Waiting For Godot

"Let's go. Yes, let's go. (They do not move)."

"Tom,

I am very frustrated. After being out of work for a couple of weeks, I got a call to start a project early last week. I was very excited. The day before work was to commence, and after tying up some last minute business, I received a call from the agency informing me that the project had been pushed back to the following Monday. After a long weekend revving up for work, I was informed by email that my project had been pushed back again. A couple of days later, the project (you guessed it) was pushed back, yet again! Screams with frustration.

Foolish me, I called the agency seeking clarification. The lady immediately became snippy, saying that the client was having issues, that they were thankful for my patience, and that I was just going to have to remain on standby. I kindly informed her that I was having issues, that I was precluded from seeking out other employment opportunities, and that if something else came along that I might have to take it. She barked back, saying that I had already agreed to be submitted for the project, that if I 'quit' that I would 'do what I had to do,' before hanging up on me.

Sadly, she probably just doesn't care. By crossing me off her list and dumping my husk on the side of the road, she probably has hundreds of other sorry saps "on standby" eagerly waiting for the job to nowhere. Sadder still, the diploma mills will be pumping out an additional 45,000 victims, and India has thousands of semi-literate reviewers who will work for five dollars an hour."

Pee In The Cup

"I heard RR Donnelley (the massive octopus legal outsourcing operation)is mass drug testing doc reviewers - if this is true, doc review is hurtling towards blue collar status."

What Will Be Done Regarding The Many People Illegally Resentenced To Post-Release Supervision?

In April, 2008 the Court of Appeals in People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]), held that only a judge, and not prison or court clerks can impose Post Release Supervision [PRS], even when sentencing courts failed to pronounce PRS as required by law. New York reacted to this this holding by enacting Correction Law 601-d which purports to empower courts to re-sentence person to PRS, even after they have already served their complete sentence. The authority of courts to resentence under this statue was challenged on both statutory and constitutional grounds.

This issue was resolved in People v Williams (__NY3d__, 2010 NY Slip Op 01527 [2/23/10]), in which the Court of Appeals, in a decision considering five such challenges, held that

after release from prison, a legitimate expectation in the finality of a sentence arises and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents reformation to attach a PRS component to the original completed sentence.... So long as an illegal sentence is subject to correction, a defendant cannot claim a legitimate expectation that the originally-imposed, improper sentence is final for all purposes (see United States v Fogel, 829 F2d 77, 87 [DC Cir 1987])...Yet, there must be a temporal limitation on a court's ability to resentence a defendant (see generally DeWitt v Ventetoulo, 6 F3d at 34-35) since criminal courts do not have perpetual jurisdiction over all persons who were once sentenced for criminal acts. Even where a defendant's sentence is illegal, there is a legitimate expectation of finality once the initial sentence has been served and the direct appeal has been completed (or the time to appeal has expired). In these situations, the sentences are beyond the court's authority and an additional term of PRS may not be imposed. With the caveats we have identified, in a case where PRS was not formally pronounced by the sentencing court pursuant to CPL 380.20, we hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a court from resentencing the defendant to the mandatory term of PRS after the defendant has served the determinate term of imprisonment and has been released from confinement by DOCS.

Obviously great news for those who challenged their resentence and those who had been facing resentencing. But what about the many people (perhaps thousands) who have already been resentenced and are now either serving or are in custody in violation of unconstitutionally imposed PRS? Are the Department of Corrections and Division of Parole going to identify who these people are and inform them that they were apparently resentenced illegally and, as appropriate, entitled to stop serving PRS or to release from prison? If that is asking too much, will the Department of Corrections and Division of Parole at least notify judges who apparently illegally resentenced people that they may wish to notify those affected. Don't forget after Sparber was issued, judges were notified by these Departments that they should resentence those who had not been sentenced to PRS, even when, as we now know, those resentences were unconstitutional? So having help create this problem, one would hope these Departments will take steps mitigate the harm. Isn't it wrong, absent any lawful sentence or authority, for New York to continue to keep these people either locked up reporting to PRS when the State knows those sentenced were unconstitutional. Don't we have a budget crisis?

