Disney turns to Dewey in billion-dollar comic deal

By Julia Berris

Three US firms have won lead roles on Walt Disney's $4bn acquisition of US comic company Marvel Entertainment.
Longstanding Disney adviser Dewey & LeBoeuf was drafted in to advise the animation group. The Dewey team was led by relationship partner and head of M&A Morton Pierce.
Disney has turned to Pierce to advise on a number of high profile acquisitions over the years. Pierce led a team from the New York-headquartered firm advising the company on its 1996 acquisition of Capital Cities/ABC.
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker partner Carl Sanchez advised Marvel on the deal, which will see Disney acquire the rights to over 5,000 Marvel characters.
Sullivan & Cromwell Los Angeles partner Alison Ressler led a team advising financial adviser Goldman Sachs.

Ex-Ontario AG Charged in Cyclist's Death

Posted by Brian Baxter

The Montreal Gazette reports that former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has been charged with criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle in connection with the death of a cyclist in downtown Toronto on Monday night.

Bryant--who early in his legal career worked at Sullivan & Cromwell and McCarthy Tetrault--was first elected to the Ontario legislature in 1999 as a member of the Ontario Liberal Party. He was reelected in 2003 and was appointed AG when the Liberals won control of the provincial government.

After leaving the AG's office in 2007, Bryant served stints as Ontario's minister of aboriginal affairs and minister of economic development, where he helped negotiate the province's participation in the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors. He left politics in May to become CEO of Invest Toronto, a quasi-governmental agency founded to engage the private sector in promoting Toronto as a business center.

On Monday night, Bryant's career took a tragic turn. The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that details emerging about the accident suggest the cyclist had been drinking and was involved in an earlier incident with police before Bryant drove his black convertible Saab down a one-way street.

Toronto police told reporters that a "verbal confrontation" and some "minor contact" occurred between the 33-year-old cyclist and the car driven by the 43-year-old Bryant in the period just before the accident. At some point, police suggest, the cyclist became attached to Bryant's vehicle and was dragged for roughly 100 meters before falling to the street.

The man died in a hospital later that night. Police took Bryant into custody at a nearby Hyatt hotel after he allegedly alerted authorities to his location. He has since retained Andrew Evangelista from Toronto's Evangelista, Barristers & Solicitors to represent him.

Bryant is married to Susan Abramovitch, an entertainment partner at Toronto firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson.

Former Freshfields finance chief surfaces at DMH

By Kit Chellel

Former Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer head of finance Perry Noble has joined DMH Stallard as a consultant.

Perry Noble

The appointment comes as part of the DMH Stallard's strategy of marketing itself as an alternative to established City firms.
Managing partner Tim Aspinall said Noble's arrival was a "coup" for the south east firm, adding: "His experience in this sector is unique."
Noble was head of finance at Freshfields between 2006 and 2008, and was heavily involved in the internal restructuring which saw the loss of around 100 equity partners.
After leaving the firm in April 2008 he also spent several months at former Freshfields client Babcock & Brown, which went into administration earlier this year.
Commenting on his role at DMH Stallard, Noble said: "The corporate and finance teams have an established platform from which to grow and I'm looking forward to helping them achieve greater recognition in the City and beyond."
The hire comes after former Addleshaw Goddard real estate finance partner Richard Dinning was appointed as the new chairman of DHM Stallard, taking over from Derek Sparrow.
DMH Stallard has 54 partners and offices in London, Gatwick and Brighton.

Understanding the Law in CO and Driver Responsibility

by Victoria C. Swanson

Colorado Springs Auto Accidents and Traffic Laws
Auto accident lawyers in Colorado Springs at Sears & Swanson, P.C., know the laws of Colorado's roads.  If you are involved in an accident in which certain traffic laws were violated by the party in involved in the crash, you may be entitled to receive compensation for your injuries and the associated costs of those injuries.
Traffic laws are designed to make the roads safe for everybody.  Drivers have a special duty to behave responsibly when behind the wheel in order to ensure the safety of themselves, passengers, other automobiles, and also pedestrians and bicyclists.
Every state has traffic laws which govern how people should act on the roads, who is allowed to drive, and the consequences for not obeying the rules. A sample of some of the topics covered in the Colorado state statutes shows their breadth:

• Requirements for driver's licenses and permits
• Rules for reporting accidents
• Registration and inspection requirements
• Restrictions on the use of equipment (horns, lamps, etc)
• Speed limits
• Rules for driving in school zones
• Driving under the influence of alcohol

Determining Fault for Accidents
Car accidents happen for many different reasons, including intoxication, distraction, inattention, reckless driving, and bad weather. If you are the victim of a Colorado Springs car accident, contact lawyers at Sears & Swanson to see if you could be entitled to compensation.
In order to receive compensation, you may need to prove that the other party is at fault for the accident. In some cases, such as driving under the influence of alcohol, this can be very clear. In other cases, an injured victim's attorney may have to provide convincing evidence—either to the other party's insurance company or to the court if a settlement cannot be reached—that the other party was negligent.
Determining negligence in Colorado is largely based on the principle of duty of care, which demands that drivers act reasonably. To collect from an injury, a victim of an accident has to prove that the driver did not exercise duty of care (i.e., the driver was careless) and that this carelessness caused the injuries
Modified Comparative Negligence in Colorado
Colorado state law institutes comparative negligence. Comparative negligence acknowledges that sometimes, both parties contributed to the cause of an accident or injury. In comparative negligence, the amount paid is proportional to the judgment of who is at-fault. Colorado follows a modified version of this principle by precluding parties who are more than 49% responsible for an injury from recovering any damages.
Sears & Swanson, P.C. - Colorado Springs car accident lawyers
First Bank Building
2 North Cascade Avenue
Suite 1250
Colorado Springs, Colorado 8090

Herbert Smith bolsters Asia arbitration with Hong Kong move

By Julia Berris

Herbert Smith is ramping up its Asian arbitration practice, relocating partner Justin D'Agostino to Hong Kong.

The London-based partner is moving to the Hong Kong office next week to bulk up the firm's disputes practice in the region.
D'Agostino was based in Herbert Smith's Singapore and Bangkok offices in 2004 and 2005.
Herbert Smith is also relocating London-based arbitration senior associate May Tai to the Shanghai office in October as well as hiring local Chinese arbitration lawyer Patrick Zheng from local arbitration committee CIETAC in Beijing.
D'Agostino said: "These moves we will be covered in these three major areas for arbitration. Chinese corporates now want international arbitration specialists on the ground and Western clients are very interested in lawyers with local expertise."
The moves are the latest by Herbert Smith aimed at advancing its Asia litigation practice. In January this year the firm relocated Nicholas Peacock to its Singapore office.
A number of US and UK firms are continuing to underscore their commitment to the region. Yesterday The Lawyer reported on Kirkland & Ellis launching its second Asian office in Shanghai.

Anonymous Lawyer

Jones Day apparently thinks it's better than we are. Or at least one of their partners wrote a memo claiming so. Didn't name us personally, but I'm sure we're one of the firms he's referring to. "[P]rotecting partners' incomes on the corpses of associates and staff," "slash[ing] and burn[ing]" -- I'm pretty sure that's us. Describes our behavior in this economic downturn pretty accurately.

