The "CV" rating denotes an average rating in terms of legal skills and an indication the lawyer also follows the highest ethical standards. No attorney is given a rating without their consent. The ratings are based on confidential written evaluations by practitioners and judges in the position to know the given lawyer. There is no rating to indicate that a lawyer is below average in legal ability or that he does not follow the highest ethical standards.

Martindale Hubbell Bar Register of Pre– Eminent Lawyers

Listings are restricted to those individual attorneys and firms that have earned the "AV" rating and who practice in the United States and Canada. Instead of being grouped by state and within each state by the locality in which the lawyer practices, the lawyers are first grouped according to the specialty in which they practice. Sixty specialties are included.

The primary value of these directories in your search for an attorney is that they tell you how long that lawyer has been in practice, whether he specializes in an area relevant to the problem you are facing, and whether there may be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST if you retain that attorney based on the clients they represent.

The Best Lawyers in America 1999–2000

Now in its eighth edition, the information is based on the polling of 11,000 lawyers who were asked which attorneys in practice for a minimum of ten years they consider to be the best in their specialty. In the 1995–1996 edition only one and one half percent of all lawyers practicing in the United States were listed.

Lawyer's Register International by Specialties and Fields of Law. 16th ed. 1999

This directory gives a worldwide listing of attorneys who represent themselves as being certified or designated as practicing in one or more of 390 legal specialties. The designation as a specialist is given for one of three reasons. First, the attorney has successfully completed a certification program given for that specialty in the state in which they practice. Second, the state in which the lawyer practices has designated them on a defacto basis that they have sufficient experience to be qualified in a given specialty. Third, they have been certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. There is a separate designation given for each of these three reasons why a lawyer is designated as certified in a given specialty.

The directory is arranged alphabetically by specialty, and within each specialty alphabetically by where they practice. In order to assist the consumer, a separate table lists all states that have established certification programs in particular specialties. By using this table, you are able to more easily select attorneys that have been certified by a state program in a given specialty.

Chambers Global The World's Leading Lawyers

Published in London, England, by Chambers and Partners, this source is designed for those trying to find an attorney practicing in one of over sixty specialized areas of business and CORPORATE law.

Evaluations are from leading practitioners in each specialty obtained through telephone interviews averaging thirty minutes. During these interviews, the person interviewed is asked who they consider to be the best attorney in their specialty and why they hold such a high opinion of them. This procedure, unlike the written questionnaires upon which other lawyer directories rely, allows for a more thorough investigation of the legal abilities of a given attorney. This is because a interview by telephone avoids the BIAS

that is inherent in written questionnaires since the ones returned in such surveys are much more likely to be favorable. Conversely, attorneys who do not respect the abilities of another practitioner are less likely to send in their written responses.

By the Internet

America Online (AOL) Anywhere Lawyer Directory URL: http://aol.lawyers.com – Besides acting as an online aid to finding an attorney, this site also contains a link to answer questions that need to be asked by those seeking legal representation.
Martindale Hubbell Lawyer Locator URL: www.martindale.com – This is the most frequently used lawyer directory on the internet.
Lawyers.com URL: www.lawyers.com – This site also belongs to Martindale–Hubbell, but it differs from the preceding web site because it targets individuals and small business people. This site allows searches to be narrowed to those attorneys practicing a particular specialty in a given locality. It also has links to help a consumer determine whether they need a lawyer, how attorneys bill their clients and how much they charge as well as a list of questions to ask an attorney before you decide to retain them.
Chambers and Partners URL: http://www.chambersandpartners.com – This organization's home page has links that enable you to find evaluations of lawyers and law firms as to their legal skill in various areas of business and corporate law.

By Lawyer Referral Services of State Bar Associations

These sources are useful only to the extent they can give consumers the names of lawyers in a given locality who practice law in a given specialty and who have agreed to have their name put on the list maintained by the Bar Association. For a small fee, usually $25 – $30, each attorney on the list agrees to give a fifteen to thirty minute consultation. This can be helpful because consumers can get an opinion from a lawyer as to whether they have a case and whether it is worth pursuing. This can save consumers a great deal of time and effort as opposed to attempting to research the matter on their own. During the consultation, the lawyer should be able to inform the potential client whether the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for filing their particular claim has expired or not. Although consumers could do research on their own, just reading the STATUTE may be insufficient to determine whether the statute of limitations has run out; they may have to read the CASE LAW on this matter. Regardless of what the attorney tells the consumer regarding their case, they are under no obligation to retain the lawyer's services.

