A former State Supreme Court justice was convicted today of accepting bribes to manipulate the outcome of divorce proceedings in a case that led to a broad political and judicial corruption inquiry in Brooklyn. The judge, Gerald P. Garson, 74, could face as many as 15 years in prison if he is sentenced consecutively on the bribery verdict and two lesser charges of which he was also found guilty. A jury in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn acquitted him of four lesser counts after a four-week trial.
In his roughly five years on the bench in Brooklyn, Mr. Garson handled nearly 1,100 matrimony cases, making decisions on child custody and financial matters. In finding him guilty, the jury endorsed the prosecution theory that he had an agreement with a divorce lawyer to take cash, dinners and cigars in exchange for courtroom assignments and favored treatment.
WASHINGTON, April 18 — The Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal law today banning a controversial abortion procedure, giving the anti-abortion movement one of its biggest legal victories in years.
The justices ruled, 5 to 4, that a law passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by President Bush does not violate the Constitution by imposing an undue burden on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The majority said its ruling reflects the government’s “legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”
From Justice Ginsberg's dissent:
Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.
In Fireside Bank v. Superior Court (Gonzalez), No. S139171 (___ Cal.4th ___), decided today, the California Supreme Court first examined the precedents regarding procedures for class actions in the State, specifically regarding the "one-way intervention" problem, and then wrote:
From these precedents we glean the following rules governing the parties’ and trial court’s orderly conduct of putative class action cases. First, a defendant must actively preserve its protection against one-way intervention by objecting [to any pre-certification motion on the merits]. If it fails to timely object, or affirmatively seeks resolution of the merits before certification, it will be deemed to have waived its rights. (See Civil Service Employees Ins. Co., supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 373-374; Employment Development Dept. v. Superior Court, supra, 30 Cal.3d at pp. 262-265.) Second, plaintiffs should seek certification before moving for any resolution of the merits. (Cf. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.764(b) [“A motion for class certification should be filed when practicable”].) If they seek certification after seeking resolution of the merits then, in the absence of a defense waiver, they must demonstrate changed circumstances or other good cause justifying the belated motion before the trial court may consider it. (See Green, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 148.) Third, though trial courts generally have broad discretion to manage and order class affairs, in the absence of a defense waiver they should not resolve the merits in a putative class action case before class certification and notice issues absent a compelling justification for doing so.
The Court described the "one-way intervention" problem it sought to resolve as follows:
An inmate's fate often hinges on luck of the draw
Paul Gregory House pinned his hopes for survival on the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati five years ago when he challenged his death sentence for rape and murder.
He won.
Two years later, House's case returned to the 6th Circuit for what amounted to a new hearing on the same issues. The only change was the addition of four conservative judges to the court.
He lost.
Same evidence. Same arguments. Different outcome.
House learned the hard way that a federal death-penalty appeal can be a game of chance.
If the judges assigned to a case were appointed by Democratic presidents, odds are good they will overturn a death sentence because of new evidence or mistakes made during the trial. If the judges were appointed by Republicans, the chances are slim.
That's especially true at the 6th Circuit, the powerful and deeply divided court that decides death penalty appeals from Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.
Corporations and business groups donated more than $417,000 in cash and equipment in the last year to the Los Angeles Police Department to help pay for investigations and services that directly benefited them, records show.
The film industry helped pay for a crackdown on pirated movies. Shopping malls paid for extra traffic control, security and a tracking system able to recover cars stolen from their parking lots.
And next week, the City Council will consider accepting $50,000 from Philip Morris USA to aid an investigation into the sale and counterfeiting of the company's cigarettes.
Supporters of the practice say it helps a cash-strapped department fight crime. But some skeptics are concerned about the appearance of pay-to-play law enforcement in which the rich can afford to buy better protection than the poor.
"This runs counter to the notion that public safety is provided equally to all and not just those rich enough to afford it," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause. "Our police are not a private security force, and therefore police services should be funded by the public and not private interests that stand to benefit directly."