I'd like to argue in our defense. What's wrong with firing staff and associates? What's wrong with protecting partners' incomes? What's wrong with using the recession as an excuse to trim the dead weight and put the firm in the best position to thrive not only when the economy recovers, but right now?

Why not protect our partnership above all else?

Our value is in our partnership, entirely-- sad to say, but staff and associates are fungible. No firm in the top 50 can stand up and say its associates are any better or any different from anyone else's. No matter how discerning the hiring partner wants to think he is, no matter how many times you read a resume or how carefully you evaluate a second-year law student's ability to eat lunch at a fancy restaurant without choking, we're all interviewing the same pool of students and making offers based on four or five twenty-minute interviews and a cursory glance at a transcript.

We're all making the same offers to the same students, and they're choosing us based on whatever intangibles they can pretend set one firm apart from the next, but, really, if you switched our first year associate class with Latham's or Jones Day's or any of the top firms, it's a crapshoot. And once the economy recovers, we'll be able to go out and pluck a whole new batch-- a whole new, younger, cheaper, hungrier batch-- of associates to do the scut work. You think law students are going to be in a position where they're turning down offers anytime soon? You think they're going to care which firms laid people off and which didn't? They're going to be grateful for the jobs. And it's not like they all can't do this work. We're not asking our associates to do rocket science. Any graduate of a decent law school can do everything we ask them to. That's why offer rates for summer associates are 95%+, everywhere. And that's why in good economic times, no one ever gets fired. We can pretend we have the best associates, the best training, the best whatever-- but it doesn't matter even if we do. We just need bodies. Bodies to bill out to clients, bodies to do document review, bodies to burn out and throw away when we're done with them.

So if the associates don't matter-- and, sorry to say, they don't-- why not dump them when we don't need them, save the money, and hire some new ones back later?

The alternative is a fair bit worse. Jones Day may be proud of lowering partners' incomes to save associates, but how happy are the partners about it? How many wouldn't be just as happy keeping their old salaries, or even getting bigger ones after we cut expenses by 30% by firing the idiots we don't need anymore? Truth is, not everyone is so giving. For a lot of us, there's a number we're waiting for-- a number in the bank account that tells us we can finally leave and not worry about our future. The faster you can get me to that number, the more I'm willing to stick around. So why not move over to a firm that's willing to fire people to protect my partner income?

And as far as clients? What do they care? We're service providers. We provide good service, what difference does it make whether or not we're laying off staff and cutting summer programs? In fact, we lower our overhead enough to trim 10% off the bill, and I think they'd be mighty happy with that trade-off.

Associates felt no loyalty to us when times were good. They left in the middle of projects, they went in-house, they switched firms at will. Why do we need to be loyal to them now? How about we reward the people who make the business run, who bring in clients, who actually add value through their own competence and hard work? Partner vs. associate, I choose the partner, every time.

Take that, Jones Day.

Anonymous Lawyer

There was a letter to the editor in the New York Times yesterday:

By taking away the possibility of easy employment in high-paying jobs, the economic downturn may end up helping the current crop of law students.

Very few law students at elite schools make meaningful explorations of the broad array of career choices available to law school graduates. Instead, lured by prestige and a high salary, they march through on-campus interviews to large urban law firms, where a great many end up leading unfulfilled lives.

As the jobs with large salaries disappear, law students will draw on the thoughtfulness, intelligence and perseverance that got them into law school in the first place in order to find employment that they actually find rewarding. They will also find creative ways to pay their loans and other expenses.

Most law graduates already do not expect a starting salary of $160,000 and yet are able to make ends meet. Graduates of elite schools will adjust to the new financial realities and come out better for it.

What an insane, paternalistic point of view. Anyone intelligent enough to read this letter should be offended by it. Poor law students! They used to have so many employment choices! Good grief! First of all, no matter how you feel about law firms, how can you possibly make the argument that a law firm job, at $160K/year, is worse than no job, poverty, and sitting in front of your computer all day desperately sending out resumes? Second of all, is there a SHORTAGE of lawyers for all these other amazing jobs that this guy wants lawyers to find? No! The places people can find rewarding employment? Those jobs are already filled! And when there's a vacancy, you know who ought to get them? The people who would have wanted them enough in the first place not to be seduced by the lure of a law firm job that wasn't right for them. Why should an abundance of choice be blamed for people making bad choices. People who make bad choices deserve the outcomes they get. People who are intelligent enough to get into law school should be intelligent enough to live with the consequences of their decisions. If you can be swayed to come work for a law firm, you deserve the law firm life. And if we hire you even though you won't like it here, we deserve to have you, and to have to deal with you complaining all day.

Here's the problem. What about the law students at "non-elite" schools, who don't have these choices, and have long had to do what this author says. Who had to use their intelligence and resourcefulness to find a job. These graduates who have long been "able to make ends meet."

Well, they're shit out of luck now, because all of those jobs they really wanted are going to be snapped up by "elite" law school graduates who'd rather be working at firms. So all these jobs that probably ought to be filled by people passionate about doing them (instead of just upset they can't work for a law firm and settling for an inferior backup choice) will be filled by the "elite" and everyone else can go sit on the unemployment line.

Taking away choices is great! Law firms are worse than poverty! The recession has vanquished evil from the face of the Earth!

Ridiculous.

Fees in Broadcom Case Exceed the $118 Settlement

Posted by Brian Baxter

Broadcom has agreed to pay plaintiffs $118 million to settle allegations of stock options backdating, the second-largest settlement in a derivative action to date. But The Am Law Litigation Daily noticed the legal fees from the litigation could exceed the settlement itself.

The Lit Daily's Susan Beck reports that depending on how you look at the agreement, all of the settlement money will be used to pay plaintiffs and defense lawyers. A copy of a separate Broadcom settlement with its D&O insurers obtained by the Lit Daily shows that 19 Broadcom directors and officers, including cofounders Henry Nicholas III and WIlliam Ruehle, racked up a legal tab of $130 million for their defense.

According to Beck, the $118 million that Broadcom will receive from its D&O insurers to cover the derivative action will be eaten up by the $130 million defense tab, which the company is obligated to pay under indemnification agreements signed with officers and directors. Broadcom is also on the hook for another $11.5 million fee due plaintiffs lawyers. (Click here for a copy of Broadcom's derivative settlement.)

Irell & Manella's David Siegel, who represents Broadcom, gave a different account to the Lit Daily. Siegel says the company's insurers disputed their obligation to cover legal fees, so without a settlement, it wasn't certain that Broadcom could have recovered from insurers anything close to the full amount it has paid defense lawyers.

Before the settlement insurers had paid just $43.3 million of the more than $130 million sought by Broadcom to cover legal expenses--Beck reports that the $43.3 million is included in the $118 million settlement amount.

Broadcom was represented by Howrey's David Steuber in negotiations with insurers. Kaye Scholer served as counsel to Broadcom's special litigation committee.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein served as lead plaintiffs counsel.

Morgan Lewis Hires Less Than 30 Percent of Summers

Posted by Matt Straquadine
Morgan Lewis & Brockius has offered full time jobs to just 28 percent of its summer associates, according to sibling publication The Legal Intelligencer. Those who did receive offers will be deferred until fall 2011.
The firm offered full-time jobs to just 28 of 102 eligible 2Ls working in its offices across the country. Morgan Lewis will provide those students not hired with a letter that can be made available to other prospective employers, explaining that being passed over is "not necessarily" a reflection on the student's performance.
This move is the latest in Morgan Lewis's many efforts to manage staff in response to the recession. In July the firm announced it was cancelling its 2010 summer associate program altogether; this came after the firm was among the first of the Am Law 200 to defer this year's incoming first year associates for another year.

