Assault Charges Listing Multiple Acts Connected By And/Or Language Held Defective

In People v Bauman (2009 NY Slip Op 02265, 3/26/09) the Court of Appeals held that an indictment charging depraved indifference assault under Penal Law § 120.10 (3) which alleged eleven acts over an eight month period under one count violated Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 200.30 (1) because it was duplicitous.

The indictment charged two defendants with one count of intentional assault [*2]under Penal Law § 120.10 (1) (the first count) for allegedly causing injury to victim by means of "a baseball bat[,] and/or a frying pan[,] and/or a vacuum cleaner[,] and/or a hammer[,]" and one count of depraved indifference assault under Penal Law § 120.10 (3) (the second count) for allegedly "striking [victim] about the head and body with fists and/or a baseball bat and/or a hammer; and/or burning said person with a frying pan; and/or scalding said person with hot water; and/or placing a vacuum cleaner hose on said person's genital area; and/or providing inappropriate and/or inadequate nutrition; and/or subjecting said person to inadequate and/or inappropriate living conditions; and/or failing to seek medical attention" during a period from August 1, 2004 to April 7, 2005.

The Court held that the depraved indifference assault charge

was pleaded in a manner which made it duplicitous. This count, alleging eleven incidents over an eight month period, encompassed "such a multiplicity of acts ... as to make it virtually impossible to determine the particular act of [assault] ... as to which [a] jury [could] reach a unanimous verdict" (id. at 421). The first count is similarly defective. Were these counts to stand as pleaded, "individual jurors might vote to convict ... defendant[s] of [each] count on the basis of different offenses" and "defendant[s] would thus stand convicted under [each] count even though the jury may never have reached a unanimous verdict as to any of the offenses" (id. at 418).

The Court explained that depraved indifference assault can be a continuing crime and that the element of depravity can be alleged by establishing that defendant engaged in a course of conduct over a period of time. However, the People's use of the conjunction "and/or" between each act means that "a jury could just as easily find that defendants committed only one of the alleged acts; not only would a single act not be sufficient to establish a course of conduct but we still would not know on which particular act defendant was convicted."

The decision does not state how such conduct should be described in an indictment,

DC Contract Attorney Blogger Retires

"The Great Law School and Law Firm Scam



Disregard Anything Positive I’ve Ever Said About Contract Attorney Work - I’ve Finally Come To My Senses



It has been over a year since I posted here and much has happened. For one thing, I’m no longer a contract attorney. In fact, I’m not even practicing law anymore, although I’ve held onto my two existing bar memberships, paying the annual dues for old times sake - perhaps just so I can continue to call myself a lawyer (for whatever it’s worth).



Since then, I’ve moved onto other lines of work - most notably I’ve started several online businesses - and have found the Internet to be quite a treasure trove of money making opportunities. It hasn’t been easy, but I’ve managed to do quite well online.



For my fellow contract attorneys and tempers still working the salt mines of click-click land, my advice is to get out while you still can. Times are bleak, pay is low, and working hours are getting shorter by the minute - but the legal working situation for temp attorneys is also not going to get any better anytime soon. Contract attorney work is not only a dead end job career wise - but it’ll suck out your soul, pummel your pride, and leave you financially depleted years from now. If you can, try to strike it out on your own as a full fledge attorney. I know it’s incredibly difficult to compete in a market that’s super saturated and getting worse every day, but you must try - for sanity sake. I continue to curse the law school system to this day and continuously pray for numerous plagues to afflict the overrated law firms that choke our social system - but at some point, it’s time to move on to greener (or in my case, less-brownish) pastures.



And read Tom The Temp’s blog regularly - he’s a morbid dose of social pessimism and legal comedy for contract attorneys all rolled into one. He’ll bring you down and pick you up at the same time. Misery always loves company and there’s plenty of misery to go around."





Thank you for that. We all wish you the best in your new endeavors.



http://www.myattorneyblog.com/the-great-law-school-and-law-firm-scam/

Age Discrimination At EP Slime

Contract Attorney - Document Review (NYC)
Reply to: see below
Date: 2009-03-25, 6:38PM EDT

Governmental agency seeks Contract Attorney's for a document review starting ASAP.

Must have privilege log and concordance experience. Must be admitted in NY and in Good Standing. Graduation years between 2003-2006.

Please ONLY respond if you have ALL of the above experience.

The rate is $35 per hour.