Memo suggests Ryan was fired for running a 'fractured' office
Newly released Justice Department documents on the firings of eight federal prosecutors include a scathing evaluation of former San Francisco U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan -- whose district was labeled "one of the most fractured offices in the nation'' -- and reveal that the Bush administration was considering possible replacements more than a year before he was ousted.
The fact that replacements for Ryan and several other U.S. attorneys were being looked at months before they were fired appears to contradict testimony from a former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that no such lists had been in the works.
The documents were among thousands of pages that the Justice Department released Friday to congressional committees looking into the dismissals in December of the eight U.S. attorneys, all originally appointed by President Bush. Gonzales, whose changing explanations of the firings have led top Democrats and some Republicans to call for his resignation, is scheduled to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue Tuesday.
RALEIGH, N.C. Apr 12, 2007 (AP)— The disgraced district attorney in the Duke lacrosse rape case apologized to the three athletes in a carefully worded statement Thursday as their lawyers weighed whether to sue him and some legal experts say they have a case.
While prosecutors generally have immunity for what they do inside the courtroom, experts said that protection probably doesn't cover some of Mike Nifong's more questionable actions in his handling of the case such as calling the lacrosse players "a bunch of hooligans" in one of several interviews deemed unethical by the state bar.
"I think their chances of success suing Mr. Nifong are reasonably good, despite what we call prosecutorial immunity," said John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.
It's not for the pay that he's defending the alleged mastermind of the Madrid train blasts.By Tracy Wilkinson, Times Staff Writer
April 11, 2007
MADRID — It is Friday night, the end of another week defending the most hated man in Spain, and attorney Endika Zulueta is slumped behind his desk.
Friends visit. Music floats from a stereo. A bottle of honeyed rum from the Canary Islands slowly empties.
The decision to defend a man accused of mass murder did not come easily. It weighs on Zulueta, in his rare still moments, when he agonizes over whether he can mount a convincing defense in Europe's largest terrorism trial, and whether anyone will listen.
Two other attorneys appointed by the court to represent Egyptian national Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed quit. In a flood of reluctance and exhilaration, Zulueta agreed to take on the case, without pay, even though it may send him to the poorhouse and has earned him bad press and insults.
His client is accused of orchestrating the March 11, 2004, bombings of commuter trains in Madrid that killed nearly 200 people and wounded about 2,000 others, a tragedy that was to Spain what Sept. 11 is to the United States.
After a bad bout with Lyme disease that left him mentally impaired, John Rhody gave up his law practice and looked forward to passing his days with a favorite hobby -- old postcards.
But he made no mention of this leisure pursuit when he applied for long-term disability insurance benefits and was asked to list his daily activities.
That omission drew him a criminal conviction, followed by ethics charges, and the New Jersey Supreme Court's Disciplinary Review Board voted on April 4 to reprimand him.
All this because Rhody is not your average collector. He spent a good deal of time buying and selling old postcards on eBay, at flea markets and at trade shows, and his estranged wife -- with whom he was locked in a divorce battle -- wanted her cut of the profits.
Details here from the New Jersey Law Journal via Law.com.
Florida litigator Willie Gary has upped the stakes in his post-trial sanctions case against Motorola, asking for as much as $93 million in attorney fees for the plaintiff lawyer team in a trade secret case that ended with a deadlocked jury. He is also seeking a $100 million sanction against the electronics giant for violating a court order sequestering witnesses and allegedly hampering the plaintiff's chances in a new trial. Gary proposed an hourly fee for himself of $11,000 for 2,200 hours of work.
Details here from the Daily Business Review via Law.com.