Michigan Truck Accident Lawyer Debates Truck Safety

by Steven M. Gursten

With one in four trucks dangerously out of service, why is the truck lobby fighting safety efforts?
Last year, 22 percent of all trucks failed a roadside inspection. These trucks were found so dangerous that they were immediately taken out of service. Keep in mind the inspection dates were announced four months in advance and widely publicized within the trucking industry.
Last year, nearly 5,000 people were killed in truck crashes throughout the country, and more than 80,000 people were seriously injured.
Also last year, nearly one percent of all drivers were found under the influence of drugs and alcohol.  Sounds like a small number, but with 9.25 million trucks and buses on our roads, that comes out to 92,500 truck and bus drivers impaired by drugs and alcohol. That number is nothing to scoff at.
The problems are getting far worse, not better.  This year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report indicating that more than 500 unsafe trucking companies ordered shut down by the federal government are still continuing to operate under different names. In addition, another 1,000 trucking companies that have incurred fines and serious safety violations are operating under new names, but with the same owners, employees and trucks.
You might think that everyone would agree it's important that trucking companies comply with mandatory safety rules that are meant to protect us all. Trucks are, after all, inherently dangerous. But my experience recently proved otherwise.
On Monday, August 31st, I had a live, one-hour, on-air debate with the public relations director for the American Transportation Association, on the Sirius Radio Road Dog Trucking station, Channel 147. As past-president of the Interstate Truck Litigation Group for the American Association for Justice, I was asked to present the information to the listening audience, field questions, and debate the industry position that truck safety efforts are "dramatically improving."
This interview was in response to my initial report on dangerous truck companies in Michigan. Last week, the American Association for Justice released my project on a national scale, showing an astounding 28,000 trucking companies - representing more than 200,000 dangerous and unsafe trucks - with significant safety violations.
I was incredibly disappointed to see that the largest lobbying group for the trucking industry engage in typical industry talking points denying a problem exists, rather than working with consumer safety groups and the federal government to improve on the problem of dangerous, out of service trucks on our roads.
Instead of meaningful debate, I had the pleasure of being called an "ambulance chaser" on national radio.  The lobbyist for the trucking company spent a lot of his time talking about supposed frivolous cases; whether they are actually real or urban myths is uncertain. He spent very little time dealing with the details and facts of the AAJ report itself. And that is by far, the most disheartening aspect of all.
As to being called an ambulance chaser by a hired gun lobbyist, the question I want to pose is, Why would myself and many other like-minded, concerned lawyers  donate so many hours and so much money to improve truck safety?  Isn't that bad for my business? Wouldn't I want as many dangerous truck drivers and bad trucks on the roads as I can get?  It was a stupid thing to say, but I guess if you are the lobbying group for the trucking industry and you don't want to participate in significant efforts to improve public safety, and you don't have the facts, you may as well hurl as many insults as possible.
My point is, we have a real opportunity to work together to help improve a public safety crisis. Consumer advocacy groups, government and the trucking industry together can fix a real problem that endangers everyone. We can really try to lessen the number of dangerous, out-of-service trucks on the road. Instead, the American Trucking Association spent its time on typical talking points and bashing truck accident lawyers.
In the first week of September, I will further discuss the startling numbers of out of service trucks and impaired truck drivers, and why they're most likely just the tip of the iceberg.
Steve Gursten is recognized as one of the nation's top experts in serious truck accident injury cases. He is on the executive board of governors representing Michigan for the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America. Steve has received the largest jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in four of the last seven years, including 2008.
Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout Michigan. We are the largest law firm in the state exclusively specializing in truck accidents. For more information, please read our law firm quick facts.

Michigan Drunk Driving: Driver's License Restoration; Clearance and Restricted Privileges

by Ian A. Caldwell

www.caldwelldefense.com.
In Michigan, there are specific alcohol/drug related driving offenses which result in a driver's license revocation upon conviction.  Usually the license revocation occurs after a person has obtained multiple drunk driving convictions within a certain time period.
After the revocation period has run, the person then becomes eligible to apply for driving privileges.  Under the application or re-instatement procedure in Michigan, there are two different procedures available depending on the applicant's circumstances.  The first available procedure is an "Administrative Review" and the other is the "In-Person" or "Video" Hearing.
The Administrative review is available to a person who: 1.) is an out-of-state or non-Michigan resident attempting to clear his or her driving record; Or, 2.) is a Michigan resident with one or more alcohol and/or drug related driving convictions and is currently on a restricted license that was approved at a previous hearing.
With an Administrative Review, the applicant does not appear in-person for the hearing.  Rather, the applicant must submit certain required documentation to the Department of State.  Once the Department receives all of the proper documents and materials, the review is conducted.  In addition to the documentation submitted by the applicant, the Department of State also considers its own records regarding the applicant's driving history.  At the conclusion of the Administrative Review, the applicant is then mailed a written order either granting or denying the request.
With regard to the "out-of-state" resident, an Administrative Review is generally the more practical procedure to utilize.  The out-of-state applicant is also applying for somewhat of a different driving status than the Michigan resident.  The out-of-state applicant is applying for a "Clearance" on his/her Michigan driving record, whereas the Michigan resident is applying for an actual Michigan driver's license (whether "restricted" or "fully restored" license).  In other words, the out-of-state applicant is asking Michigan to remove the "hold" on his or her driving privileges so that he or she may obtain a license in the new home state.
With regard to the "In-Person" or "Video Hearing", the applicant is required to be present at the assigned location on the scheduled date.  The only difference between the "In-Person" or "Video" Hearing is the actual physical location of the Hearing Officer.  With the In-Person Hearing, the Hearing Officer is actually in the same hearing room as the applicant.  With the "Video" hearing, the hearing officer conducts the hearing via video from a Hearing Office located in another city.  Both types of hearings follow the same procedure and an applicant is permitted to have an attorney present for the hearing.  After the hearing is held, the applicant is then mailed a formal written order either granting or denying the request.
If you are facing a situation similar to this, feel free to contact
Attorney Ian A. Caldwell.  Attorney Caldwell has specialized knowledge
in Driver's License Restoration as well as all cases involving DUI /
OWI /OWVI.  He has handled hundreds of cases throughout the State of
Michigan and can be reached at (248) 925-0886.  He can also be reached
via e-mail at icaldwell@caldwelldefense.com or through his website www.caldwelldefense.com

Types of Divorce in California

by David J. Glass

Finding the best resolution for you
With so many reasons and motivations to get married, it is only logical that there are just as many circumstances that can and do contribute to a divorce.  Marriage is a different arrangement for different people, and divorce varies in much the same way.