The position begins ASAP so please send your resume to awitting@thedinegroup.com and refer in the subject line to the "Document Review" position.

We NEVER forward your resume anywhere without first obtaining your express, specific authorization.

* Location: NYC
* Compensation: $35
* Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
* Please, no phone calls about this job!
* Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

Barasso/Deloitte

Looks like Barasso/Deloitte, the most infamous NJ sweatshop, is hiring again. Only now they are demanding 3-5 years of pharmaceutical drafting experience for the $29 an hour shitrate to churn docs in that miserable boiler room in Westfield.

Coders beware- the agencies often advertise this shit-gig on craigslist as Cranford NJ or Union NJ in a classic "bait and switch" since good old Barasso has such a notoriously bad reputation. They run this gig just like a factory- you literally all have to shut your computers down at once for mandatory breaks (which are unpaid of course.) No health or dental either and 1160 a week gross- a single guy or gal will bring home about 800 a week on this gig. I can't resist pointing out that that's 8000 less a year than a fucking NYC garbage man.

Plus the garbage man gets full health benefits, paid vacation/sick leave, dental, and other perks. Anyone still defending the law as a "career" has to be mentally ill and/or clinically insane. Just think: 4 years of undergrad, the LSAT, the first-year stress of finals, the hours studying and memorizing shitlaw, the 100 K + in loans, the Barbri hazing, the exam itself, and 5 years in the trenches drafting pharma shitpaper to earn significantly less than a high-school dropout garbage man!

It's beyond sad

Threat of Higher Sentence If Trial Meant That Guilty Plea Was Coerced

In People v Flinn (2009 NY Slip Op 02031 [4th Dept 3/20/09]), a defendant contended that his guilty plea was coerced by County Court's statements concerning the potential terms of incarceration in the event that defendant was convicted following a trial. Defendant had failed to raise that contention in support of his motion to withdraw the plea. Nor did he move to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground. Despite this failure to preserve this issue, the Fourth Department reversed the conviction in the interests of justice. The Court explained

At the plea proceeding, the court stated that it would treat defendant "very differently as far as the sentence is concerned" if he exercised his right to a trial and that his sentence after trial would be "nothing like the sentence that [he] would get if [he] stood up and accepted [his] responsibility." The court further stated that defendant was "going to be sentenced [to] substantially longer than" the agreed-upon term of six years of imprisonment if he exercised his right to a trial. We agree with defendant that the court's statements do not amount to a description of the range of the potential sentences but, rather, they constitute impermissible coercion, "rendering the plea involuntary and requiring its vacatur" (People v Fanini, 222 AD2d 1111; see People v Stevens, 298 AD2d 267, 268, lv dismissed 99 NY2d 585; People v Wilson, 245 AD2d 161, 163, lv denied 91 NY2d 946).

Good work Gary Muldoon.

Error to Deny Request for Brief Continuance to Present Critical Witness

In People v Oberlander (2009 NY Slip Op 02020 [4th Dept 3/20/09]), the Fourth Department held that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request for a brief continuance to present a witness who, according to defendant, would present critical testimony which, if credited would have negated an element of the crime charged. The Court explained that "by denying the request by defendant for a continuance, the court not only deprived her of 'the fundamental right to present [a] witness[] in [her] defense, but . . . effectively deprive[d her] of the defense itself and cast doubt upon [her] credibility' (People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473, 478)."

Don't File A Crawford Motion Unless You Are Certain That There Are No Non-Friviolous Issues

In October I wrote about the risks of moving, pursuant to People v Crawford (71 AD2d 38) and Anders v California (386 US 738), to be relieved as assigned appellate attorney on the ground that the case presents no non-frivolous issues. One big risk that the Court will find that there are non-frivolous issues which counsel missed, which doesn’t make the attorney making the motion look very good. Those risks were realized in two decisions issued by the Fourth Department last week.

In People v Hunter 2009 NY Slip Op 02223 [4th Dept 3/20/09] the defendant was convicted upon a guilty plea of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), and was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of six years and a three-year period of postrelease supervision. Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $5287.38. Defendant's assigned appellate counsel moved to be relieved of the assignment pursuant to People v Crawford (71 AD2d 38), and submitted an affirmation in which he concluded that there were no nonfrivolous issues meriting the Court's consideration. The Court wasn’t convinced:

The record reveals that restitution was not part of the plea agreement. This fact raises the issue of whether County Court erred in ordering defendant to pay restitution without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see People v Ponder, 42 AD3d 880, lv denied 9 NY3d 925). Therefore, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief this issue, as well as any other issues that counsel's review of the record may disclose.