OKLAHOMA CITY (CN) – A legal assistant at the firm Hayes, Magrini and Gatewood claims John Hayes yelled at her, belittled her, pushed her around and made her cry. Holli Gould has sued Hayes for assault and battery in Federal Court, claiming he used to approach her from behind as she was working at her desk, wearing headphones for dictation, and “frogged” her on the arm to get her attention. She says his attacks scared and physically hurt her to the point of tears. He once impatiently told her to “get out of his way” so he could find an envelope, pushing her so that she nearly toppled over in her heels, she claims. When she later asked him not to swear at her, he replied, “You listen here – I’m the boss. I will behave however I like,” the complaint states. On another occasion, she says Hayes angrily grabbed her arm, stuck his face within an inch of hers and hissed, “Goddammit, when I ask you a question, you don’t sit there for a goddamn 15 seconds before answering me, do you hear me?” Gould claims Hayes has a reputation for abusing his staff. And when she approached his senior partners for advice, they allegedly told her to “just smoke a joint before work” and “picture John Hayes in a dress.” She is represented by Rand Eddy. See complaint.
That sounds like reasonable advice to me . . . . Details from Courthouse News Service which, unfortunately, does not provide targeted links to its individual stories.
(CBS) PASADENA, Calif. A lawyer with a reportedly checkered past was arrested at his Pasadena home on murder charges, facing allegations he got high on methamphetamine and crashed his vehicle into a Kern County Sheriff's vehicle, killing a deputy.
Daniel Patrick Willsley, 46, remains in a Bakersfield jail in lieu of $175,000 bail in connection with a Nov. 14 crash on State Route 178 in the winding Kern River Canyon, according to media reports.
Willsley was arrested at the scene and released several days later. He had methamphetamine in his system and a sawed-off shotgun in his car. Investigators said they needed more time to make a case. . . .
[W]illsley, whose practice was at 301 N. Lake Ave. in Pasadena, was admitted to the bar 1989 and was privately disciplined in 1998. He was placed on probation the following year, according to media reports. In 2000, he failed a professional responsibility exam and his license was suspended.
Details here from cbs2.com.
Unfortunately, the article quoted above includes several inaccuracies. For example, the lawyer's name is Daniel Patrick Willsey -- not Willsley. And his status with the State Bar is currently "active," so he is fully authorized to practice law in California, and has been since January 2001. Mr. Willsey is a graduate of UC Irvine and Pepperdine University School of Law.
He sides with makers of MC5 documentary
In the chaotic world that has become the business of the MC5, at least one big mess just got cleaned up. A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled in favor of the producers of the documentary "MC5: A True Testimonial" in a lawsuit over the use of the classic Detroit band's songs.
MC5 guitarist Wayne Kramer sued the Chicago film studio Future/Now Productions in 2005, claiming the documentary violated his copyrights by featuring material that was not authorized for use. He sought $75,000 in damages and profits from the film.
The March 31 ruling clears one obstacle for a release of "True Testimonial," about the rise and fall of the celebrated '60s band. The film, in which Kramer prominently appears, garnered glowing reviews during its limited run on the festival circuit in 2003 and 2004.
Kramer's song publisher, Warner-Chappell, authorized the use of the MC5's songs for the festival tour and a Detroit screening in 2004. But later it declined to license the material for the film's general release.
Kramer sued after the documentary was shown in a handful of theaters and clips were included in an educational DVD for aspiring filmmakers.
In a case that drove home the complexities of song licensing -- and the often emotionally charged world of rock 'n' roll -- U.S. district judge Andrew Guilford ruled that the film's producers did not violate Kramer's copyright or breach his contract.
(AP) LOUISVILLE, Ky. Like scores of inmates in other states, Marco Allen Chapman wants to go ahead with his execution after admitting he brutally killed two children and left their sister and mother for dead.
What makes Chapman's case groundbreaking, lawyers say, is his decision to waive trial and sentencing by a jury, and then nearly beg to be sentenced to death. Professors who teach criminal law have found Chapman's case -- and its potential implications for future defendants -- disturbing.
His own lawyers say Chapman is trying to use the legal system to commit "suicide by court."
On Thursday, the Kentucky Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the legality of Chapman's request, part of the automatic appeals process in all death penalty cases.
The case has the unusual twist of putting prosecutors and Chapman on the same side arguing for the death sentence while Chapman's court-appointed defense attorneys seek to stop the lethal injection.