GLASS FAMILY LAW practices family law in Beverly Hills, California, and has helped clients with divorce advice in Los Angeles:

• Collaborative divorce
• Contested divorce
• Uncontested divorce
• Mediated divorce
• Trial divorce
• Divorce involving a legal separation

Basically, divorce is what you make it—it can be an easy process or a difficult battle and everything in between.  Divorce can be full of emotional arguments or a quick resolution between two agreeable and focused adults.
Our Los Angeles divorce law firm specializes in helping clients find the best divorce resolution for their circumstances.  We provide flexible and aggressive representation that allows people to proceed with amiable mediation or fight out divorce challenges in a court of law.
Getting through a difficult divorce
A difficult divorce is not indicative of personal failure or even a vendetta.  It is simply a logical progression of two people trying to separate their commingled lives.  The process involves some serious planning and sometimes strenuous effort to reach a happy settlement resolution.
It is important to remember that you can only control how you react to your spouse's demands, insults, negotiation attempts, etc.  They are ultimately responsible for their own behavior, and the law protects your rights to equitable property dispersal and parenting.  The long and short of it is that your spouse's comments can only hurt you if you let them.

GLASS FAMILY LAW helps people navigate their Los Angeles divorce and have been able to assist people through even the most emotional circumstances.  Let our attorneys stand up for you so that you can negotiate a new and better, single life.
GLASS FAMILY LAW
9320 Wilshire Blvd Suite 306
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
866-570-6831

When Should You Secure an Attorney?

by Joseph P. Rewis

Pittsburgh personal injuries can be deceiving. Sometimes the initial shock of the accident can disguise the pain of a non-visible injury. At other times, victims suffering very serious damage, such as that caused by traumatic brain injuries, may not display any symptoms at all until hours or even days later. If you've been the victim of a serious personal injury or an illness that was caused by chemical exposure or medical malpractice – conditions that could have serious or even life-threatening consequences – it's often advisable to consult an attorney. Here are a few examples:

• Severe or Disabling Injuries: These can include multiple broken bones, injuries requiring surgery, or traumatic brain, spinal cord, and soft tissue injuries. Brain and spinal injuries can have significant, long-term consequences, including paralysis, loss of mental capacity, inability to function or live independently, or even death.
• Toxic Exposure: Both Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia have been linked to benzene exposure. Asbestos exposure has been shown to increase the risk of lung cancer and Mesothelioma, a cancer of the membrane that covers the chest and abdomen. Proving an exposure claim against a chemical or product manufacturer can be incredibly challenging, particularly for someone undergoing the ravages of cancer and its treatments.
• Medical Malpractice: Medical malpractice can result from inappropriate treatment or from failure to properly treat or diagnose a medical condition. For example, a patient might be diagnosed with breast cancer after a physician had missed an opportunity for an earlier diagnosis. Because the cancer would have been in a more advanced state when discovered and possibly spread to lymph nodes and other organs, the misdiagnosis could potentially endanger the patient's life and would certainly demand more extensive and invasive treatment.

Taking Measures To Diversify A Workforce Is Now Risky Business: The Supreme Court Rules That Correcting Discrimination Can Itself Be Discriminatory

by Sheryl L. Axelrod

In the latest of a series of controversial decisions, the Supreme Court, split 5 justices to 4, sounded an unlikely warning to employers: take measures to diversify your workforce at your peril.  Ricci v. Destefano concerns Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  The Act makes two types of discrimination unlawful: intentional discrimination ("disparate treatment"), and non-racially motivated behavior which disproportionately adversely impacts minorities ("disparate impact").  Ricci goes to the heart of the tension between the two types of discrimination, and leaves employers to walk a tightrope between them.
Ricci, decided on June 29, 2009, concerned New Haven, Connecticut's exam for firefighters seeking promotions.  While there was no intention to skew the results, white candidates outperformed their minority counterparts.  Both sides then threatened to sue the City under Title VII.  Minority firefighters who would be denied promotions threatened to sue if the City kept the test results.  They claimed there was an unlawful disparate impact, i.e., that the test results illegally negatively impacted them in comparison to white firefighters.  White firefighters eligible for promotions also threatened suit.  They claimed throwing out the test results would amount to disparate treatment, i.e., unlawfully denying them promotions based on their race.  Caught in the crosshairs of the two groups, the City tossed out the test results and the white firefighters sued.
The Supreme Court decided that an employer may not correct a racial disparity in those receiving promotions unless that disparity is so great there is "a strong basis in evidence" the employer would be liable for an unlawful disparate impact.  As the Supreme Court put it: "We conclude that race-based action like the City's [demotion of white firefighters] is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute." 
The Ricci ruling effectively puts employers in a catch-22 situation.  On the one hand, if non-minorities are promoted in disparate numbers, employers may be liable to minority workers for the resulting disparate impact they suffer.  On the other hand, if employers try to correct the disparity, they may be liable to non-minorities for disparate treatment.  Employers are well advised to consult with counsel if they have any concerns about the racial composition of their workforce.  Under the standard announced by the Supreme Court, it is now harder to change it, even to correct racial disparities.
Ricci also affects employees.  It will be tougher for minorities to convince employers to take corrective action to diversify those being promoted.  Employers may be loathe to risk liability for disparate treatment for doing so.

How Much Is Enough? The Supreme Court Sets The Standard For Making A Claim

by Sheryl L. Axelro

On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a controversial decision with far-reaching implications for cases filed in federal court.  Ashcroft v. Iqbal is about the amount of detail required in a complaint, a document filed at the beginning of a lawsuit.  A complaint sets out the claims the party bringing the lawsuit, known as the plaintiff, has against the party being sued, known as the defendant. 
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, a case decided not long before Iqbal, the Supreme Court considered the amount of information complaints in antitrust cases must have.  In Iqbal, the Supreme Court, split 5 justices to 4, broadened the scope of Twombly to all complaints filed in federal court.  To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must now provide enough facts to show that, if he proves his case, it is not just "possible" the defendant acted unlawfully; it is "plausible".
For plaintiffs, Iqbal heightens the amount of information they will need to plead.  Now before ever conducting depositions, asking written questions or seeking documents, a plaintiff in federal court is going to need to know enough about his case to draft a complaint showing it is plausible there in fact is a case. 
The new pleading requirement does not absolve those who bring suit from the honesty and candor requirements inherent in court proceedings.  A plaintiff must verify his complaint under penalty of perjury, and his counsel must have a reasonable basis to assert the allegations contained in it.  Moreover, allegations contained in a complaint, like those in all other pleadings, are considered admissions by the party asserting them.  Those that turn out to be false may become fodder for the plaintiff's cross-examination.  Before filing suit then, thoughtful consideration should be given not only to whether there is enough detail in the complaint to satisfy Iqbal, but also to ensure there is a solid basis for believing the detail is in fact true. 
In federal court cases, the impact of Iqbal upon defense counsel, the attorneys who defend parties sued in court, is straightforward: they should scrutinize complaints.  Motions to dismiss should be filed whenever a defendant's conduct appears merely to be "possibly" unlawful.  In short, defense counsel should hold plaintiffs to the burden Iqbal creates.