Similarly, in People v Pett 2009 NY Slip Op 02227 [4th Dept 3/20/09], in which the defendant's assigned appellate counsel moved to be relieved of the assignment pursuant to People v Crawford (71 AD2d 38), the Fourth Department noted that the record establishes that the trial court failed to advise the defendant of the postrelease supervision component of his sentence during the plea allocution. The Court held that

This fact raises the issue of whether defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541). Therefore, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief this issue, as well as any other issues that counsel's review of the record may disclose.

The message sent by the Court is clear. Do not file a Crawford motion unless it is clear that there is no issue that can be raised on appeal.

Challenging an Expansive Application of the Coconspirator's Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Ben Trachtenberg, a Visiting Assistant Professor at Brooklyn Law School, has written an article which both documents and criticizes the recent trend of federal prosecutors seeking to expand the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), which allows the admission against a defendant of statements made by a coconspirator in furtherance of their joint crime.

AUSAs have characterized the exception as a "joint venture exception," arguing that it covers statements made in furtherance of any joint venture, regardless of its legality or illegality. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit adopted this interpretation in United States v Gewin, 471 F.3d 197 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Professor Trachtenberg argues that such a reading of the coconspirators exception is mistaken and undesirable, both historically and as matter of law. His survey of thousands of cases on this issue, makes clear that a "conspiracy" under the co-conspirator's exception must involve wrongful acts. He argues that

First, courts and commentators have for centuries described the exception as concerning illegal or illicit conduct. Second, because the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence (and analogous state codes) intended to adopt the common law understanding of the Exception when codifying it in Rule 801(d)(2)(E), encroachment beyond the historical boundaries of the Exception violates existing rules of evidence. Third, and most important, such revisionism also violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which allows admission in criminal trials of evidence pursuant to hearsay exceptions "well established" at the time the Amendment was ratified but jealously restricts any broadening of those exceptions.

The cases and arguments contained in this article should be cited if faced with a prosecutor seeking or a court applying an overly broad, ahistorical, test for admitting statements under the coconspirators exception. Indeed, these arguments parallel those made adopted by the Court in Crawford v Washington (541 U.S. 36 [2004]).

I Apologize

That shithole is Covington & Burling, not Covington & Burlington. My bad.

Covington & Burlington Strikes Again

From the Posse List. I wonder what Yolanda Young's discrimination suit has to do with this. Could Covington be trying to fill up their staff attorney ghetto with white bread associates?



DC Antitrust Project



PLEASE NOTE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE NOT FLEXIBLE. PLEASE DO NOT APPLY UNLESS YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.



Start: Monday 3.23.09



Duration: 4-6 weeks



Hours: 50 hours a week are anticipated.



Location: Project will be located at Hudson Document Review center in the Metro Center area of Washington DC.



Firm: TBA



Rate: $33/hr plus OT



Required:



* Must be DC barred (not DC pending). DC bar must be active and in good standing at time of submission.



* MUST HAVE LAW FIRM EXPERIENCE AS AN ASSOCIATE.



* Significant substantive Antitrust experience STRONGLY preferred.



If interested, please send a resume in WORD format and a brief description of your qualifications in an email cover letter to DCLegalProject@hudson.com





http://gabesguide.com/?p=3167

AIG And The Biglaw Snakes

The map below, which shows institutions receiving the payments and other interested parties, illustrates the global reach of AIG’s problems. Several recipients of bailout money from AIG had already received direct bailout funds from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program. I am glad to see that several of our own favorite document review sweatshops are proud participants in the economic web of death.

No Work? Become a Solo

Hi Tom, it's Skadden Farts - here is my JD Underground post with my thoughts on "going solo." Feel free to re-post on your site under my name "Skadden Farts"

Here's a nice intro for the new guest post that I wrote:


Remember in the "glory days" of doc review how many coders harbored the starry-eyed pipedream of one day "going solo?" Hell, some even passed out business cards on the projects for their little shitlaw "side practices", most of which were nothing more than a stack of flimsy Vista-Print business cards and a mail-drop address. In the restrooms and hallways of Biglaw, many a coder's cell phone hummed with $750 real-estate closings and other sad, bottom-feeding crap, hoping to supplement the pathetic $35 an hour shitrate with some real "lawyering" on the side. With doc review now all but gone, many may now attempt "the plunge" into solo practice full-time. It's understandable. For most former NYC coders the options are few and far between: boiler room craigslist "firms" paying south of 40 K, moving to Cleveland for $20 an hour, or simply committing suicide. One can't really blame these poor souls for the harboring the delusion of self-employment. But.....