"This is a defense lawyer's worst nightmare," said Michael Mello, a University of Vermont law professor and former lawyer for death row inmates in Florida.
By some measures, Bingham McCutchen's Los Angeles office is in trouble.
Less than four years after Bingham swallowed 60-lawyer Riordan & McKinzie, more than half of those lawyers have left, and overall headcount is down from 120 to just over 100. One recruiter refers to the office as "a headless horseman," another says it's "bleeding lawyers." And on American Lawyer magazine's most recent associate satisfaction survey, Bingham ranked dead last among L.A. law offices surveyed.
But appearances, firm leaders argue, can be deceiving. The firm's road-tested acquisition strategy -- seven mergers since 1997 -- means it scoops up lots of lawyers who don't want to be at Bingham (and the feeling is sometimes mutual). So there's some fallout. "Not all attrition is bad attrition," says firm Chairman Jay Zimmerman.
Still, there's a downside to all that rightsizing. Departures and disgruntled associates can fuel negative perceptions about a firm, an especially relevant detail as Bingham continues merger talks with litigation shop Alschuler Grossman.
"What's really important is what the next firm thinks," offered consultant Peter Zeughauser of the Newport Beach-based Zeughauser Group.
Anyone care to comment about this? Details here from The Recorder via Law.com.
SYLVANIA, Ala. -- A woman who went for a horseback ride through town at midnight and allegedly used the horse to ram a police car was charged with driving under the influence and drug offenses, police said Tuesday.
"Cars were passing by having to avoid it, and almost hitting the horse," said Police Chief Brad Gregg.
He said DUI charges can apply even when the vehicle has four legs instead of wheels.
Police in the northeast Alabama town received a call around midnight Saturday about someone riding a horse on a city street, Gregg said.
Officer John Seals found Melissa Byrum York, 40, of Henagar on horseback on a nearby road and attempted to stop her. Seals asked the woman repeatedly to get off the horse, but she kept trying to kick the animal to make it run, the chief said.
"She wouldn't stop. She kept riding the horse and going on," Gregg said.
After ramming the police car with the horse and riding away, the woman tried to jump off but caught her foot in a stirrup, Gregg said. The officer took the woman into custody and discovered that she had crystal methamphetamine, a small amount of marijuana, pills and a small pipe, the chief said.
York was charged with DUI for allegedly riding the horse under the influence of a controlled substance. She was also charged with drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, assault, attempting to elude police and cruelty to animals.
Duty, breach, causation and injury: These are the traditional elements of a tort claim. Thus, under customary theories, a tort is inchoate unless and until the plaintiff suffers actual injury. Faced with that quandary, plaintiffs have resorted to novel claims and theories. Chadbourne & Parke's Thomas Riley and Gina Ilardi describe recent decisions in cases involving claims for medical monitoring by courts in Mississippi, New Jersey and Oregon to illustrate different approaches to these claims.
Details here from Thomas E. Riley and Gina Ilardi, special to Law.com.
I've been reading this book: Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles by Geoff Emerick. I can't put it down.
Emerick was 15 years old when he was hired by EMI studios in London as a sort of apprentice recording engineer. He fortuitously witnessed the Beatles' first ever recording session, and then worked on almost everything the Beatles did thereafter, including being chief engineer on The Revolver and Sgt. Pepper.
By TINA BAY, Staff Writer
The State Bar’s Attorney Civility Task Force should not issue its proposed “standards of civility and professionalism” at all, a spokesperson for a Los Angeles County Bar Association committee told the task force yesterday.
Speaking on behalf of LACBA’s Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee at a public hearing yesterday in downtown Los Angeles, local malpractice defense attorney JoAnne Earls Robbins said the standards “will be inevitably be considered standards that will lead to disciplinary sanctions.”
Robbins, a former State Bar Court hearing judge and State Bar prosecutor, explained that the “should” language used in the standards—for example, “A lawyer should not engage in offensive conduct or otherwise disparage the intelligence, integrity, ethics, morals or behavior of other counsel…”—would be confusing to the average practitioner.