A Reminder From The Bench: Proving A Hostile Work Environment Claim Is Not Easy

by Sheryl L. Axelrod

On August 14, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, this region's federal appellate court, kept the bar for proving hostile work environment claims very, very high.  "Occasional insults ... are not enough," the court reiterated in Brooks v. CBS Radio, Inc.  To prove a hostile work environment claim, the discrimination must be so "severe" or "pervasive" that it permeates the workplace and changes the very nature of the job. 
Even being told by a supervisor to read a book containing blatantly racist passages, the court decided, is not enough.  In Brooks, the sole African-American account executive at CBS Radio, Inc. quit after being told by his supervisor to read "Dress For Success".  More specifically, Mr. Brooks left as a result of being offended by a number of the book's shocking passages including the following:
"The two groups who have the most problems with their appearances are black men and Hispanic men. It is unfortunate but true that our society has conditioned us to look upon members of both groups as belonging to the lower classes, and no matter how high a minority individual rises in status or achievement, he is going to have some difficulty being identified by his success rather than his background. But clothing can help."
Despite the book's content, the court ruled that its distribution did not create a hostile work environment for Mr. Brooks.  There was no evidence Mr. Brook's supervisor ever read the book.  Not only that, the court decided that since there was no hostile work environment, Mr. Brooks had no need to quit so he could not recover monies from CBS Radio for his departure.
Brooks should make people who believe they work in hostile environments think twice before quitting.  They are well advised to seek an attorney's counsel.  Together with their attorney, they should step back and reflect about the issue the way a court will: is the discrimination limited to occasional insults, they should ask, or are the insults so severe or pervasive that they infect the very nature of the job?  If it's the latter, before leaving, they should complain about it.  They should write out a list of their grievances, date and make a copy of it and hand it to the Human Resources Department (or if there is none, to their supervisors), specifying what precisely the problems are.  They should then give their employer the opportunity to rectify the situation. Mr. Brooks did not give his supervisor this chance, and the Third Circuit held that against him. 
Brooks notwithstanding, employers should always be vigilant in identifying and eradicating discrimination in the workplace.  Diversity should not just be tolerated; it should be welcomed and appreciated.  If there is discrimination but it is not severe or pervasive, an employer may win a hostile work environment claim, but the employee may bring other discrimination claims, and the employee will in all likelihood find those easier to prove.  Beyond claim prevention, keeping discrimination out of the workplace helps ensure that every employee can be successful.  That, in turn, helps a company perform at its peak.

The Supreme Court Decides That Age May Factor Into An Employer's Decision To Take Action Against An Employee

by Sheryl L. Axelrod

The Supreme Court -- sharply divided 5 justices to 4 -- recently published a controversial ruling in the field of employment discrimination law.  Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. dealt with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) which makes it unlawful for an employer to take action against an employee "because of such individual's age".  On June 18, 2009 in Gross, the majority of justices decided that an employee cannot win a claim under the ADEA with proof that age was a factor motivating the employer to take action; the employee must prove that age was the determinative factor.

In other types of employment discrimination cases – cases, for instance, for race or gender discrimination – there is no need to prove that discrimination was the motivating factor.  Employees need only show that discrimination was a factor.  The Supreme Court's decision means that an employer may now take action against an employee based on age as long as other considerations also factor into the decision.

The Gross ruling should not change the way employers conduct their affairs.  Congress may step in and reverse the decision.  A law could be passed permitting age discrimination to be proven with evidence that age was considered.  An employer is also always better off fighting an age discrimination claim where there has in fact not been any age discrimination.

Employees asserting age discrimination claims, on the other hand, will need to alter their behavior.  They are now going to have to charge that age was the reason their employers took action against them; it will not be sufficient for them to claim that age factored into the decision.  The Gross ruling will also make it tougher for employees to prove age discrimination claims.  Employers may now defend the claims by asserting that age was merely a factor taken into consideration; before Gross, on the other hand, any taking of age into consideration was enough to prove age discrimination.

Kirkland & Ellis launches in Shanghai

By Catrin Griffiths

Kirkland & Ellis is to open in Shanghai in November to create its second Asia office.
Corporate partner XY Li, formerly of Jun He Law Offices in Beijing and King & Wood, will relocate from Hong Kong to lead the launch. He will be joined by fellow corporate partner Chuan Li.
The move is a significant one for the Chicago-headquartered firm, which has a conservative approach to international expansion.
Its Hong Kong office was opened three years ago on the back of its private equity business. Since then the firm has acted on Asia investments for a raft of private equity houses, including Bain Capital, Oaktree Capital, Golden Gate Capital, GTCR, Silver Lake Partners and Sun Capital.
Kirkland's move will be seen in its wider context of increasing opportunities for foreign investors into China, with several recent launches of renminbi (RMB) demoninated funds. Earlier this year Blackstone formed its first RMB regional private equity fund in Shanghai.
Hong Kong private equity partner David Patrick Eich told The Lawyer: "China is a complex place in which to do a deal. Boots on the ground are critical.
"It's pretty simple: we follow our clients, they're investing heavily in China, and Shanghai is the financial capital of China."

Revealed: gloomy prospects fail to deter wannabe partners

By Kit Chellel, Julia Berris, Katy Dowell

YouGov survey finds greater proportion of junior lawyers coveting partnership in year that promotions nosedive

Junior  lawyers are increasingly setting their sights on partnership despite diminishing ­prospects for promotion at the UK's largest firms.
The second YouGov legal sector employee engagement survey shows that more fee-earners than last year want to become partners and believe they have a realistic chance of doing so.
However, the increased ambition of junior lawyers is not matched by the ­opportunities available to them. Promotions at the top 30 firms in the country fell by an average of 30 per cent in 2009, according to research by The Lawyer.
The employee engagement survey was launched last year to measure ­commitment, motivation and career development among law firm employees. Employee engagement is seen as a better measure than job satisfaction because it is linked to productivity and profitability.
In 2008 just 46 per cent of fee-earners and professional support lawyers said their goal was to become a partner. That figure rose to 56 per cent this year.
CMS Cameron McKenna managing partner Duncan Weston said junior lawyers should not underestimate the challenge of becoming a partner. "Anyone who thinks that becoming a partner is like it was 20 years ago is misguided," he stressed. "It's getting tougher and tougher."
Yet the survey found that more lawyers thought partnership was achievable at their firm, with 48 per cent giving a positive response compared with 40 per cent in 2008.
Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) executive member Kevin Poulter said: "I'm not surprised people still view partnership as the logical career path, but this could change in the coming years.
"As opportunities to become a partner are reduced, junior lawyers will have to seek alternatives."
The proportion of lawyers who thought their firm offered good alternatives to partnership did rise during the year, from 28 per cent to 38 per cent.
YouGov's survey is the first to take into account all law firm employees. Last year the study exposed a gulf between fee-earners and business services staff in key measures of engagement - motivation, commitment, pride and willingness to recommend the firm to others.
The 2009 survey, comprising responses from 500 fee-earners and 600 business services staff, found that this gap had narrowed. The engagement score for support staff rose from 49 per cent to 54 per cent, although it remained some way behind that of fee-­earners, which rose by one percentage point to 63 per cent.
Field Fisher Waterhouse head of HR James Collinge said: "These figures are interesting as they're not what you'd expect given what most law firms have been through in the past 12 months."
By far the most engaged law firm employees in 2009 were partners with a score of 84 per cent, an increase of seven percentage points on the previous year. Trainees and new ­associates also scored highly - 77 and 76 per cent respectively.
The lowest rating was for knowledge management and IT staff, who recorded 36 per cent engagement, down eight percentage points on last year.
The 2009 survey also revealed that the appetite for secondments had fallen in 2009, despite a growing number of law firms ­encouraging staff to move overseas or join clients. These opportunities are often presented as a ­positive step towards gaining ­partnership.
Both client and international secondments were less popular, with 78 and 75 per cent of respondents respectively seeing them as a positive experience, ­compared with 82 and 85 per cent last year.
Hammonds managing partner Peter Crossley said: "Some lawyers have found that, after returning from an international secondment, their career has gone ­sideways perhaps, but the secondment hasn't necessarily advanced their career."