Fact is, with 100 K+ of student loan debt, the typical "shingle hanger" will be hung out to dry.

Skadden Farts aka Law is 4 Losers

Going "solo, eh? Have your checked your local Yellow Pages lately? Just count the number of attorneys begging for rinky-dink auto accident, DWI, and divorce/wills/ general shitlaw crap. Then tack on even more lawyers who don't (or can't afford to) advertise in the yellow pages. Then, for areas like personal injury, count the number of television commercials on daytime TV from the "national" feeder/referral PI firms like Jacoby and Meyers et al.

See what I'm getting at? The saturation level is staggering; really beyond comprehension. Scratching out a living in solo shitlaw is like selling saltwater on a lifeboat: people are already surrounded (literally drowning in)an endless supply of a totally worthless commodity: SHITLAW LAWYERS!

Come on, how many DWI's are there in a given suburban county/town? Read the local paper's police blotter. In a whole week maybe 15-20 (a few more on holiday weekends like 4th of July etc).

How many of the 15 or 20 DWI victims have even $2500 to pay a lawyer (and that's the low end of the scale for DWI)? Many are unemployed for Christ's sake and that's why they're drinking! Any of the higher-class types probably already know a lawyer from their peer group or will Google something like "NJ DWI LAW" and get the "mills" that can spend enough for a high Google bump. With 150 K in debt from a shitlaw school and no experience to practice law anyway, why the fuck is anyone going to retain you in the first place? Even shitlaw areas are somewhat complicated and involve at least 98,357 pages of tedious hypertechnical make-work paper churning and hours of sitting in shit-court at 10 pm waiting to argue with a nasty part-time troll "judge" who himself is a nasty, balding loser and lords his Napoleon complex over the pathetic night-court riff raff to inflate his own sorry ego. "Your honor" my ass. That robe means as much as a kid's Halloween costume.

Same way with small-time criminal work. If a guy had $2500 to pay a defense lawyer, would he be robbing a 7/11 or prying someone's window open at 2 am to steal a DVD player he can pawn for $20 to score a bag of crack?

"Family" law? Pray tell! For every hedge-fund divorce there are tons of trailer-trash people who reek of kerosene and haven't a pot to piss in or window to throw it out of, much less money to pay a lawyer a retainer + hourly rate. Half these losers will just use legal aid or a form company like "We the People" and toast their newly-found freedom from Bubba the wife beater with a can of Keystone Light and some crystal meth. They didn't and won't need a worthless shitlaw "lawyer" to help with custody of their obnoxious maladjusted satan-children who will probably grow up and score a 136 on the LSAT and attend Cooley's night program, bringing "prestige" to their family when they earn $13 an hour on a doc review in Newark NJ in 2018!

Wills and estates? Ever heard of Legalzoom? They have the same shitlaw templates from your CLE books for ordinary (non-millionaire) folks to print out and take to a notary for $50. And at the rate of this meltdown no one's going to have much to leave anyone anyway. High-end estate & trust clients are all referred to their lawyer by an investment adviser. Any investment guy worth his salt already has a 92 year old gray-beard expert estate lawyer that he feeds all the referrals to. Good luck breaking into this niche area. Stockbrokers aren't sending their rich clients to a newly minted shitlawyer who doesn't understand the nuances of IRS Sub-Code 45-B(II)V with regard to bilateral spousal exemptions under revised footnote 567(b)9 of the 2005 semi-annual quantum stimulus updates.

And even doing a proletarian's shit-will you still have to meet the losers and make nice for an hour, then hire a moron to type up the needed shitpaper (or waste an hour cutting and pasting it yourself), then have 'em come back AGAIN and explain idiotic legalese shit like "per stirpes" and then find witnesses, etc while also pretending you actually did something worth paying for. A huge headache and hassle to make $200 or whatever shitlaw wills go for in your town.

Or you could try the nightmarish (and all but totally dead now) field of residential real estate closings. Have fun filling out 75,357 pages HUD-1 forms and other pointless God-awful dreck, balancing trust accounts, cutting 18,253 different checks, dealing with scumbag title agencies, and having people bicker for hours over a $15 broken light switch at 1 am the night before closing. All so you can get a FLAT FEE of $750 for 73 hours of grunt work while a bimbo realtor w/ a GED and big tits walks away w/ a 5 grand commission and laughs in your face.