If a sense of fairness and right doesn't motivate New York, how about money? Can we afford to incarcerate or supervise people with no lawful sentences? Can we afford the lawsuits that ultimately will be brought by those illegally kept in custody by a state which does not notify them of the Williams decision?

King Solomon and Guilty Pleas

Mr. Brown (_ NY3d __, 2010 NY Slip Op 01376 [2/18/10]) was in jail while awaiting prosecution on a robbery charge. From the moment of arrest he consistently proclaimed his innocence. Then the defendant's son was in the hospital and in a coma as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. Jail officials deny the man’s request for permission to go hospital to see his child. At the next court appearance, the court informed of the terms of the proposed plea bargain. The court then states

your attorney told me [that] you were interested in taking the plea if I were to give you a furlough for three weeks to allow you to see your sick child," who was still in the hospital. Defendant responded in the affirmative, and the court agreed to the furlough, warning defendant that if he did not appear on the scheduled date, he would receive an increased sentence.

After surrendering himself on the scheduled date, and prior to the imposition of sentence, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that it had not been entered into voluntarily
Defendant contends that he

entered the guilty plea "under conditions of duress" and "as a result of emotional and mental distress caused by his fear of his son's death." He further claimed that he "never would have entered into a guilty plea if his son had not been shot and lapsed into a coma." The court denied the motion without a hearing, stating, "I made it clear to [defendant] when he plead[ed] guilty that he wasn't going to withdraw his plea.

Is a guilty plea motivated by a parent's love for his child voluntary, even if the colloquy is truthful?

The Court of Appeals reversed this conviction, holding that since the record raises a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea, an evidentiary hearing is required. The Court distinguished People v Fiumefreddo (82 NY2d 536 [1993]) because, unlike Fiumefreddo, here the specific terms of this plea were not subject to extended discussion nor did defendant have sufficient time to consider the alternatives to taking it. Further, the court never inquired about the impact the promised furlough had on defendant's decision to plead guilty or indeed whether defendant was pleading guilty voluntarily.

Apparently New York expects its judges to recall the judgment of King Solomon (1 Kings 3:16-28) in determining the voluntariness of a plea.

Excellent work by Mr. Brown’s counsel, Janet Somes.

Compliance Staffing To Shucked Off Contractors: Drop Dead And Go Starve In The Street!

Over a hundred people worked for the massive 3+ year World Trade Center litigation in the Wall Street area for Compliance LP/Patton Boggs. After the end of the project was announced for the first week of October, they kept extending it for an additional week, an additional 3 days, another week etc. In that time people were lining up other projects to jump to off as they could.

Well guess what....now that some of them are coming off their projects and signing up for unemployment benefits, Compliance is contesting ALL of the claims saying that everyone quit before the project ended! That's right, work for 3 years and get dicked around on the end date and then NO BENEFITS FOR YOU. Of course the end date announcements and revisions were always verbally announced so no one has documentation to contest their unemployment denial. DO NOT WORK FOR COMPLIANCE!!!! DO NOT WORK FOR COMPLIANCE!!!! Especially since those turds are offering a new gig at $28 an hour!

New York Ignition Interlock Re-Visited

Well it has been awhile since my last post, and so much has gone on...where should I begin??

First in January I attended The Trial Lawyers College Regional Seminar on discovering the story of your case in Monterey, CA. It was a nice break to go to California in January considering that Ithaca was either below zero with wind chills or flush with some snow, I welcomed the break and more importantly a chance to rub shoulders and minds with Gerry Spence (one of the country's best trial lawyers) and others from around the country.

Now to the topic for today, the NEW mandatory New York DWI IID (Ignition Interlock Device) Law will become effective for all DWI offenses (ADWI (aggravated) VTL 1192 (1) (a), DWI common law VTL 1192 (3), and DWI per se VTL 1192 (2)) on August 15, 2010.

It will be mandatory for sentences with CDs (conditional discharges) as well as sentences involving terms of probation.

