Posted April 27, 2018, 9:13 am CDT
Shutterstock.com.
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/parents-of-otto-warmbier-sue-north-korea-over-death-of-their-son/
Monday, April 30, 2018
Parents of Otto Warmbier sue North Korea over death of their son
International Law
The parents of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier have sued North Korea for the death of their son, who was detained for the alleged theft of a poster.
The suit says Warmbier was tortured during a 17-month detention in North Korea that began in January 2016, report the Washington Post, Courthouse News Service, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.Warmbier died after his return to the United States in a coma.
According to the suit, Warmbier was forced to falsely confess that he had taken down a political poster in his hotel at the behest of a church and with the encouragement of a secret UVA society with ties to the CIA.
When Cynthia and Frederick Warmbier met their son at the Cincinnati airport in June 2017, the suit says, the youth “was blind and deaf. He had a shaved head, a feeding tube coming out of his nose, was jerking violently and howling, and was completely unresponsive to any of their efforts to comfort him. They also noticed that his once straight teeth were now misaligned and had been forced into abnormal positions.”
The suit says North Korea used their son as a pawn in disputes with the United States. “North Korea, which is a rogue regime, took Otto hostage for its own wrongful ends and brutally tortured and murdered him,” the suit says.
North Korea had attributed Warmbier’s condition to botulism.
The suit was filed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows suits in U.S. courts against countries that have been designated state sponsors of terrorism, Courthouse News Service explains. The Trump administration placed North Korea on the list in November.
Compensatory damages could be paid from a fund created in 2015 by Congress to compensate victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Payments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund are capped at $20 million a person or $35 million for a group of people, according to the New York Times.
The Warmbiers are represented by McGuireWoods. Richard Cullen, a lead lawyer on the case, also represents Vice President Mike Pence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Pence had traveled with Frederick Warmbier and a U.S. delegation in February to the Winter Olympics in South Korea.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Best Stair Elevators For The Home-Northern and Central NJ
If you live in the Northern or Central NJ area and are looking for a stairlift for you or your parents-call us at 973-528-1937.
Best Stair Elevators For The Home- Best Chair Lifts For Seniors-Northern and Central NJ-973-528-1937
If you live in the Northern or Central NJ area and are looking for an electric stairlift for you or your parents-call us at 973-528-1937
Would-be judge facing trial for ruling in traffic cases is found dead
Obituaries
A would-be judge who was facing a trial Monday for ruling in three traffic cases has been found dead in her home in suburban Chicago.
Rhonda Crawford, 46, was free on bond. She was pronounced dead on Thursday, report the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.
Crawford was facing a felony charge of official misconduct and a misdemeanor charge of false impersonation. She was accused of donning a judge’s robe and ruling on the cases in August 2016 as part of a shadowing process. She was a law clerk and staff attorney in Cook County, Illinois, at the time, but was fired after the incident.
The judge who allowed Crawford to take the bench was forced to retire in December 2017 after acknowledging that she has Alzheimer’s disease.
Crawford won a judicial election in Cook County even though a state supreme court order temporarily banned her from the bench.
Crawford’s lawyer, Rob Robertson, told the Tribune he did not know the cause of death. An autopsy is scheduled. He also spoke with the Sun-Times.
“I think she was put in an untenable situation by a number of others,” Robertson told the Sun-Times. “I looked forward to vindicating her on Monday. But that’s not going to happen now.”
Posted April 27, 2018, 1:12 pm CDT
Shutterstock.com.
ABA president Hilarie Bass backs funding of at least $482M for Legal Services Corp.
ABA
Federal funding for the Legal Services Corp. has shrunk since fiscal year 2010 despite a study finding a justice gap experienced by low-income Americans, ABA President Hilarie Bass said Friday in testimony submitted to a House subcommittee.
Legal Services Corp. received $410 million in federal funding in fiscal 2018 an amount that is below its funding level of $420 million in fiscal 2010. Bass thanked the subcommittee for the current funding level, but said more is needed.
Bass is asking Congress to hike LSC funding to at least $482 million, an amount that matches the 2010 budget in inflation-adjusted dollars. Even better, she said in her testimony, would be to fund the budget at the LSC’s requested level of $564.8 million. A press release is here, and Bass’ testimony is here.
Bass referred to a 2017 study conducted for the LSC that found 86 percent of civil legal problems reported by low-income Americans in the past year were not addressed with adequate legal help. She also referred to the need to help people likely to be affected by natural disasters in 2018 and people affected by the opioid epidemic.
“As the economy revives,” Bass said, “LSC funding should also revive.”
Bass submitted the testimony to the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.
Posted April 27, 2018, 12:45 pm CDT
ABA President Hilarie Bass/Photo by Len Irish.
Was Brown v. Board of Education correctly decided? These judicial nominees won’t answer
Judiciary
For around 60 years, conservative and liberal judicial nominees praised the school desegregation decision Brown v. Board of Education as a groundbreaking statement of equality by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But laudatory statements about the decision have given way to reticence as two of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees recently refused to answer questions about the decision, Slate reports in a jurisprudence essay.
Wendy Vitter, a nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, said April 11 that she didn’t “mean to be coy” but she felt she didn’t want to comment on which Supreme Court decisions were correctly decided.
“If I start commenting on ‘I agree with this case’ or ‘don’t agree with this case,’ I think we get into a slippery slope,” she said. Vitter is general counsel to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese in New Orleans. PBS and the National Law Journal were among the publications with coverage of her hearing.