See kids, you can't charge more than "market rate" in your area for shitlaw. People do price shop (esp. in real estate closings- these people often use a lawyer referred by the realtor who wants someone cheap so that the deal goes thru). No realtor is going to recommend an expensive shitlaw closing lawyer because any $$$ to the lawyer is more chance the deal might break apart. Even very good real estate lawyers admit the practice area is decimated. Lawyers in the 1970s and 1980s used to get a percentage of the sale price as a fee for a typical closing. Now the rate is $750 flat no matter how long it takes. That's law. You make practice more and more miserable and complicated, while simultaneously reducing lawyer pay to sub-poverty levels. Layers and layers of added shitpaper for a smaller pile of dough. Welcome to Law 2009! In inflation-adjusted dollars (hell, even in "raw" dollars) most shitlaw lawyers are doing exponentially worse than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago were. This trend cannot improve and indeed will get worse as the ABA accredits more schools and shameless liars like Pat Hobbs fill diploma mills like Seton Hall to the rafters with over-leveraged liberal arts losers.

Personal injury was for years the main revenue source for most "shitlaw" lawyers. A "wild card" of sorts. Those days are gone. Time was, every shitlaw lawyers could count on at least an auto case or two a month. Back then (1920 to about 2001)soft tissue auto cases used to settle pre-suit for 15-20 K. Now they settle for ZERO thanks to tough "threshold" laws. And even decent cases (like broken bones and surgeries)are harder and harder to get money on quickly, because insurance companies have lost billions in bad investments and tightened the screws on pay-outs across the board. Insurance defense "lawyers" are so cheap thanks to the oversupply that its easy to fight off the plaintiffs until they give up. And many have given up.


Check craigslist in your area under "Legal Services" and you'll see scores of lawyers "outbidding" each other to do the cheapest DWI or traffic ticket or real estate closing or whatever. Its a fact of life.

As the economy continues its meltdown, less and less "ordinary folks" will have the dough to pay even cheap lawyers.

Fact is, almost no newbie solo will be able to generate the volume of business needed to sustain a living. The numbers just don't work. Deduct paying your own health insurance (300+ a month), office rent, self-employment tax, malpractice insurance, etc. You have to get a relatively steady flow of PAYING clients just to break even, much less profit.


There is no way any rational person can "spin" a TTT law degree into a good investment, or any kind of investment period. It is a costly & worthless albatross that will be worth less tomorrow than today as the morbid oversupply of lawyers continues unabated and, sadly, accelerates. There is no way from here but down.

Document Review To $17 An Hour

Let us thank the American Bar Association for giving the green light late last year to allow the corporations and corrupt TARP receiving banking institutions to ship our jobs overseas. Mumbai wages have arrived in NYC.



"Document Review Attorneys (Midtown)

Reply to: job-zxpfg-1073986135@craigslist.org

Date: 2009-03-13, 8:39PM EDT



Midtown V100 law firm seeking admitted Document Review Attorneys for a 1-2 month project scheduled to begin March 23rd. Must have previous large scale discovery experience. Experience with Concordance a plus. $17 an hour. No OT expected at this time, but that may change as the project progresses.



Must be admitted and in good standing in at least one state.



* Compensation: $17 an hour

* This is a contract job.

* Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.

* Please, no phone calls about this job!

* Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests."



http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/lgl/1073986135.html

Ghost Town

"Tom,

There are agencies that have overextended themselves in the boom years and are stuck with idle equipment and empty prime leased out document review space. Any guess as to which of the agencies are going to go under?"

Washington Post - "Recession Sends Lawyers Home"

"Unlike previous recessions, during which lawsuit filings increased, litigation this time is down sharply because the credit crunch is forcing corporations to curtail their legal spending, experts said.



Law firms spend as much as $40 billion a year on document review, experts said.



Over the past six months, the work more and more has been outsourced to lawyers in such faraway places as India. Since 2006, the number of lawyers working at offshore firms doubled to 2,000, said Ron Friedmann, senior vice president for marketing at Arlington-based outsourcing company Integreon.



Five years ago, the companies mainly digitized legal documents for law firms. Now corporate legal departments are hiring the companies to save on spending by their outside firms. And the companies' staff lawyers are being called upon to review the documents, work previously done by the firms' associates and paralegals.