It will be mandatory for at least a six (6) month term. This shall include installation and maintenance of the device on any and all vehicles owned or operated. NOTE: Even if you do not operate that vehicle and are merely an owner it still must have an IID installed and maintained on it or title must be transferred.

If you drive a company car it does NOT have to have the IID, but

1. The company (employer) must be notified of your license revocation;

2. The company (employer) must provide a letter to the Court and to Probation which states they have given you permission to operate that vehicle.

The majority of companies (employers) will likely fire an employee (who has to drive a company car) rather than face the risk of future liability. It is unlikely that their (the company's) auto insurance carrier would understand and/or cover for any employees having to have an IID on their personal vehicles but being allowed by their employers to drive the company car.

New laws, new rules, new applications in the ever changing landscape of New York DWI charges.

The Lexolution Chicken Coop Is Once Again Open For Business

Lex-pollution has re-opened the infamous "Chicken Coop" over on East 40th St. This time it's a Quinn case. We are only getting $32 flat an hour, and the project sucks! There are tons of tags for each document, and the associate from Quinn is strutting around the floor like a Gestapo officer.

No talking allowed, just grind out your work. No Internet access either, naturally. It's a miserable review and even more miserable work environment. They have the heat set on about 110 degrees in here or else it's freezing cold. The bathrooms are filthy as usual and often out of paper towels and soap. Maybe Lexolution should just spread wood shavings or straw on the floor for us to relieve ourselves on. It really is just like a chicken coop! Click Click, cluck cluck! Cock-a-doodle doo!

Redundant Fees Destroy 403(b) Retirement Assets

Redundant Fees Destroy 403(b) Retirement Assets: What the Insurance Companies Do
Not Want You to Know
continue

California couple sues VALIC over its annuity sales practices

A California couple has filed suit against The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., an American International Group Inc. subsidiary, claiming that the company's sales agents misled investors about the tax advantages of using variable annuities in qualified retirement plans.

continue

The Unloved Annuity Gets a Hug From Obama

Annuities: The official retirement vehicle of the Obama administration.

As slogans go, it’s hardly “Keep Hope Alive,” or even “Change We Can Believe In.”

But there were annuities, in a report from the administration’s Middle Class Task Force that came out this week. They are among the tools the administration is promoting as it tries to give Americans a better shot at a more secure retirement.

continue

Blood Antiques - Watch online

Over the years, more books and documentary films have appeared to describe a once unreported problem--the looting of cultural heritage. Journeyman Pictures produced the documentary Blood Antiques, which is now airing online on Link TV.  Using hidden cameras inside the antiquities market in Belgium and Afghanistan, the filmmakers uncover raw evidence of the underground illegal antiquities trade and advance the important argument of its connection with terror funding.

Jones Day: A Follow-Up

Tom -

The person who wrote to you about the Jones Day project left out several important details:

1. Jones Day never told Hudson that it was a privilege log review, instead telling them it was a straight review using Documatrix. Presumably, this was to save money on the hourly rate, because priv log is always a higher rate.

2. The first year associate Jaime is getting a bad rap. The real jerks are the senior associates, Marla Bergman and Joe Hand. They're the ones being nasty and acting arrogant toward the temps and threatening to fire them daily. They're also the ones who fired the entire project after the first week and then hired all new people.

So please take Jaime off the hook. She wasn't that bad and is presumably under a lot of pressure from the two senior associates mentioned above.

The "ShitFingers" Chronicles - Solo In Bankruptcy Law

The "ShitFingers" Chronicles is a new ongoing venture created by L4L's in which he deconstructs the lies put forth by Solo Practice University and the other after law school scammers, in which they try to use false hope and other after-scamming carpet bagger techniques to bilk an additional $500 out of starving, unsuspecting law graduates.