SRA accedes to Law Society demands with London launch

By Katy Dowel

The incoming chair of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) board Charles Plant has vowed to heal rifts between the ­regulator and the City by opening a London office.

Charles Plant

Speaking exclusively to The Lawyer Plant conceded that “many City firms have issues” with the SRA, adding: “It’s important that the SRA should soon establish a presence in ­London.”
The regulator is currently based in Redditch, ­Worcestershire.

The watchdog is under pressure to address its ­efficacy to regulate City firms after a Law Society-commissioned report slammed the regulator for its failure to connect with commercial firms.
The Smedley Review warned the SRA that it must reform how it regulates or risk losing the confidence of the profession. It also criticised the regulator for not having a London presence (The Lawyer, 30 March).
Plant said: “One of our priorities is to establish an appropriate regulatory regime with commercial firms, and we’ll need to recruit people who are familiar with the operations of City firms.”
The SRA board will come into being in January 2010

On Law Firm Leadership and Accountability

Posted by Dimitra Kessenides
By Edwin Reeser
BigLaw has witnessed significant shortfalls in budgeted net operating income for many firms. This has led to stagnant or reduced distributable income to partners in 2007, unprecedented cost cutting and further reduced distributable income in 2008, and, in 2009, attorney and staff dismissals, revoked job offers, deferred start dates for new associates, cancelled summer programs,and reconfigured partner positions. And it doesn't end there. Further widespread reductions in distributable income as compared to the initial budgets presented to partners for 2009 should be anticipated.
Is anybody keeping copies of annual budget and forecast income memos, taking notes, and comparing management's promises to actual results?
There have been rousing statements by law firm leaders associated with the  initiatives adopted and strategic plans implemented these past three years, but whatever the firm or structure of decision, the "buy in" of hard working, revenue producing partners is premised on two fundamental expectations.
The first expectation: Implementation of initiatives and plans—including many painful ones, such as partner de-equitizations and associate/staff layoffs--would lead to stabilized or higher income. Budgets associated with the plans and initiatives presented by management to partners were realistically achievable in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
The second expectation: Eventually, there must be accountability of leadership for the results delivered. 
The first expectation has not transpired for many, maybe even most, big law firms. Given the continuing failure to satisfy the first expectation, the partners should demand action with respect to the second expectation. Confidence in the viability of business plans and budgets for 2010 rests on accountability of the individuals who are responsible for achieving those plans and meeting the budgets. The firms that do not redirect a sharp downward direction in performance, as contrasted with consistently overstated and unrealized targets for budgeting, are going to wind up exactly where they are headed. Oblivion.
The challenge to leaders, and to the lawyers they lead, starts this October. That's when: 1) projections for 2009 results will become accurate; 2) banks reset loan line amounts and conditions for 2010; 3) calls for capital are made; 4) partner compensation for 2010 is set; and 5) greater cost cutting may be proposed. How can the leaders rally support for this investment?
In a word, accountability. Firm leaders must demonstrate their own confidence in their budgets and business plans by holding themselves directly accountable for the outcomes.
The partners, including leaders, should respectfully require ALL persons in positions of leadership at the firm, as a group, to proportionally reduce their compensation in 2009, and again in 2010, by enough to bring all other capital partners to projected partner compensation levels announced at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009, should operating performance not be sufficient to reach those income levels, up to a maximum reduction of 20 percent of compensation for Leadership Partners. A lesser percentage doesn't have enough incentive, and more seems too great a disincentive to good leaders to step up.  Build in incentives for superior performance if necessary....but survival of your firm should be enough for true leaders.
It is time for the "talk" to take a back seat to the "walk" that will instill confidence in Leadership Partners who are tasked to look after and promote the best interests of their firm.  Those "leaders" who are unwilling to do so can resign and be replaced with persons who take the responsibility of leadership seriously.  Anything less is not credible, and may lead to the accelerated loss of partners whose work and contribution to the firm are superb, but who are increasingly undercompensated.  Partners must rally together to protect the institution of the firm and its culture with simple steps that demonstrate character, resolve, courage, and competence as managers. If Leadership Partners cannot, or will not, it tells all of partners something they are better off knowing now, and not later:  Whether the leadership of the firm exists to promote the betterment of the firm and the partners, or whether the firm and partners exist to promote the betterment of the Leadership Partners. The process will deliver a budget that will finally confront reality, the first step in developing a business plan that works, and a budget everyone can believe in!
The partners of firms are not getting performance which as shareholders they deserve, and have been promised. Leadership Partners, it is time to lead your people, by walking behind them. This may be the last chance for leaders in many firms to make a right decision.
Edwin B. Reeser is a business lawyer in Pasadena specializing in structuring, negotiating, and documenting complex real estate and business transactions for international and domestic corporations and individuals. He has served on the executive committees and as office managing partner of law firms ranging in size from 25 to over 700 lawyers.

How a Personal Injury Claim Works

The process of a personal injury claim starts when you hire a lawyer, and ends with the conclusion of your personal injury case, whether because a settlement has been reached or because the trial has concluded and judgment has been given.

Consulting with A Lawyer

When you consult with a personal injury lawyer they will ask you questions about the accident and take a number of details from you, including asking you for a medical authority so that your lawyer can request your medical records. It is common for personal injury lawyers to treat your case as though it is going to trial. This is to ensure that your attorney can put forward the most advantageous case on your behalf, even if it is simply a matter of negotiating the settlement figure. In the event that your case remains contentious and goes to trial, your attorney will be in a strong position if the case has been handled properly from the outset.

Filing a Personal Injury Claim

Personal injury claims must be brought within a specific period of time after the accident, after which they become 'statute barred' and will not succeed. The length of this strict time limit varies from state to state, but is shorter than in most other types of cases and is usually around 3 years. It is very important that you see an attorney soon after your accident, rather than waiting until just before the expiration of the statute of limitations. If there is insufficient time left before the statute of limitations expires, an attorney may not consider that they will be able to undertake the necessary pre-filing work in time and refuse to take your case. It is also worth remembering that it is better to see a lawyer while events are fresh in your mind, rather than trying to recall what happened months or years later.
Your attorney will file papers in court (a summons and a complaint) and pay the appropriate filing fee. A copy of these papers has to be served personally on the individual you intend to sue, or if you're suing a corporation, an appropriate representative of that corporation.

Discovery

Once the defendant has been made aware of the fact that they are being sued, both parties in the case begin a process of requesting documents and information from each other ('discovery.') These may include lists of questions ('interrogatories'), medical records, doctors' reports and 'depositions', which is when an attorney questions a witness under oath. As the injured party, a doctor acting for the defendant may examine you. The discovery process can take months, or even years, depending on the nature of your case and the complexities relating to it.

Negotiating a Settlement

It is during this period that each side weighs up its potential liability in relation to the case. If the defendant accepts liability for the claim it will simply be a matter of negotiating until a mutually acceptable figure can be reached. If the case has not been settled at the conclusion of discovery, it will proceed to trial.