On Wednesday, Andrew Oldham, a nominee to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, followed suit. Oldham said he could not discuss the merits of any case, including Brown v. Board of Education, Law360 reports. Oldham is general counsel for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
Law360 called Oldham’s refusal to answer “a trend among judicial nominees not to answer questions about Supreme Court cases like Brown v. Board of Education.”
The National Law Journal points out that the late Justice Antonin Scalia had refused to answer questions during his confirmation hearing about any specific opinion, including Marbury v. Madison. The landmark case is known for its holding that it is “the province and duty” of the judicial branch “to say what the law is.”
The Slate authors assert that as the Trump administration picks more unconventional judicial nominees, “ferreting out their fringiest views becomes an even greater imperative.”
“If nominees refuse to give their views about whether Brown was correctly decided, will they also refuse to give their views on Dred Scott, which refuted the very humanity of black Americans?” Slate asks. “What about the internment of Japanese Americans, which the court held lawful in Korematsu but has since been recognized as one of the most shameful moments in American political or legal history?”
See also:
ABAJournal: “The Brown v. Board of Education Question: What Would Scalia Do?”
Posted April 27, 2018, 11:48 am CDT
The front page of the Russell (Kansas) Daily News on May 17, 1954, announcing that school segregation is outlawed. (Library of Congress).
Saturday, April 28, 2018
SoLi summit and its facilitators seek to spur innovation in legal profession and education
Legal Technology
Creating connections and collaborations between people across the legal world, including academics, practitioners, legal technology experts, and others. Moving the legal profession and legal education into the 21st century and beyond. Those are the goals of an April 30 summit at Vanderbilt Law School called SoLI: The Summit on Law and Innovation.
The goals are ambitious but necessary, say summit co-facilitators Caitlin (Cat) Moon and Larry Bridgesmith, adjunct professors at the school’s Program on Law & Innovation. “We think constantly about how do we reach out to the law-practicing community and help them and provide insight into the disruption that is taking place in legal services and technology,” Bridgesmith says.
The summit’s stated mission is “to build connections and break down silos between legal practitioners, educators, and technologists to create critical collaboration and fuel innovation.” Moon and Bridgesmith believe that different, creative minds must come together to help move the legal profession and legal education forward into the 21st century and beyond.
“There has been a fundamental shift in the legal profession,” Moon says. “The way we deliver legal services has to change. There is a fundamental mismatch between how lawyers work and deliver legal services and the way in which people need and want to receive legal services.”
“Better innovation comes out of cognitive diversity,” says Bridgesmith, who refers to some of the upcoming talks at the summit as “TED Talks squared.”
According to Moon and Bridgesmith, the program aims to be dynamic and audience-engaging rather than traditional and tiring. The summit will feature three “igniter sessions” that examine innovation in legal education, legal practice, and technology; a session called “Leading Lawyers Without a License,” and a “Human-Centered Design Bootcamp.” The igniter sessions begin with a short talk by speakers such as Vanderbilt Law School Dean Chris Guthrie, Lawton Penn of Davis Wright Tremaine, and Shawna Hoffman and Brian Kuhn of IBM. They are then followed with a panel discussion.
Moon and Bridgesmith say that the summit is necessary to move the legal profession and legal education forward.
“The business model of the legal profession is badly outdated,” Bridgesmith says. “Time is a lawyer’s most valuable asset, but clients don’t want to overpay for lawyer’s time. In the digital age, they want to pay for quality output. We must move the legal profession forward. We need to move the profession from a competitive model to a collaborative model.”
It’s not just the legal profession that needs a push forward. Legal education needs a similar boost, Moon says. “There is a general belief that legal education has not moved forward to match the demands of the 21st century,” she states. “It does not adequately prepare young lawyers for a modern practice. We want to create a point of collaboration between educators and practitioners so that people can work together.”
For Bridgesmith and Moon, the summit represents a unique opportunity to create positive change and spur even more creative thinking across the legal community. The summit is also a chance for the two to put into practice the ideas and strategies they have spent years working on. Bridgesmith, who practiced in the original law firm billing time model, has spent decades trying to improve lawyer productivity by implementing innovative workplace strategies to help lawyers better manage their time and practice. Moon, a fifth-generation lawyer, practiced law before transitioning into consulting. For the last decade, she has embraced human-centered design thinking to spur innovation in the legal profession—and now legal education.
“I had a lawyer practicing in complex litigation tell me: ‘You have given me half my day back,’” Bridgesmith recalls. “I want that on my tombstone.”
David L. Hudson Jr. is a regular contributor to the ABA Journal, serves as the ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center and is an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
Posted April 27, 2018, 5:38 pm CDT
Cat Moon.