'We have 300 people in India. We've added 50 people' in recent months, said Michael J. Dolan, chief executive of the Tusker Group in Austin. Dolan said his lawyers charge $25 an hour, compared with $150 to $300 an hour billed by paralegals and associates doing the same work at law firms. 'We're in the process of adding another 30 people.'"



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801549_pf.html

Eli Gottesdiener - Hideous Lawyer of the Week

Putting job candidates though the following nonsense in this economy when people are fighting to merely put food on the table is certainly an assholic thing to do.

"Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, a plaintiffs’-side ERISA class action firm, is looking for a senior litigation paralegal with extensive electronic discovery document review and processing experience or a law clerk with a J.D. to do same together with higher-order fact research and analysis. We are only interested in receiving applications from candidates who meet our criteria, which include an ability to follow the instructions in this ad for applying.

Minimum Requirements

• If applying for the senior paralegal position, you must have 5 years of large law firm experience and at least 3 years direct, hands-on electronic discovery document review and processing experience. If applying for the J.D. position, you must be able to teach yourself the legal and practical ins-and-outs of ediscovery under the Federal Rules. In either case, you must be able to work a minimum of M-F from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and some weekend and evening hours as needed. • You must be good with numbers, fast and efficient with Excel and all kinds of computer software, and be able to organize and make sense of large volumes of data. • You must have a can-do spirit and understand the value of the opportunity to work on the front lines of sophisticated federal civil class action litigation.

A Successful Application Will Consist of (and Only of):

1. A three-paragraph “cover letter” that is pasted into your email reply. The first paragraph should state your reason for applying, with specific reference to your suitability for our firm (including the requirement that you be good with numbers, fast and efficient with Excel and all kinds of computer software, and able to organize and make sense of large volumes of data). In this paragraph, we expect not empty cookie-cutter statements about your “strong interpersonal and communication skills”, “multitasking ability” “commitment to excellence”, etc. but concrete facts that show you are different from the pack and can immediately contribute to our operations. In the second paragraph, please indicate (1) your current position (Confidentiality assured), (2) salary/benefits package and (3) your earliest start date. The third paragraph will explain your transition from one job/educational pursuit to the next, concluding with your current situation. If you are currently without a position, you should explain what you have been doing since your last position.

2. A resume that is succinct, clear and no more than one page that is pasted into your email reply below your “cover letter”.

3. A separate list of references that is pasted into your email reply below your cover letter and your resume. You should not list academic or other references: only work-related references. You should provide a one sentence statement explaining your relationship to the reference and the period of time you worked for the reference. If you cannot provide a reference from your current position, explain why not. (No references will be contacted without your permission, so confidentiality is not a sufficient reason for not providing a current reference).

4. The subject line of reply email must contain only the following: the last name of the judge who agreed with us that PricewaterhouseCooper LLP's definition of normal retirement "age" as the date on which an employee completes 5 years of work for the Firm regardless of age, is invalid."

Cutting Corners On Electronic Discovery Can Be Disastrous

"Rhoads was the first case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to apply the newly enacted Federal Rule of Evidence 502 to inadvertent disclosures of privileged electronic communications. As such, the court signifies that although an IT consultant and Publish Postware program are crucial to adhering to Rule 502, it is not enough to rely upon technology. It is the lawyer's responsibility to check for privileged documents.



Similarly, as the court made clear in its opinion, skimping on costs is like cutting corners: a mistake. Discovery in a complex case is simply not the time for a client to be frugal. Indeed, legal time and fees spent in avoiding mountains of motions and discovery disputes are worth the investment.



Along the same lines, experienced lawyers must dedicate an appropriate amount of time teaching inexperienced lawyers the nuances of electronic document review. The stakes are too high and the potential consequences too grave to not do so. Much like the BlackBerry has changed the face of communication, so too has e-discovery changed the face of litigation."



http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202428760093

No Work In NYC? The Russian Mafia Is Hiring

As the ABA opens the floodgates to the outsourcing of a major chunk of legitimate entry-level legal work, expect to see a lot more fraud and corruption as starving newbie lawyers try to feed themselves in this dying, cannibalistic profession.

"Back to my original point, how the fuck do you think rinky-dink solos and tiny firms pick up enough cases to scrape by? They use 'runners.' A runner might be a low-level hospital orderly or a homeless-looking guy who loiters around the ER waiting area (in NYC the ER is the 'primary care physician' for most poor people).