"ShitFingers" refers to certain characters that L4L came across in the bathroom vestibules of the Sullivan & Cromwell basement. "One particular guy nicknamed 'ShitFingers' liked to operate his side practice via cellphone while dropping heat in the restroom stall, giving 'toilet law' a literal dimension. Later, you’d go to wipe and find he’d captioned draft briefs on the Charmin and hidden a stapler under the toilet tank. I often wondered why he didn’t just tape his law degree up in there alongside the stall’s graffiti. No one would’ve cared. This was, of course, in the SullCrom basement, down amid the boxes."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, we talk about becoming a bankruptcy solo. For one easy payment of $495, Solo Practice University will teach you about the intricate ins an outs of bankruptcy practice, mystical knowledge which will ultimately redeem you from the cockroach infested boiler rooms of Paul Weiss hell.

http://solopracticeuniversity.com/faculty/jay-s-fleischman/

"Professor" Fleischman will teach you about cutting edge developments in cut-and-paste Chapter 7 filings, will devote a whole subsection explaining the growth of consumer credit in the United States (no shit), and just in case you were comatose in law school (and throughout the first twenty-five years of your life) will explain to you what a judge, debtor, and attorney is.

Fascinating stuff, but L4L's will have none of it:


No area of law is 'complex.' The complex thing is getting enough steady clients to make a living, as opposed to drips & drabs.

Some BK attorneys buy mailing lists of folks in trouble and do direct-mail marketing (not allowed in all states, check your bar rules). Others do the phone book/newspaper ad method. Of course the big shops use TV & radio commercials.

All of these cost money. A lot of money. A 1/2 page ad in north NJ county yellow pages will set you back $12,500 a year. That's a shitload of 'simple 7s' just to break even on your ad budget. Direct-mail is 44 cents a clip postage plus the cost of the mailing lists, envelopes/stationary, and a 1-800# (which should bounce calls to your cell, b/c if you miss the call they'll move right on to the next bozo). And of course you ad will be buried amongst the 1000s of other clowns in the phone book and lost in the junk-mail shuffle.

Or you could "network" with CPAs and finance guys who might steer you a client who's in trouble, but most of these guys worth their salt already (i.e successful) already have lawyers/firms they deal with regularly and receive mutual referrals from in return. As a new solo you have nothing to offer them, and thus they won't recommend you unless they're a close family member of yours (like your dad, cough cough).

A guy I did doc review with did BK as a solo (hence his doc review gig LOL), and spent 5 K on google ad words in NJ. Didn't score one client out of it. Unless you wanna pay big $$$ per click with a high click limit, the big mills will pwn you. Remember, these are low-ticket cases with flat fees, so you can't go too wild wasting money on ads.

I saw a diner paper-placemat ad for a BK attorney recently at a diner in Green Brook NJ. Those ads are very cheap (i tried them back in 2007 for injury cases), but totally ineffective. I did 150 K placeats total spread among 7 different NJ diners for only $375 bucks. A run of 150 K lasts the diners like 3-4 months. I got no calls at all from these ads. Not one. You'd be surprised at how abysmal the response rate is for print attorney advertising. The big mills don't buy those TV ads for fun. They're the only thing that works and they know it.

I also tried a full-page 'penny-saver' ad, a 1/4 page ad in 4 different condo newsletters, and about 4 different church bulletins. Believe it or not, the church bulletins were by far the most effective (and the cheapest- only $10 a week). I got about 12-15 living will gigs from these Catholic nutjobs who want to stay 'plugged in' like Terry Schiavo even if their brains are a pile of mush. You'd think they'd be 'dying' to meet their buddy Jesus, but at $400 a pop I didn't ask questions. And sadly, it just wasn't enough $$$ to really make it worthwhile. You see, some shyster firm saw my ad in there and decided to buy the whole back cover of the bulletins for like $150 a week. Once that happened my calls dried up. Be aware that if you do find an 'overlooked' place to advertise, some shyster will soon find out and then come in and outspend you 10 to one to 'shout out' your ad. If I'd had a bit bigger 'war chest' I would've bought the back cover (they offered it to me first), but $600 a month is a lot of $$$ for a heavily indebted Seton Hall loser.

