Posts on ‘March 10th, 2009’

A court-appointed receiver tapped by a Utah federal judge to recover money for investors victimized by an alleged Ponzi scheme operator sued Fulbright & Jaworski and Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker to get back money the alleged Ponzi perpetrator paid the law firms to defend him. According to the March 5 complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the firms represented Val E. Southwick and his company, VesCor, in criminal and other litigation stemming from Southwick’s Ponzi scheme.

A New Jersey Superior Court judge has been charged with violating ethics rules and the judiciary’s Internet policy by sending romantic e-mails to a former law clerk and trying to get her a job with the Public Defender’s Office. In a complaint made public March 6, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct alleges Lawrence DeBello kept sending intimate e-mails even after his assignment judge confronted him about them in December 2007.

At a gathering in a 27th floor conference room in McCarter & English’s midtown Manhattan offices on Monday, a group of lawyers leading a global alliance of law firms representing clients caught up in the Bernard Madoff scandal called for the establishment of an International Financial Court. The group is led by McCarter & English international practice group chair Gaytri Kachroo, counsel to chief Madoff whistleblower Harry Markopolos, and Javier Cremades of Madrid’s Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo.

Six weeks shy of his 89th birthday, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is not winding down. Gearing up might be a better term. Last week, he announced the top business decision of the term and dominated an oral argument on judicial ethics. And the week before that, he made news when he told a public forum the next justice should be sworn in at the Court to symbolize judicial independence. It all contributed to the sense that in spite of his age, Stevens is far from done with his 33-plus-year tenure.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that the state’s work-product doctrine, but not its attorney-client privilege doctrine, allows Comcast to shield litigation-related memoranda between a company in-house attorney and outside accountants. The court said it embraced the “reasoning and the conclusion” of the so-called “because of” test, which applies the attorney work-product protection to documents prepared “‘because of’ existing or expected litigation.”

As social networking Web sites become more than just a virtual place for the global community to link to friends, they test our social, legal and personal boundaries, says attorney Harry A. Valetk. Last month, when it faced a virtual revolt after changing its terms of use, Facebook discovered that social network democracy has officially arrived — one that places user expectations before corporate legalities. Web users have unparalleled power to reach top management at online companies — and be heard.

As manager of law department operations for Aon Corp., David Cambria spends time and energy — possibly too much — translating “techie” for his firm’s attorneys who are, effectively, his clients. Here’s what Cambria hates about technology, in terms any lawyer should understand.

Consultant Joey Asher writes that he can’t remember a time when it has been more important for attorneys to know how to sell themselves in job interviews, and he has some advice for those attorneys finding themselves without work: Don’t just polish off the resume and start the grind of interviewing. Use the opportunity to work on honing your communication and selling skills. Nothing will make you more successful at winning jobs and, just as important, succeeding at the job once you’re hired, Asher says.

Although San Francisco’s universal health care law officially survived the 9th Circuit on Monday, business interests hope the Supreme Court will step in. The circuit denied en banc review to the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which had challenged the ordinance after local government approved it in 2006. But eight judges sharply critiqued the majority’s decision, saying it contradicts a 4th Circuit ruling in a similar case and flouts Congress’ 35-year-old Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Supreme Court issued four decisions Monday morning, resolving disputes over voting rights, speedy trial rules, expert witness fees and arbitration. In the voting rights case, which is likely to stir some controversy, a splintered 5-4 majority of the Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not require state legislatures to create so-called “crossover” voting districts, which count on white voters joining with black voters to form a majority that would elect a minority candidate.