David L. Hudson Jr. is a regular contributor to the ABA Journal, serves as the ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center and is an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
Judge tosses Manafort’s suit challenging ‘unmoored’ jurisdiction grant to Mueller
Posted April 27, 2018, 2:35 pm CDT
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has tossed a lawsuit filed by former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort challenging the broad grant of jurisdiction given to special counsel Robert Mueller. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Friday against Manafort, who has been indicted on charges of money laundering and tax fraud in the special counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. BuzzFeed News and the National Law Journal have stories. Manafort had argued the May 2017 order appointing Mueller improperly gave him the power to investigate matters that are “unmoored” to an investigation of links between the Russian government and the presidential campaign. Manafort later narrowed the relief sought and was no longer asking the court to dismiss his indictment. Instead, he was seeking to invalidate part of the order giving the special counsel the authority to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” He was also seeking an order enjoining future exercise of authority by the special counsel that was outside the scope of his power. Despite the narrowed claims, Jackson said, Manafort’s claims must be addressed in his criminal cases. “A civil case is not the appropriate vehicle for taking issue with what a prosecutor has done in the past or where he might be headed in the future,” she said. “It is a sound and well-established principle that a court should not exercise its equitable powers to interfere with or enjoin an ongoing criminal investigation when the defendant will have the opportunity to challenge any defects in the prosecution in the trial or on direct appeal.” Jackson also said it’s not clear there is a current case or controversy. “The only aspect of this case that is left standing is Manafort’s effort to forestall unspecified and as yet unknown future developments in the special counsel investigation, and a claim of that nature, where the harm is purely speculative, raises significant standing and ripeness issues,” she wrote.Friday, April 27, 2018
Senate Judiciary Committee approves bill to protect special counsel; is it constitutional?
Constitutional Law
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a bipartisan bill to protect the special counsel from firing.
Four Republicans joined Democrats to advance the bill, report USA Today, the Hill, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The bill has little chance of making it into law, according to the Washington Post. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, opposes the bill. And if it did win lawmakers’ approval, President Donald Trump would likely veto the bill.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York urged McConnell to bring the bill for a vote and pointed to a statement Thursday by Trump on Fox and Friends. Trump said he “won’t be involved” in the Russia investigation, but “I may change my mind at some point.”
There also are constitutional concerns about the bill, known as the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act. The bill says a special counsel may be fired only by the attorney general, and only for good cause, according to the New York Times description. After a firing, the special counsel would have 10 days to seek an expedited review of his dismissal. A panel of judges could then block Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s removal if it is not for good cause. Special counsel documents and investigative materials would have to be preserved while the review is pending.
Some senators voted against the bill because they thought it was an unconstitutional infringement on executive branch power. Although the bill doesn’t expressly bar the president from firing the special counsel, “There’s a robust debate among legal scholars across the political spectrum as to whether the bill nevertheless goes too far,” the Atlantic reports.
Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar is among the scholars who argue Congress can’t limit the president’s ability to fire because all executive authority is vested in the president. Mueller is an “inferior officer” under the Constitution who can be dismissed by a superior officer, he argues.
On the other side is Fordham law professor Bruce Green, who says presidents can set criminal justice policy, but generally they don’t have constitutional authority to direct a prosecution.
An important case is Morrison v. Olson, the 1988 Supreme Court decision that upheld the Independent Counsel Act, which has since been allowed to sunset. “While this outcome would, at first blush, seem to support the Mueller bill,” the Atlantic reports, “a number of liberal legal scholars have endorsed the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Morrison, in which he argued the law usurps presidential power.”
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner and University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck say “Morrison is still good law. The Supreme Court continues to cite it without questioning its core constitutional holding: That Congress is allowed to limit the removal of inferior executive branch prosecutors to cases in which a principal officer finds good cause.”
Posner had called for legislative protection for the special counsel in a Feb. 4 op-ed for the New York Times.
Paragraph describing the bill updated at 2:40 p.m.
Posted April 26, 2018, 2:14 pm CDT
Special counsel Robert Mueller.
Which lawyers spend the most time on pro bono? ABA surveyed 47,000 for the answer
Pro Bono
Eighty-one percent of lawyers surveyed said they provided pro bono services at some point in their careers, while just over half said they provided such services in 2016, according to a survey by the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono & Public Service.
Lawyers surveyed reported providing an average of 36.9 hours of pro bono service in 2016. Twenty percent provided 50 hours or more of pro bono service that year. The hourly average includes lawyers who did no pro bono work. The survey report is here, and an ABA press release is here.
Among differing age groups, lawyers who were 70 to 74 provided the most hours of pro bono service on average, followed by lawyers who were 75 to 79. Private practice lawyers had higher pro bono averages than corporate and government lawyers. Within private practice, lawyers in law firms with more than 300 lawyers had the highest pro bono hours, followed by lawyers in firms with 101 to 300 lawyers, and solo practitioners.
The survey is based on responses from almost 50,000 lawyers in 24 states. The states with the highest pro bono attorney averages were Washington, followed by Tennessee and Wyoming.
Eighty-one percent of lawyers surveyed think pro bono services are somewhat or very important, but under half indicated they were likely or very likely to provide such services in 2017. The top three barriers to providing pro bono were lack of time, commitment to family or other obligations, and lack of skills or experience.
The top three motivations for performing pro bono were helping people in need, ethical obligations and professional duties.
The survey defined pro bono work as legal services personally performed, without charge or expectation of a fee, to persons with limited means or organizations that serve persons of limited means.
Rule 6.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct says every lawyer “has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay.” Almost every state has adopted some version of the rule. Many of the states follow the ABA’s aspirational goal of 50 hours per year.
The 2017 Justice Gap Report of the Legal Services Corp. found that 86 percent of the civil legal problems reported by low-income Americans received inadequate or no legal help. ABA President Hilarie Bass noted the report in the ABA’s press release.