They chat up injured people and pass them the lawyer's card, telling them that if they call the number they will get $50 cash that afternoon and much more when the case settles. This is how the typical joe shmoe loser gets cases in today's PI. The runner gets paid in cash by the lawyer for the number of cases he brings in, as well as the quality (value) of the cases.

The few injury 'victims' who escape this ER gauntlet (there are often half a dozen runners working each ER in each hospital) are referred to the firm via scores of sleazy medical mills in the outer boroughs that are affiliated with No-Fault auto benefits fraud. The 'plaintiffs' are paid cash by the medical mills to stage phony accidents. The accident 'victims' call 911 and get a police report, then they 'treat' for months at these bogus clinics, which is kosher under the bizarro world of NY No Fault. Sheer volume makes it almost impossible to track down the vast number of plaintiffs (most of whom are Hispanic and have 18 different names). The accident stagers of course get paid in cash by the medical mills.

The sham clinics then submit bills for this sham "treatment" (plus bills for medical equipment like canes and neck braces etc) that are never even provided. Clinics (often run by russian mobsters) often make millions in only months, then when the heat turns up they split and re-appear elsewhere like smoke w/in months.

Then the medical mill 'sells' the plaintiff to a dirt-bag PI firm for a portion of the eventual legal fee (kickback). It's a huge moneymaker for fake medical clinics- they screw no-fault out of medical treatment money, then get kickbacks from the lawyers for the plaintiff's lawsuit.

That is your primer on NYC personal injury law. Thus, do not delude yourself into thinking you'll 'bring in cases.' The 'firms' know damn well you ain't brining in shit. They are looking for slave labor and use this carrot as a way to justify the ultra-low salaries offered (like 35 K!)

Turnover at these shithole firms occurs on a weekly, even hourly, basis once the newbies realize how this game works and the odds of success.

If you want to put your license on the line and commit outright fraud, there is plenty of money out there to be made."

-JDUnderground

Standard of Proof in Family Offense Proceeding When Court Commits an Individual to a Jail Term Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

In Matter of Rubackin v Rubackin, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2009 WL 486027 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division, Second Department concluded that the standard of proof which must be met when the court commits an individual to a jail term is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she willfully failed to obey a lawful order of the court. That same high standard is not applicable if one or more of the other available remedies under Family Court Act 846-a is utilized and a jail term is not imposed. The failure to obey a lawful order of a court is a species of contempt. A contempt of court ultimately may constitute a criminal contempt, a civil contempt, or both a criminal and a civil contempt. A period of incarceration may be imposed upon a finding of either a criminal or civil contempt. It noted that in Dalessio v. Kressler (6 AD3d 57), the distinction between civil and criminal contempt was discussed: "Civil contempt (see Judiciary Law 753) 'has as its aim the vindication of a private party to litigation' and includes as its elements knowledge of the order and prejudice to the rights of a party to the litigation [citations omitted] ... The purpose of criminal contempt (see Judiciary Law 750) is to vindicate the authority of the court [citations omitted]. No showing of prejudice to the
rights of a party to the litigation is needed 'since the right of the private parties to the litigation is not the controlling factor' [citations omitted]. An essential element of criminal contempt is willful disobedience (see Judiciary Law s 750[3] )" (Dalessio v. Kressler, 6 AD3d at 65-66). It noted that its holding changed the standard of proof previously found to be applicable under Family Court Act 846-a by it and by other departments of the Appellate Division. The Second Department held that when an individual is incarcerated as a punitive remedy for violating an order of protection issued under Family Court Act article 8, the imprisonment is for a definite term and the proceeding is one involving criminal contempt. The standard of proof that must be met to establish that the individual willfully violated the court's order is beyond a reasonable doubt. That higher standard, as opposed to the clear and convincing standard, is the requisite standard. The prior decisions of the Court, in cases where the respondent had been committed to a term in jail pursuant to Family Court Act 846-a, holding that the standard of proof is one of the lesser standards, should no longer be followed. A commitment to jail for a term not to exceed six months is only one of the five alternative, or cumulative, remedies the Family Court may impose pursuant to Family Court Act 846-a when it is satisfied that a party has willfully failed to obey the court's order or orders. When an order committing a respondent to a jail term is issued, either alone or in combination with another remedy, the commitment is punitive, to punish the individual for his or her disobedience, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. As a petition alleging that a respondent has failed to obey a lawful order of the court may result in a finding of criminal contempt, civil contempt, or both criminal and civil contempt, the parties should be informed of the potential findings and the applicable standards of proof.