The following are a short list of directory services available:

ABA Directory of Lawyer Referral Services – This directory lists state wide and local bar association referral services. The local referral services specify which counties they serve. Each referral service will indicate whether they give referrals for all specialties or exclude certain ones. Information is also given as to whether low fee or PRO BONO (no fee) programs are provided for low income clients.
Law and Legal Information Directory by Steven & Jacqueline O'Brien Wasserman – This source has an alphabetical listing by state of referral services located in that JURISDICTION. Included are entries for services provided by the state bar as well as local bar associations. Street and web site addresses, regular and toll–free telephone numbers Are provided. If you qualify by income, a listing of legal aid offices arranged alphabetically by state and cities within will include the same information the lawyer referral section provides.
Web Services – If you do not have access to either of the above titles, you may obtain information on the legal referral services offered by your state bar by logging on to www.findlaw.com. From this cite you will be led to links for each state which in turn will include links to that state's bar association and the lawyer referral service it provides.

Questions to Ask Before Retaining a Lawyer

There are four purposes to this process. First, it allows consumers to determine whether the attorney has sufficient experience not just in the specialty pertaining to their problem, but also whether the lawyer has had previously solved a similar problem for another client. Second, they can learn whether his style is suited to their goals in resolving the dispute they have with the other side. For example, if a potential client is hoping for a SETTLEMENT, a hardball Rambo like style may backfire. Third, they will discover how well they and the attorney communicate with one another. Fourth, they can ask the attorney if they are able to devote sufficient time and resources, such as a support staff, to their case.

Consumer Reports suggests that the following questions be asked during an interview with any attorney a consumer is considering retaining:

How many years of experience do you have in this specialty and how have you handled similar disputes in the past?
What are the possible results from pursuing this matter?
How long will you expect it to take to resolve this matter?
How will you keep me informed of what is happening as the case proceeds?
Will anyone else, such as one of your associates or paralegals, be working on my case?
Do you charge a flat or an hourly rate and how much?
What other expenses will there be besides your fee and how are they calculated?
What's a reasonable approximate figure for a total bill?
Can you give me a written estimate?
Can some of the work be handled by members of your staff at a lower rate?
Will unforeseen events increase the amount you charge me?
If you charge on a contingency basis, what proportion of the amount I recover will be paid to you as your fee and can this figure be calculated after the expenses are deducted?
How often will I be billed, and how are billing disputes resolved? If we cannot settle this, will you agree to mandatory arbitration?
Do you need any further information from me?
Can I do some of the work in exchange for a lower bill?
Do you recommend that this matter be submitted to an arbitrator or mediator, and do you know anyone qualified to do this?

Additional Resources

Choosing a Matrimonial Lawyer: 10 Criteria for Finding the Right One for You. David M. Wildstein, Wilentz, Goldman, & Spitzer, 1996.

Consumer's Guide to Getting Legal Help. ABA, 2001.

Do I Really Need a Lawyer? Kahon, Stewart & Robert M. Cavello, Chilton Book Co., 1979.

Finding the Right Lawyer. Jay Foonberg, ABA Section of Law Practice and Management, 1995.

Guide to Consumer Services: Consumer Union's Advice on Credit, Income Tax, Choosing a Doctor or Dentist, Finding a Lawyer, Closing Costs, Auto Repair and Much More. Consumer's Union, 1979.

How to Find the Best Lawyers: And Save over 50% in Legal Fees. John Roesler, Message Co., 1996.

Lawyer Referral and Information Service Handbook. ABA, 1980 - Published biannually.

Let's Talk Law: Selecting a Lawyer. Crest Video Marketing.

Profile 2000: Characteristics of Lawyer Referral and Information Service. ABA Committee on Lawyer Referral and Information Service, 1999.

Using a Lawyer and What to Do if Things Go Wrong. HALT.

Organizations

American Divorce Association of Men International
1519 S. Arlington Heights Rd.
Arlington Heights, IL 60005
USA Phone: (847) 364-1555

American Society for Divorced and Separated Men
575 Keep St.
Elgin, IL 60120 USA
Phone: (847) 665-2200

Atlanta Lawyers for the Arts
152 Nassau St.
Atlanta, GA 30303 USA
Phone: (404) 585-6110

Chicago Divorce Association
One Pierce Center
Itasca, IL 60143 USA
Phone: (630) 860-2100

Christian Legal Society
4208 Evergreen Lane, Suite 222
Annandale, VA 22003 USA
Phone: (703) 642-1070

Families for Private Adoption
P.O. Box 6375
Washington, DC 20015 USA
Phone: (202) 722-0338

Find the Children
3030 Nebraska Ave., Suite 207
Santa Monica, CA 90404-4111 USA
Phone: (310) 998-8444

Help Abolish Legal Tyranny (HALT)
1612 K St., N.W. Suite 510
Washington, DC 20006 USA
Phone: (202) 887-8255
Phone: (888) FOR-HALT
URL: www.halt.org