“Legal services programs, with their limited resources, are able to provide assistance in only half of the matters brought to them. So the justice gap is real,” Bass said. “Private attorneys play a critical role in addressing these legal needs through pro bono legal services. This new ABA report helps to better understand pro bono in a comprehensive way and will allow us to develop more effective strategies to better meet the legal needs of the poor.”
Posted April 26, 2018, 3:59 pm CDT
Thursday, April 26, 2018
ABA president applauds Justice Department decision to keep immigrant education program during review
Immigration law
ABA President Hilarie Bass is applauding the Justice Department’s decision to keep in place a legal information program for detained immigrants during a review of its effectiveness.
The Legal Orientation Program provides basic legal information to 53,000 immigrants a year in federal detention centers in 16 states, Bass said in the statement on Wednesday. The DOJ had previously said it would suspend the program April 30 while the review was conducted. “We are pleased that today’s action reverses that decision,” Bass said.
The Justice Department contracts with 19 nonprofits to provide the educational sessions about the law and the removal process. The ABA operates two of the programs, one in California and the other in Texas.
“Nearly 90 percent of all noncitizen detainees go through deportation proceedings without legal counsel,” Bass said in the statement. “For them, these brief orientations are the only knowledge they get before being thrust into adversarial court hearings.”
The program was found to be “highly effective,” in past studies, Bass said. She cited a 2012 analysis by the Executive Office for Immigration Review that found detainees who received legal orientations completed their court proceedings 12 days faster and spent six fewer days in detention than detainees who did not participate. The cost savings to taxpayers was $17.8 million a year.
Bass had supported the program in testimony April 18 before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration.
During the subcommittee hearing, the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, James McHenry, said the 2012 review was conducted “under some unorthodox circumstances.” He did not offer details.
Bass said in her statement that she is confident that the new review of the 15-year-old program will conclude it “is a cost-effective and essential piece of our nation’s immigration system and our desire to provide due process for all.”
Posted April 25, 2018, 3:19 pm CDT
ABA President Hilarie Bass/Canadian Press Images Michael Desjardins.
E-recycling advocate loses appeal, must spend 15 months in prison
Copyright Law
E-recycling advocate Eric Lundgren has lost his appeal and will have to serve 15 months in prison.
A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion April 11 that affirmed both the jail sentence and a $50,000 fine levied by the district court. The per curiam opinion was issued by Judges R. Lanier Anderson, Beverly B. Martin and William H. Pryor Jr. Oral arguments were not heard for this appeal.
According to the Washington Post, Randall Newman, Lundgren’s appellate attorney, saw no basis for a rehearing by the full appellate court. In the same article, Lundgren said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be a costly long shot.
In February, Lundgren told the ABA Journal he had already spent $850,000 of his own money defending himself in this matter.
Lundgren had landed in legal trouble because of the creation and planned sale of 28,000 Dell restore discs, which are used to reboot the Windows operating system on computers that already have an authenticated Windows system and license but had a hard drive wiped clean or a hardware failure.
For those without an existing license, Microsoft sells a new operating system with a license and certificate of authenticity for Windows to refurbishers for about $25. With the restore disc, a new license is not needed. Lundgren believed that he could extend the lives of older computers and diminish electronic waste by distributing restore discs. The software contained on the discs was available for free download by computer manufacturers.
“If I was successful in getting this repair tool in the hands of who needed it,” Lundgren told the Journal in February, “maybe I could combat the e-waste epidemic in the United States.”
While empathetic to Lundgren’s mission, Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley did not see things Lundgren’s way. He ruled that the discs were worth $700,000, and sentenced Lundgren to 15 months in prison—far less than the 36 to 47 months called for by federal sentencing guidelines—and a $50,000 fine. Lundgren, though, had been free because of an emergency stay by the appeals court.
“Throughout this entire case, I kept telling everyone this is a Dell restore CD,” Lundgren told the Journal in February. “They kept telling me it’s a Microsoft operating system.”
In an emailed statement, a Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft actively supports efforts to address e-waste and has worked with responsible e-recyclers to recycle more than 11 million kilograms of e-waste since 2006. Unlike most e-recyclers, Mr. Lundgren sought out counterfeit software which he disguised as legitimate and sold to other refurbishers. This counterfeit software exposes people who purchase recycled PCs to malware and other forms of cybercrime, which puts their security at risk and ultimately hurts the market for recycled products.”
Lundgren did not immediately respond to a request for comment and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida declined to comment.
The appeals court deferred to the district court’s factual finding that the discs provided by Microsoft with a Windows license and those and those intended to be distributed by Lundgren and his business partner, Robert Wolff, without a license were “substantially equivalent”
Neither Dell nor Microsoft brought civil cases against Lundgren.
“I am going to prison, and I’ve accepted it,” Lundgren said after the ruling, according to the Post. “What I’m not OK with is people not understanding why I’m going to prison. Hopefully my story can shine some light on the e-waste epidemic we have in the United States, how wasteful we are. At what point do people stand up and say something? I didn’t say something, I just did it.”
Lundgren said that he has been told by prosecutors that he has a few weeks to put his personal and business affairs in order before submitting to custody.
Posted April 25, 2018, 3:12 pm CDT
The Microsoft headquarters campus in Redmond, Washington. Katherine Welles / Shutterstock.com
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/e-recycling-advocate-loses-appeal-must-spend-15-months-in-prison/
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Greg Craig, former White House counsel and lead lawyer on Ukraine report, leaves Skadden
Law Firms
Greg Craig has retired from Skadden and his name has been scrubbed from the law firm’s website.