You could always spam-bomb craigslists 'legal services' section like 50 X a day and offer to do 7's in return for a cord of firewood or some Ramen noodles. Or better yet, drop out of law school and get into a trade that people will actually pay money for, like plumbing or auto repair."

Must Drop Off Convoluted Job Application Form In Blizzard For Short-term Shitlaw Position

Please complete the attached forms: 1) Application; 2) Conflicts form. The Conflicts form can be filled out on your computer and emailed back to us.

But the Application must be filled out by hand and dropped off at our office. This has to be completed ASAP: preferably tomorrow, but if weather is too inclement, Th. morning early is fine. Also, the application asks for 10 years of employment history (please list everything), and the conflicts form asks for firm names/all adverse parties for the last three years. When you do fill out these forms, please be as thorough as possible because they have come back to us with very specific questions.

-Sara Kim

Red Flag The Ad

As many of you know, legal professionals all over the country are
suffering during these economic times. In Richmond, many who have
relied on contract and temporary assignments are being taken advantage
of as concerns wages and over-time. Moreover, we have all witnessed
the diminishing amount of respect being accorded to our peers who have
worked very hard to become attorneys and paralegals. Last minute
cancellations, misrepresentations and a general lack of regard have
become the norm.

That said, please help protect what is left of our integrity by NOT
responding to craigslist posts that do not identify the hiring agency.
The anonymity that craigslist provides, allows the agencies to gather
resumes and then undercut your pay as they fight amongst each other
for the few assignments available in the Richmond market. This results
in lower wages, greater turn over and less respect for our profession
as a whole.

You have worked hard to become a legal professional. Don’t send your
resume to a faceless email address. It hurts all of us (attorneys,
paralegals and even the agencies) in the long run. Please join me in
flagging posts that do not identify the agency or law firm in
question.

-Saint Peter

Jones Day

Tom,

I was just talking to a friend who told me to watch out for this place in NYC!

He was recently at Jones Day (two weeks ago) for a couple of days. They were fired on the spot because the slave driver felt that they were not typing entries fast enough into the privilege log. Please publish the story to alert others not to work there as the first year associates were real jerks, watching over people. The real punk was the African American female associate named Jaime. She was on a real power trip.

Has anyone else heard anything about this place? I got called to work there awhile back, but I didn't take it as I was able to land something else.

Spring semester's Historic Preservation courses begin soon

Spring semester's Historic Preservation courses begin soon

Plymouth State University's Certificate in Historic Preservation program is offering four courses this spring semester, one in Plymouth and three at its Concord campus.

At a time when many adults are returning to the classroom to enhance their professional skills, this graduate-level program seeks to instill a fundamental understanding of preservation issues and challenges while providing basic skills and training for those who work for community preservation organizations and agencies, or in aligned fields such as planning, law or architecture.

Spring 2010's courses are:

Preservation Planning and Management: Now seen as integral to the definition and protection of cultural landscapes, historic preservation planning and cultural resource management (CRM) are accomplished through the identification, evaluation, documentation, registration, treatment and ongoing stewardship of historic properties. This course examines the tools of preservation planning and management and illustrates their application at the federal, state and local levels. Guest speakers share their real-world experiences. Includes one required field trip on March 20. Taught in Concord by Elizabeth H. Muzzey, State Historic Preservation Officer. 3 credits. Begins March 1.

Archaeological Methods: Students will be exposed to archaeological field and laboratory techniques, and will learn the types of research questions that archaeologists ask while reconstructing past cultures. The course draws upon prehistoric and historic examples, there will be many opportunities to handle artifacts in the classroom, and both terrestrial and underwater sites will be featured. There will be required field trip to archaeological sites to demonstrate equipment and techniques in the field. Taught in Plymouth by David Starbuck, associate professor of Anthropology/Sociology at PSU. 3 credits. Begins March 2.