Professional Temporary Staffing Industry Frozen Solid

January and February numbers were dismal.



"Demand continued to fall for professional services, such as business consultants, accountants and legal services. The Boston region reported 'dismal' business for temporary staffing firms. A New York company noted that activity by a major employment agency 'virtually ground to a halt.'"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_economy

Panic At The Law School Placement Office

Tom,

With the recent sanctioning of outsourcing by the ABA and the virtual collapse of the entire document review attorney job market, I thought you would find the following letter which was recently posted on JDUnderground interesting.

"Things really must be bad for Brooklyn Law School students because I got a special letter from Joan King begging for alumni to provide job listings. I don't want to retype the entire letter, but here are some excerpts:

'At Brooklyn Law School, we are very fortunate to have such loyal alumni.' (um, is she talking about Sharianna?)

'...the Career Center is working as creatively and energetically as possible...' (i.e. we are finding new ways to cook the books.)

'Project-based/contract listings are always welcome.' (in order to create the illusion of employed BLS grads.)

'We take great pride in making the best matches between employers and students...' (BLS to bottom 90% of class: We have your tuition, now drop dead.)

'Many of you are engaged in alternative or quasi-legal practice' (e.g., ditch digging, toilet cleaning.)

'Needless to say, some of you are experiencing your own job search issues' (i.e. we admit that BLS degree is detrimental to your career.)"

Did any other BLS grads receive this letter? Thoughts and comments?

The ABA's decision to sanction offshore doc review has come back to bite Joan King's ass. Her charade is being exposed, and her books can't be cooked anymore. Maybe I should send a job listing for someone to clean my apartment for $50 every other week (NY bar admission required)."

http://jdunderground.com/thread.php?threadId=32680

MVAIC & Qualified Persons

Judge Noach Dear's decision in Kipor Medicine P.C. v. MVAIC, 2009 NY Slip Op 29085 (Civ. Ct., Kings Cty., 2009) was published today on the Slip Opinion site. This was published as a Decision of Interest in the New York Law Journal last week and will be published in the official Miscellaneous Reports.

As noted in the version published in the Law Journal, I handled this trial of counsel to the Law Offices of Bruce Newborough for Plaintiff.

In the case, MVAIC alleged that it had never received proof of the assignor's residency in New York and that, therefore, the assignor was not a "qualified person" under Insurance Law § 5202(b). As noted by the Court, however, the definition of "qualified person" is not limited to New York residents. Moreover, the fact that MVAIC had not received proof of residency was not sufficient proof that the assignor did not meet the definition of a "qualified person." MVAIC likewise submitted no other proof to demonstrate that the assignor was not qualified.

Where Doc Review Survives - 55 Water Street

"Dear Tom:

It would be nice if fellow contract attorneys are aware that the restrictions at Sullivan & Cromwell are getting tougher, if one comes to work to 55 Water Street on the 51st Floor. Given the economy and the lack of gigs, Sullivan is one of the few places where something is happening and perhaps about to given the new bailout on AIG.

So, if you are called to work at 55 Water Street come prepared to egress every time you leave the 51st floor, you will be required to card in and out of the floor. There are very few seats in a very small pantry on the floor---if anything you can eat downstairs in the cafeteria. Be prepared to card in and out.

Taking too long in the bathroom is off limits as the litigation support supervisor, Figaro ---has been alerted that people are in the bathrooms and hallways too long. Anyone who is caught violating this policy will be terminated. There are a couple of specialists who will report you so to be safe, step downstairs in the lobby if you have to make a call, for example.

Be also prepared to either freeze or be in an area with poor air ventilation, or no ventilation at all.

Be also prepared to have your 55 Water Street ID with you--if you forget it, you will lose time and money as you will be required to report to SC security and then to the 55 Water St. security office which is open on a very limited schedule.

Lastly, come totally prepared to meet a cadre of people who have been at SC for a long time (as long term temps) who have a sense of entitlement and behave as the projects is theirs. They also have formed cliques and do not allow anyone else in. If you manage to come in, do not bother with them. They are insulated and do not care about anything else but their own survival. Be prepared to see how some are the darlings of the specialists and are protected no matter what. Be prepared for long hours.

If there is work and they call you take it but come prepared so you are not blacklisted from perhaps one of the few places that has work coming in.

Good luck!"