Craig, a former White House counsel during the Obama administration, was lead lawyer on a controversial Skadden report assessing the fairness of a trial of a Ukrainian prime minister. He worked on the report with Skadden associate Alex van der Zwaan, who has pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Craig was of counsel at Skadden.
Craig, 73, told Barron’s that he left Skadden because he wanted to pursue “an early professional passion” as a senior adviser to the Truman Center’s national security project. Other publications with stories on Craig’s departure include the National Law Journal, Bloomberg, Bloomberg Big Law Business, Above the Law and the Associated Press.
Skadden was hired in 2012 by the Ukraine Ministry of Justice to prepare the report. It concluded that Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a political rival to Urkaine’s then-leader Viktor Yanukovych, was denied counsel at critical stages of her trial but her conviction was supported by evidence.
Prosecutors had said van der Zwaan lied about his communications with “person A” and with former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, who has pleaded guilty to failing to disclose his Ukrainian consulting work and offshore holdings.
Federal prosecutors filed a document on Monday alleging that Gates and Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, used offshore accounts to pay an unidentified law firm handling a report on the Urkainian opposition politician, according to the National Law Journal. Manafort is fighting charges that he laundered money he received for Ukrainian work.
Skadden has previously said it is cooperating with the special counsel. Craig has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
Posted April 24, 2018, 4:33 pm CDT
Former White House counsel Greg Craig with former President Barack Obama in 2009./Pete Souza (Wikimedia Commons.)
Mark Britton talks about leaving Avvo and what’s next
Mark Britton
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/mark-britton-talks-about-leaving-avvo-and-whats-next/
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Professor with anti-discrimination expertise appointed dean at Northwestern Law
Law Schools
Kimberly Yuracko has been appointed as the dean of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, starting Sept 1.
A Northwestern law professor whose research focuses on anti-discrimination law employment and gender equity in education, Yuracko will replace Daniel Rodriguez, who is stepping down as dean this summer, according to a Northwestern press release.
“Her talents as a legal scholar focusing on anti-discrimination law in employment and gender equity in education are well-suited for leading our great law school, and she has excelled in a number of administrative roles at Northwestern Law,” Jonathan Holloway, the university’s provost, said in the release.
Previously, Yuracko served as the law school’s interim dean and its associate dean for academic affairs. She has a law degree and a PhD in political science from Stanford University, and she holds a joint appointment with Northwestern’s political science department.
Posted April 23, 2018, 3:32 pm CDT
Kimberly Yuracko
Reed Smith launches legal tech summer associate program
Law Firms
Reed Smith has launched its first summer technology associate program.
This summer, five of the firm’s expected 60 summer associates in the U.S. and U.K. will gain traditional legal experience, but with a technology focus.
“The Legal Technology Summer Associate Program grows out of Reed Smith’s long-standing focus on meeting clients’ legal needs with technology-based solutions,” said Lucy Dillon, the firm’s chief knowledge officer, in a press release. “We are keen to see how these students’ perspective and fresh insight can help drive further progress providing clients with new types of legal services, delivered innovative ways.”
The summer associates will work with the firm’s attorneys, but also the firm’s Practice Innovation Team in the development of technology that improves legal service delivery. Beyond the traditional legal research and writing done by all summer associates, the legal technology associates will also work on applying blockchain and smart contract technology to real estate transactions, for example.
“Developing the next generation of practitioners requires giving them meaningful opportunities to work in a law firm environment with attorneys and clients helping to create and deploy efficiencies for our clients,” said Casey Ryan, the firm’s global head of legal personnel, in the release. “The capacity to innovate is becoming indispensable to the practice of law and the lawyers of tomorrow need the type of experience they will get in this program.”
In the U.S., the firm has accepted three students into the program from Chicago-Kent College of Law, Michigan State University College of Law and University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Both Michigan State and Chicago-Kent have invested heavily in legal innovation and technology education. The U.K. participants have not yet been selected, the American Lawyer reported.
The program will be run out of the firm’s Chicago, London and Pittsburgh offices.