Proceeding To Trial

The court will give directions as to any issues each party should attend to before the trial, e.g. serving documents. Each party can request trial by jury, but must pay the appropriate fee with the jury demand. Once the trial starts, the court will hear evidence from live witnesses and will also consider written documentation. After the trial concludes, judgment will be given. If the claimant has been successful, but the defendant has not paid, the claimant may take steps to enforce the judgment.

Does California Allow a Choice of Tests in a DUI Case?

by Matthew J. Ruff

As a Torrance DUI Lawyer I am very frequently consulted about the various forms of alcohol testing methadology.  In California you have a choice of breath, blood or urine (Urine is allowed only after you complete a breath test). If you choose breath, many jurisdictions permit you to have a second test of blood or urine; this is because a breath sample is not saved and so cannot later be re-analyzed by the defense. In California, most breath tests are administered back at the police station, however more jurisdictions are now conducting point of arrest breath analysis.

Analysis of a blood sample is potentially the most accurate. Breath machines are susceptible to a number of problems rendering them often unreliable. The least accurate by far, however, is urinalysis. Thus, if you are confident that you are sober, a blood sample is the wise choice; urine, being least accurate and most easily impeached, is the best option if you believe your blood-alcohol concentration is above the legal limit.

Whiplash: Neck Injury 101

Car crashes often result to various bodily injuries such as whiplash neck injury. Also known as neck sprain or neck strain, whiplash is an injury of the soft tissues of the neck caused by its sudden extension and flexion. This kind of injury is common in rear end accidents where the neck is rapidly jolted back and forth. It may also manifest in trip or slip and fall cases.
The sudden movement of the neck can cause some of its muscles and ligaments to stretch more than the usual. Severe whiplash injury can damage the spine or spinal cord. It can also injure the cervical muscles, intervertebral joints, ligaments, discs and nerve roots.

Signs of Whiplash

Whiplash neck injuries are very common. Even slight car bumps could result to enough whipping to the neck that may trigger the symptoms.
Symptoms of neck injuries may manifest either immediately after the accident or several days after. Its symptoms may include the following:

• Neck Stiffness and Pain
• Myofascial injuries or injuries to the muscles and ligaments
• Headache, dizziness and blurred vision
• Difficulty swallowing and chewing and hoarseness of voice
• Paresthesias or abnormal sensations such as burning or prickling
• Shoulder and back pains
• Irritability

Treatment for Whiplash Injuries

Luckily, whiplash is curable. Upon treatment, most symptoms are gone completely.
At first, it is treated with a soft cervical collar. This collar could be worn for 2 to 3 weeks.
For major cases, therapy and medications are advised. It may include:

• Warm therapy to reduce muscle tension and pain
• Medications for pain such as analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
• Muscle relaxants
• Physiotherapy or range of motion exercises and physical therapy on the neck

Severe extension injuries, however, require surgical intervention.

Whiplash Prevention

Head restraints are equally important as seatbelts. They stop the head from making unnecessary movements during the point of impact. They can make the journey uncomfortable but the benefits are enormous. Moreover, correct adjustment of the head restraint could make the journey safer.
Whiplash neck injuries just like any other injuries need medical attention. Expectedly, the victim has to visit a medical provider for examination and tests, if necessary.
To alleviate the pain and suffering of the victim physically and financially, a personal injury case could be filed against the negligent party to compensate him for the damage. The victim may engage the services of a car accident lawyer in pursuing his claim.

Dangerous Defective Drugs

Pharmaceutical companies manufacture and market hundreds of new drugs each year. Each product is regulated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before it reaches the consumer, yet every year over 200,000 people die from using these drugs. It is estimated that more than 50% of all the drugs marketed to the American consumer have deleterious effects, despite testing and FDA regulation.

Among the recent examples of harmful drugs, most were withdrawn from sale within 12 months of release. However, some were still marketed by drug companies even after evidence of serious side effects or death had been noted. By law, drug manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries if the product they sell is defective or unreasonably dangerous. This can happen in several ways.

The product may be defective because of an error in the manufacturing process. Consumers may not be warned of possible bad effects from the use of the product. The product has a design flaw that makes it dangerous.

In all of these cases, the manufacturer is liable and can be sued for damages even if they were unaware of the danger. It does not matter how carefully the product was produced or labeled.

Many pharmaceutical products have caused such widespread injury that thousands of lawsuits, called mass tort litigation, have been filed against the manufacturers. Some of these drugs include: Vioxx, Bextra, Zyprexa, Plavix and Celebrex. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals has paid billions of dollars for injuries sustained due to use of the weight-loss drug combination known as Fen Phen.

Of additional concern are the dietary supplements which are becoming increasingly popular. The FDA requires that manufacturers assure that such supplements are safe before selling them, but no formal testing or approval requirements exist.

---

Accutane	Dostinex	Plavix	Rezulin	Trovan
Actonel	Duract	PPA Products	Risperdal	Viagra
Arava	Fosamax	Prempro	Ritalin	Vioxx
Avandia	Ketek	Prilosec	Serentil	Zoloft
Baycol	Lamisil	Prevacid	Seroquel	Zyban
Bextra	Meridia	Propulsid	Serzone
Cardura	Nexium	Prozac	Sporanox
Celebrex	Ortho Evra	Raplon	SSRI Drugs
Celexa	Oxycontin	Raxar	Stadol
Comfrey	Paxil	Remicade	Tequin
Crestor	Permax	ReNu	Trasylol

Can Attending a Cheaper Law School Lead to a Big Firm Job?

Posted by Brian Baxter

Times are tough for today's law students. Big law firms are reducing the size of their summer classes and even graduates of top-ranked law schools are having a tough time finding a job.

Given the state of the economy, it seems an appropriate time to compare two recent surveys to consider whether attending a cheaper, less prestigious law school can still land students lucrative jobs at Am Law firms.

The National Jurist this week released its list of Best Value Law Schools, the 65 schools that offer law students the "best bang for their buck" based on the cost of attending those schools and on the percentage of those schools' graduates who passed the bar and got jobs. (Hat Tip: Paul Caron's Tax Prof Blog.)

To determine what makes a law school a "best value," the magazine considered only public schools with in-state tuition of less than $25,000 and private schools with annual tuition of less than $30,000. The magazine for law students then narrowed its list to schools with an employment rate of at least 85 percent and a bar passage rate higher than the state average. It then ranked the schools, giving the greatest weight to tuition, followed by employment statistics. The magazine relied on information from the 2009 edition of the Official Guide to ABA-approved Law Schools; the ABA's data was collected in the fall of 2008. (See The National Jurist's full chart by clicking here.)

So the students passed the bar and landed jobs. But what types of jobs? Are these grads, we wondered, going on to work as associates at Am Law firms? To find out, we compared the list to The National Law Journal's 2008 survey of the 20 schools that send the most graduates to the country's largest 250 firms (the NLJ survey appeared in the paper's annual Law Schools Report).

The results weren't surprising.

None of the schools on the National Jurist's list were among the 20 law schools with the highest-percentage of graduates landing jobs in The NLJ 250. (Predictably, law schools like Columbia, Chicago, Pennsylvania, NYU, and Northwestern topped The NLJ's list with more than 65 percent of the graduates of those schools landing jobs at large firms.) 

Still, for those attending the "best value" schools on the National Jurist's list, there is hope of work (plus a lot less debt when they graduate).