Military Law Task Force
1168 Union, #200
San Diego, CA 92101 USA
Phone: (619) 233-1701

National Counsel of Black Lawyers
116 W. 111th St., 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10026 USA

National Health Law Program
2639 S. LaCienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90034 USA
Phone: (310) 204-0891

National Lawyers Guild
126 University Place, 5th floor
New York, NY 10003-4538 USA

National Whistleblower Center
3238 P St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20007 USA
Phone: (202) 342-1902

Top Legal Headlines

2009-07-21T23:06:00.001-07:00

Wal-Mart Gets OK for $17.5M Settlement of Race-Bias Claims

By LINDA COADY, ESQ., Andrews Publications Staff Writer

A federal judge in Arkansas has given final approval for Wal-Mart's plan to pay $17.5 million to settle a race discrimination lawsuit brought by black applicants rejected for truck driver positions.

When asked for comment, Wal-Mart referred callers to a news release issued in February after the settlement was first announced.

"We are implementing improvements to our transportation division's recruitment, selection and personnel systems and believe they will be an integral part of our commitment to diversity," the company said in its Feb. 20 news release.

The lawsuit began in 2004, when Daryal Nelson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas after he unsuccessfully applied for a job with Wal-Mart as an over-the-road truck driver.

He said Wal-Mart discriminates against blacks when hiring for OTR driver positions in violation of federal civil rights laws.

Those statutes protect a number of rights, including the right to make and enforce contracts. Courts have found that the laws prohibit race discrimination in hiring and employment.

Nelson's class-action suit was consolidated with another case in 2005. The amended complaint alleged disparate treatment and disparate impact and asked the court to award back pay, front pay, injunctive relief and punitive damages.

U.S. District Judge William Wilson certified a class of about 4,500 plaintiffs nationwide and designated two subclasses: all black applicants for OTR truck driving positions at Wal-Mart who had been rejected since Sept. 22, 2001, and all blacks who had been "deterred or thwarted" from applying for those positions because of their race.

After participating in settlement and mediation sessions held last winter, the plaintiffs and Wal-Mart decided to settle the claims.

In addition to the monetary award, Wal-Mart agreed to, among other things:

Establish priority job placements at 13 transportation offices for 23 eligible class members;

Set benchmark hiring goals;

Hire a diversity recruiter at its transportation department; and

Provide training to employees involved in hiring and recruitment.

The company must also submit to monitoring and reporting of its compliance with the settlement terms for four years after the benchmark program is established, according to the agreement.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

The plaintiffs were represented by Morgan Welch of Welch & Kitchens in North Little Rock, Ark.; John Walker in Little Rock, Ark.; and Hank Bates of Carney, Williams, Bates, Bozeman & Pulliam in Little Rock.Counsel for Wal-Mart were Philip Kaplan and JoAnn Maxey of Williams & Anderson in Little Rock; Lawrence DiNardo, Elizabeth McRee and Monica McCullough of Jones Day in Chicago; and Richard Deane of the firm's Atlanta office.

Getting a Criminal Record Expunged

2009-05-28T21:18:00.000-07:00

Expungement is the sealing or destruction of legal records so they are not accessible to the public. State laws vary widely with regard to how and what can be expunged. Most states have laws requiring automatic expungement of juvenile records after a set period of years. Records concerning a person’s detention, arrest, apprehension, or trail can be expunged.

-http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/

When people are accused of a crime, they face the terrible possibility of going to jail. A good attorney can represent anyone committed with a crime to the best of his or her ability. They can negotiate with prosecutors and can often arrange for reduced charges or lesser sentencing.

Criminal defense lawyers do much more than simply question witnesses in court. Good defense attorneys will:

Formulate sentencing programs tailored to a client's specific needs, often helping defendants avoid future brushes with the justice system.
Provide defendants with a reality check, a knowledgeable, objective perspective on their situation and what is likely to happen should their cases go to trial. This perspective is vital for defendants trying to decide whether to accept a prosecutor's offered "plea bargain".
Are familiar with important legal rules because many criminal law rules are hidden away in court interpretations of federal and state constitutions.
Are familiar with local court customs and procedures that aren't written down anywhere (for example, a lawyer may know which prosecutor has the "real" authority to settle a case, and what kinds of arguments are likely to appeal to that prosecutor).
Understand the possible "hidden costs" of pleading
guilty which a self-represented person might never
think about.
Spend crucial time on your case.
Gather information from prosecution witnesses.
Hire and manage investigators, who may be able to believably impeach (contradict) prosecution witnesses who embellish or change their stories at trial.

Finding a Defense Attorney

When faced with charges, trying to find the right lawyer, quickly, may feel overwhelming.

People who have been recently arrested need to talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The most urgent priority is often getting a lawyer to help arrange release and provide some information about what's to come in the days ahead.