Posted April 23, 2018, 2:15 pm CDT
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/reed-smith-launches-legal-tech-summer-associate-program/
Monday, April 23, 2018
LeBron James hit with trademark suit over his barbershop-based web series
Posted April 20, 2018, 1:40 pm CDT
LeBron James and his multimedia platform, Uninterrupted, were sued by a Detroit barbershop that claims trademark infringement over the NBA star’s web series. The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Sebastian Jackson, owner of the The Social Club Grooming Co. He says the concept for James’ web series, The Shop, is his own. Courthouse News Service, Law360 and the Washington Post also have stories. Jackson says in his suit that the Social Club is “a dual-purpose barbershop and content studio whose mission, in addition to providing haircuts, is to support cultural discussion, building community, personal growth and diversity.” Jackson says that out of this business he created the Shop Talk concept, a program “where guests consist of local and national celebrities who share their business success stories and other insights while getting their hair cut.” He trademarked Shop Talk through his company, Adventure Enterprises, in 2016. According to the lawsuit, Jackson started pitching the idea to Uninterrupted executives in 2014, seeking to partner with the multimedia platform. The discussions lasted until December 2016, when Uninterrupted aired the first episode of The Shop on James’ website “without Adventure Enterprises’ knowledge or consent.” Jackson claims in his suit he was told by an associate of the defendants that James’ show was a “one-time thing.” However, two more episodes of The Shop have since aired, even though Jackson sent the defendants a cease-and-desist letter last August. Adventure Enterprises seeks an injunction that prevents James and Uninterrupted from using the “confusingly similar” mark. In addition to trademark infringement, the lawsuit alleges service-mark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, conversion and conspiracy. The suit comes weeks after James sent an infringement letter to the University of Alabama raising concerns about its Shop Talk web series’ similarities to The Shop. The University of Alabama renamed its series Bama Cuts after the first episode.Ex-Dolphins cheerleader files complaint claiming religious and gender discrimination
Posted April 20, 2018, 3:00 pm CDT
Former Miami Dolphins cheerleader Kristan Ann Ware filed a complaint against the team and the NFL earlier this month claiming she was discriminated against because of her religion and gender. Ware’s complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations said she was subjected to a hostile work environment, ESPN reported, and that as a cheerleader she was held to different standards than players regarding social media and outward expression of her Christian beliefs. Ware was a cheerleader with the team for three seasons through 2017. According to Law360, Ware said in her complaint that cheerleading director Dorie Grogan, other coaches and squad representatives harassed her after she posted a photo of her baptism on social media during the 2016 off-season. The Washington Post reported Ware told her teammates during a bus trip conversation that she intended to remain a virgin until marriage because of her religious beliefs. Ware’s complaint said Grogan then told her she could talk about her virginity in private but never around the team. According to the complaint, when Ware told Grogan she shared the personal information only when asked, Grogan interrupted her and said: “As far as we are concerned, you have taken something that was once upon a time pure and beautiful, and you’ve made it dirty.” Ware’s complaint claims that while both cheerleaders and football players represent the Dolphins, only players can express their religious beliefs in any manner they choose—via social media or even on-field prayer—without censorship or discipline. Ware said when she wrote a post for the team blog, it was edited to remove religious references. “The NFL and all NFL member clubs support fair employment practices,” league spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement. “Everyone who works in the NFL, including cheerleaders, has the right to work in a positive and respectful environment that is free from any and all forms of harassment and discrimination and fully complies with state and federal laws.” In a statement, the Dolphins said: “We are seriously committed to providing a positive work environment for everyone associated with the organization. We hold every member of our organization to the same standards and do not discriminate as it relates to gender, race and religious beliefs.” Sara Blackwell, Ware’s attorney, told Law360 that it was “not abnormal” for NFL cheerleaders to face harassment and discriminatory policies. Blackwell also represents former New Orleans Saints cheerleader Bailey Davis, who filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint last month, Law360 reported. Davis claims she was discriminated against when the Saints fired her over an Instagram post in which she was wearing an outfit the team claimed violated its rules and rumors she had been at the same party as a player. Players have no rules about social media postings and are not punished for violating the team’s anti-fraternization policy, her complaint alleges. The goal of Ware’s complaint is to get the Dolphins and NFL to revise their rules and enforce existing anti-discrimination and harassment rules, Blackwell told Law360.Sunday, April 22, 2018
Riley Safer names managing partner who may be the first black female to lead a national law firm
Law Firms
Riley, Safer, Holmes & Cancila has named co-founder Patricia Brown Holmes as its first managing partner in what may be a precedent-setting appointment, according to the law firm.
Holmes, an African-American female, may be the first black woman to lead a national law firm of more than 50 lawyers that is not women- or minority-owned, according to a press release. The American Lawyer and Law360 have stories.
Other minority females leading law firms include include Faiza Saeed, who became Cravath, Swaine & Moore’s presiding partner in 2016, and Graciela Gomez Cowger, who became CEO of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt last year, according to The American Lawyer.
“To be the first to shatter the glass ceiling, I think, is an enormous responsibility,” Holmes told The American Lawyer. “But I’m hopeful that what it means is that fairly soon, in the next five to 10 years, it’s commonplace.”
Riley Safer was created in 2016 with lawyers from Schiff Hardin. Riley Safer now has 73 lawyers. Fifty-two percent are women and 29 percent are minorities.
Holmes is a former Cook County, Illinois, judge and prosecutor, and is currently serving as a special prosecutor for Cook County in a case accusing three police officers of a cover-up in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
She told the ABA Journal in a feature last December about a battle with lymphoma after being told in 1999 that she might have only six months to live. “I tend to be tenacious and determined,” Holmes said. “I didn’t accept the prognosis. I assessed the situation and found ways to fight.”
Posted April 20, 2018, 4:40 pm CDT
Patricia Brown Holmes/Photo by Wayne Slezak.
Fewer entry-level positions in most job categories for 2017 law grads, new ABA data shows
Careers
Entry-level hiring has decreased at law firms, in the government and public interest arenas, and in academia, according to employment data released Friday by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.
According to the data, 26,293 members of the class of 2017 had long-term, full-time jobs that require law degrees or are considered “JD advantage” positions roughly 10 months after graduation. For the class of 2016, there were 26,923 members who had long-term, full-time jobs in those categories—630 more than last year.
There is a slight percentage increase of of graduates in those positions—from 72.6 percent in 2016 to 75.3 percent in 2017—but that’s because of a 6 percent decrease in the size of the graduating class, according to an ABA news release.
This year’s data includes data tables by year.