Another NLJ study, this one in the publication's 2008 Law Schools Report, examined a bigger sample law graduates of the class of 2005 and where they found work. Many of the schools ranked this year by the Naitonal Jurist appeared on that list, including North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, BYU, Georgia State, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, Louisville, Kentucky, and Missouri-Kansas City.

Of course, today's legal job market is a far cry from that of 2005. And as law professors William Henderson and Andrew Morriss wrote in The NLJ last year, lower-ranked schools can provide students with more opportunities in the long run. Less debt lessens the need to pursue a job at a large firms.

Automobile Accidents

Thousands of people are killed and millions are injured in motor vehicle crashes. These crashes frequently are caused by the negligence of other drivers, leading to death or injury for these drivers as well as for innocent victims. Motor vehicle accidents can have many causes, but they most simply can be divided among negligence, intentional misconduct, or product liability. While it is true that accidents can be caused by a so-called "act of nature" such as earthquakes, this is rare.

Negligence is one of the primary causes of automobile accidents. Negligent acts mean that the driver causing the accident did not exercise reasonable care. Examples include driving too fast or too slowly for the conditions, allowing oneself to be distracted, and carelessly ignoring traffic signals or conditions. There are many areas in which negligence can occur, but the common thread is that negligence is a failure to be careful rather than an act intended to cause harm. A person who is distracted and rear-ends another vehicle at a red light is negligent.

Intentional misconduct, on the other hand, is an action committed when the person knew that doing so could cause harm and did not care, or actively desired to harm others. Someone who drives at a high rate of speed, cutting in and out of traffic, is intentionally putting himself and others at risk.

The law of strict liability could apply in some circumstances, and neither negligence nor intent would need to be shown. A third cause of auto accidents is product failure, a prime example of which being the Firestone tire litigation. In those cases, defects in the tires caused accidents beyond drivers' control. The defects were not intentional but under the law, the manufacturer was responsible. A similar situation could exist if a repair to the car was done improperly and resulted in a crash. In some states, in the case of auto accidents caused by drunk drivers, the business or host who supplied the alcohol and allowed the driver to drive in an intoxicated condition could be found to have a secondary liability.

Surviving a DUI Checkpoint

by Matthew J. Ruff

When rolling into a sobriety checkpoint a few things can make the difference between coming out in your car versus going out in a police car.  First, understand that most police checkpoints for DUI are structured in an area where there may be only one turnout or place to make a U turn.  The officers know that this is a fertile area to make arrests and will therefore post chase officers to detect and pursue those that use the turnout.  Though arguably illegal, they do it and will find a pretext to justify the stop.  Second, never go thru the check with your window all the way down, they will smell even the smallest or faintest odors of recently consumed booze and order you to the secondary where further evil awaits.  Third, never voluntarily submit to and FST or PAS breath tests in the field, it only gives them more evidence to use against you later in Court.  Keep these three tips in mind and hopefully you will not need a DUI lawyer to come bail you out after the fact.

Personal Injury Law

When someone is physically or emotionally injured, or their private property is damaged, it is considered under the law to be a "personal injury". The laws covering personal injury allow the injured party to receive compensation for damages caused by someone else's carelessness, negligence, recklessness, or intentional actions. Personal injury law is also called "tort" law. States and the federal government have enacted tort laws for the protection of your rights. Tort actions have three elements: there must be a legal duty between the defendant (the one doing the wrong) and the plaintiff (the person injured), there must be a breach of that duty, and damage must occur because of that breach. When all three elements take place, a personal injury, or tort, has occurred.

The laws of our society place demands on all citizens not to harm others. This means that not only should people be safe from harm, but so should their possessions. Whenever someone else harms you or something that belongs to you, they become liable to answer to the tort laws governing the situation. Liability can be caused by intentional acts, or torts, or by negligence. An intentional act is one designed to cause harm or injury. The person committing the act wants to harm you. A negligent act occurs when someone fails to take appropriate action and you are harmed as a result of that failure. For instance, if an angry person throws a brick through your car window, that is an intentional tort (it may also be a criminal action). On the other hand, if a careless driver runs into your car, that is a negligence tort. In the first case, the defendant wanted to cause an injury; in the second case, the defendant did not want to injure you but failed to take the appropriate action to prevent injury. In both cases, the defendant had a duty not to injure you or your property, because our laws and society create that duty. The duty was breached by the intentional or negligent actions of the defendant, and damage to your person or property resulted.

Another form of person injury law covers "strict liability". Strict liability means that there is responsibility whether or not negligence was involved. This is usually applied to situations which in themselves are abnormally or inherently dangerous, and also to the area of product liability. Manufacturers are charged with the responsibility of assuring that their product is safe when used as directed. If someone is injured by a product, under the terms of strict liability they do not have to prove intent or negligence, only that the product was defective through no fault of their own, and that harm was done.

Once a personal injury has occurred, the defendant has a liability to make good the damage done. "Damages" is the term for whatever is owed to you to compensate you for your loss. Damages can be agreed upon by you and the injuring party, through insurance settlements, or by other means. But often, the damages offered to you may not fully compensate you for your loss. This is especially true if you have suffered physical injury and have not been able to work. Personal injury law is the mechanism for determining who is in the wrong, or in other words, who is "liable", and what the liable person should have to pay for the damage caused.

If you are the victim of a personal injury, there are several things you can do to help yourself. First and foremost, make sure that you seek proper medical attention and that you follow up with the proper authorities and your own insurance company.

Anonymous Lawyer

I was on a panel this morning, a breakfast for unemployed lawyers through some organization that sprouted up sometime during the recession to help unemployed lawyers network with other unemployed lawyers so they can all pretend they're accomplishing something by talking to each other about unemployment. I like to go to these panels, collect resumes, and sprinkle them around the firm on the desks of associates slightly less qualified than the people whose resumes I collect, just to make the associates a little nervous. "See, there are people out there who we could hire, with just a little more experience than you, just a little better GPA, just a little higher LSAT score (yes, the LSAT score is on a good number of these resumes)." No, seriously, networking is great, I've seen a lot of my former associates at these events and I'm absolutely thrilled to run into them and find out they've had no success in the job market. Perhaps I shouldn't be happy about it-- perhaps it means our firm isn't respected in the industry, that our former associates aren't valued, and that we need to work on our image. But maybe I shouldn't overthink it. It probably just means there aren't any jobs out there, and it's not anyone's fault that they can't find legal work. Except it's no fun to think about it that way, no fun to believe it's all just about the economy, and the fact that all these specialists we trained to do securitization deals and real estate transactions just don't have much value in a world where those deals aren't happening. No, I choose to blame the individual.

That's what I talked about on the panel this morning. "Blaming yourself for the economy, and what you should have done better." That was the title of my talk. 74 slides, where I itemized out a series of things lawyers should have been doing before they got laid off. Not sleeping. Gaining experience in every other area of the law. Going to school at night for an additional degree. Training to be an expert in social media and search engine optimization. Inventing Facebook. And so forth. There were lots of things lawyers could have done to prevent being laid off, or to set themselves up for a fine career even once the legal industry imploded. Not my fault they didn't win that million-dollar Netflix prize for improving their who-likes-what-movie algorithm. Could have been working on it in their spare time. Not my fault they didn't win the lottery. Not my fault they didn't invest in land that ultimately proved to have oil beneath it. None of these things are my fault, or the firm's fault.

For some reason, no one seemed to like my speech.