The year-over-year percentage decreases in jobs for the class of 2017 by type:
Posted April 20, 2018, 5:14 pm CDT
-
- • Academia: 18 percent decrease.
-
- • Business and industry:15.4 percent decrease.
-
- • Government: 5.7 percent decrease.
-
- • Law firms: 2.3 percent decrease.
-
- • Clerkships: 1.9 percent decrease.
-
- • Public interest: 1.2 percent decrease.
7th Circuit blocks disability abortion ban; partial dissent labels the procedure a ‘super-right’
Constitutional Law
A federal appeals court has upheld a permanent injunction blocking an Indiana law that banned abortions based on race, sex, ancestry, Down syndrome or other genetic disorders.
The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday, report the Indianapolis Star, the Indiana Lawyer and Reuters. How Appealing links to the decision.
“The provisions prohibit abortions prior to viability if the abortion is sought for a particular purpose,” Judge William Bauer wrote in the majority decision. “These provisions are far greater than a substantial obstacle; they are absolute prohibitions on abortions prior to viability which the Supreme Court has clearly held cannot be imposed by the state.”
In a partial dissent, Judge Daniel Manion said he agreed that the law violates Supreme Court precedent, though he would have upheld a provision requiring abortion clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains. He went on to criticize the precedent that required the court to strike down the discrimination provisions.
The Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey “treats abortion as a super-right, more sacrosanct even than the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights,” Manion wrote. “The purported right to an abortion before viability is the only one that may not be infringed even for the very best reason. For an unenumerated right judicially created just 45 years ago, that is astounding.”
Vice President Mike Pence signed the bill into law in March 2016 when he was governor of Indiana.
Posted April 20, 2018, 3:34 pm CDT
Saturday, April 21, 2018
I Actually Like New York’s Double Jeopardy Loophole The Way It Is, But We Can’t Have Such Nice Things
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is trying to close New York State’s double jeopardy “loophole,” in a clear attempt to protect prosecutions from possible Trump pardons of his cronies. Normally, prosecutions at the federal level do not preclude prosecutions at the state level. But New York has this weird rule where jeopardy attaches for state purposes if a defendant pleads guilty or a jury is sworn-in even for a federal case, subject to a few exceptions.
It means, potentially, that a person — say, Michael Cohen — who is tried by federal prosecutors, convicted, and pardoned by President Donald Trump could not later be prosecuted for state crimes, even though the president technically has no authority to pardon state crimes.
Given that our current president has as much respect for the rule of law as a tornado has for the structural integrity of a trailer park, it seems likely that Trump will pardon his buddies in exchange for their silence. The New York loophole might be big enough to drive the Russian oligarchy right through it.
So Schneiderman asked the Republican-controlled New York State legislature to close the loophole. It’s an election year here, so we don’t really know how the politics of that will play out. Obviously, there’s a feeling that time is of the essence to cut off this possible Trump escape hatch.
I can’t disagree with the political calculation. Schneiderman has to do what he has to do. Our failing republic is now nothing more than an application of raw power against raw power, and I’m excited for Democrats to start fighting the decades-long GOP war against normalcy with their own fire.
But… from a legal-theory standpoint, the “loophole” makes a lot of sense to me, and I’d rather see it preserved or even expanded rather than done away with. I’m old enough to remember when progressives stood against prosecutors hounding people all across the damn country.
I think “dual sovereignty” — the theory that says the federal government and the state government have separate standing to charge people for crimes arising from the same act — is kind of dumb. If I kick a puppy, the state and the feds should get together and decide which one wants to charge, or do it together, or whatever, but they should get ONE SHOT at ruining my life. The whole concept behind double jeopardy is that you shouldn’t be able to put me through an endless series of legal proceedings and forum shopping, until you finally find a jury that will do to me what you want them to.
Of course, I say that as a person who isn’t the biggest fan of federalism anyway — not withstanding the fact that federalism is right now the only thing standing between us and the Kingdom of the Aggrieved Whites.
I’m also a little worried that this proposed change seems designed to go after Michael Cohen, and I’m pretty sure that whole “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed” thing is an important part of a free society.
But, Professor Lawrence Tribe says I have nothing to worry about there.
It really does bring us back to “Trump’s situation.” There really are three types of lawyers right now:
A. The ones concerned about Trump who still want to pretend the law can contain him.
B. The ones concerned about Trump who believe he is a unique threat to the rule of law.
C. The ones who are not concerned about Trump.
Group C can shove a snifter of brandy right up their white privileged asses. There’s a bigoted despot on the throne who may have assaulted 19 women, mercilessly attacks the fourth estate and the third branch of government, and is probably being blackmailed by the Russians. YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED.
But between groups A and B, there is a lot of legitimate disagreement. Group A looks at all the things Trump hasn’t been able to do, says “the law is working,” and concerns itself with what will be left standing in the post-Trump world.
Group B looks at all the things Trump has already done, decides that they will not be reduced back to a state of humiliation and bondage just because an executive order says so, and is absolutely willing to burn to the ground what they can’t defend from Trump’s forces.
I count myself among Group B. If I can’t defend a fort from Trump getting his dirty hands on it, I’m gonna blow up the fort. Trump is an occupying force, my DUTY is to make things hard enough on him that he and his people give up and go back home to their WWE matches.
And so this is why we can’t have nice things. New York’s double jeopardy loophole must be lit on fire and destroyed so Trump can’t use it.
Too bad. It was a nice little rule. I will add its passing to the ledger of things Trump has taken from us.
NY AG: To allow state prosecutions of pardoned Trump aides, change double jeopardy
Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Fees and fines threaten judicial independence
Defending Justice
For more than a decade, state court systems have been chronically underfunded. The ABA’s Task Force on the Preservation of the Justice System has called it “one of the most critical issues facing the legal profession.” But rather than support courts and the justice system through general tax revenue, states are increasingly relying on criminal fees and fines charged to defendants.
The purpose of the judiciary is to administer fair and impartial justice, yet we place courts in a dangerous position when we make them dependent on the funds they collect. The dynamic risks undermining judicial independence.
Criminal fines are intended to deter and punish crime, and the amount levied on an individual is typically based on the severity of the offense. Fees shift the costs of the system from taxpayers to the “users” of the courts. These revenues are not only used to pay for critical aspects of the justice system, they are frequently diverted to programs that fall far from the paramount goal of the criminal justice system: protecting public safety. In Florida, for example, fee and fine revenue may go the state’s general revenue fund. In New Mexico, defendants are charged a fee for the state’s Brain Injury Services Fund, providing resources to brain injury victims. While this may be a worthy project, it is hardly central to the work of courts.
Unlike the federal government, states must run balanced budgets. Over the last several decades, that’s been made considerably more difficult by the growth of the criminal justice system across the country. While the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, it accounts for approximately 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population. Locking people up is expensive, and we increasingly pay for America’s mass incarceration with fees and fines. This subverts the incentive structure of the courts, as they are increasingly relied upon to fund governmental operations. A study by NPR and the National Center for State Courts found that, between 2010 and 2014, 48 states criminal and civil fees, added new fees, or both. And when so many fees are dedicated to courtroom costs and salaries, the public’s confidence in judicial impartiality can be undermined.
This isn’t just a theoretical or hypothetical concern. A 2015 report by the Department of Justice found that in Ferguson, Missouri, the city had “allowed its focus on revenue generation to fundamentally compromise the role of Ferguson’s municipal court.” The DOJ concluded it led to violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee, which predominately harmed black Americans and threatened public safety. The report concluded that the focus on revenue collection had done much to undermine community trust in law enforcement and the courts.
The human consequences from this dependence on fees and fines can be staggering. Although debtors’ prison has been deemed unconstitutional in every state in the nation, defendants often face jail time for their inability to pay fees and fines. In many states, failure to pay results in a driver’s license suspension, which can dramatically limit a person’s ability to work or care for their family. Often, additional fines and fees accrue and interest is levied, leaving people thousands of dollars in debt, trapped in a cycle of poverty, and spinning through the revolving door of the criminal justice system. It’s a situation that can devastate low-income communities and sow deep distrust between citizens and the government.
Beyond the subversion of the core judicial function and the human cost, fees and fines are an inefficient means of collecting revenue for the government. Between police officers arresting subjects, court clerks and judges assessing and levying fees and fines, probation and parole offices attempting to collect fines, and jails housing those unable to pay, a tremendous amount of taxpayer money is diverted to collect the money. Because these public employees work across a variety of agencies that are often decentralized, it is difficult to know just how much the taxpayers are spending to raise fee and fine revenue. The Vera Institute of Justice has found that in New Orleans, the amount of revenue generated by fees, fines, and bail costs the city more than it collects.
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist called independent courts “the crown jewel of our system of government.” Relying on the judiciary as a revenue generator threatens this independence, as well as the confidence of the public in our institutions. In addition to the very real human costs, the system is extremely inefficient. Our courts, and our criminal justice system, should be focused on applying impartial justice and protecting public safety. They should not be forced to pay for our government.
Matthew Menendez serves as counsel for the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, where his work focuses on judicial administration and reforming the criminal justice process. Menendez is also an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law, where he teaches the Brennan Center Public Policy Advocacy Clinic. He received his B.A. degree in economics and political science from Swarthmore College in 1999, and his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2007.
Posted April 19, 2018, 7:00 am CDT
Matthew Menendez
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/fees-and-fines-threaten-judicial-independence/
Rep. Bacon Offers Electronic Warfare Bill: ‘We’re Behind’
Then-Brig. Gen. Bacon celebrates his “fini flight” before leaving command.
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/rep-bacon-offers-electronic-warfare-bill-were-behind/
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Top court in Massachusetts strikes down stun gun ban, says licensing requirement would be OK
Second Amendment
The highest court in Massachusetts followed the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court when it struck down a state ban on civilians owning stun guns on Tuesday.
But the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said possession of stun guns may be regulated, the Boston Globe and Reuters report.
“Having received guidance from the Supreme Court,” the Massachusetts court said, “we now conclude that stun guns are ‘arms’ within the protection of the Second Amendment. Therefore, under the Second Amendment, the possession of stun guns may be regulated, but not absolutely banned.”
The court said the state could require licenses for stun gun possession, could restrict who can own them, and could bar people from carrying stun guns in sensitive places such as schools.
The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in March 2016 that Massachusetts’ top court misapplied Second Amendment precedent when it upheld a ban on stun guns in 2015. The case was dismissed, so the Massachusetts court did not reconsider its ruling.
The court ruled Tuesday in the case of Jorge Ramirez, who was arrested after police found a stun gun in his pocket after a traffic stop for a broken taillight.
Posted April 17, 2018, 12:57 pm CDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)