Cultural Property Law: Antiquities Trafficking, War and Stolen Heritage: Archaeological site looting, transnational antiquities trafficking and armed conflicts threaten global cultural heritage. This course examines the international, national and state legal frameworks for the protection and movement of cultural property. Topics for discussion include the 1954 Hague Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the ICOM Code of Ethics, the National Stolen Property Act and the Cultural Property Implementation Act. The course also introduces students to important national heritage laws such as the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the rules governing shipwrecks. State statutes and the common law regulating cultural property are also reviewed. Includes on required field trip on March 19. Taught in Concord by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Esq. 3 credits. Begins March 3.

Principles of Historic Preservation: This course provides a foundation to historic preservation, focusing on principles and theories pertaining to preservation and restoration practices; recognition of architectural periods, styles, and construction methods in context of the evolution of cultural landscapes; the definition of significance and integrity in buildings and districts; strategies by which buildings and their settings have been preserved and used; and methods of reading and interpreting the cultural environment. Three required field trips: March 6, April 10, May 1. Taught in Concord by Christopher W. Closs, planning/preservation consultant. 3 credits. Begins March 4.

For more information about the Certificate in Historic Preservation program, visit www.plymouth.edu/graduate/heritage/historic_preservation_certificate.html or contact Dr. Stacey Yap, program coordinator, 603-535-2333, staceyy@plymouth.edu.

New Hampshire's Division of Historical Resources, the “State Historic Preservation Office,” was established in 1974. The historical, archeological, architectural, engineering and cultural resources of New Hampshire are among the most important environmental assets of the state. Historic preservation promotes the use, understanding and conservation of such resources for the education, inspiration, pleasure and enrichment of New Hampshire’s citizens. For more information, visit us online at www.nh.gov/nhdhr or by calling (603) 271-3483.

Another Wrongful Conviction Exoneration After a False Confession

On Thursday, February 5, 2010, Freddie Peacock became the 250th person exonerated by DNA evidence after conviction, when his 1976 rape conviction was vacated in Monroe County. The court vacated Mr. Peacock's conviction pursuant to a motion filed jointly by the Innocence Project, ETKS partner Donald M. Thompson, and Kelly Wolford, chief of appeals for the Monroe County District Attorney's Office.

As detailed here Mr. Peacock, fought longer for his exoneration after his release from prison - 28 years - than any other DNA exoneree. Mr. Peacock was 38 years old when he was released from prison following a six-year sentence; today he is 60.

A large part of the story is Mr. Peacock''s ceaseless determination to clear him name. But that doesn't explain how an innocent man was convicted. In an addition to the complainant's identification testimony the there was testimony that Mr. Peacock orally confessed. This alleged oral confession contained no details. Since it was not recorded, neither court nor the jury had any basis for determining whether it was true or false. On appeal the Appellate Division agreed with Mr. Peacock's contention that the trial court erroneously permitted two witnesses to bolster the identification testimony of the complainant (People v Peacock,70 AD2d 781 [4th Dept 1979]), but held that "in light of the strong evidence of guilt, including defendant's confession, we find the error to be harmless."

Thus, reliance on an unrecorded false confession led to the affirmance of a wrongful conviction. This is not only time that the Fourth Department has affirmed the conviction of a man later proven to be innocent, on the strength of a false, unrecorded "confession" (See, e.g., People v Warney, 299 AD2d 956, 957, lv denied 99 NY2d 633) (see). One wonders when courts will acknowledge the obvious and develop a reluctance to credit unrecorded confessions, present in about a quarter of the wrongful convictions exonerated by DNA evidence (see).

Former New York State Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio is Sentenced to Six Years in Prison

Preet Barbara, US Attorney For the Southern District of New York

Department of Justice Press Release

For Immediate Release
February 4, 2010 United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600

Former New York State Assemblyman Sentenced to Six Years in Prison for Public Corruption Crimes
LINK

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ANTHONY SEMINERIO, 74, of Queens, New York, was sentenced today to six years in prison by United States District Judge NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD for defrauding the people of New York of his honest services as an Assemblyman in the New York State legislature.



According to the Indictment, the Court's findings, and the evidence at the October 20, 21, and 30, 2009, sentencing hearing:

Seminerio's Overall Scheme Using "Marc Consultants"

SEMINERIO served as a member of the New York Assembly from 1978 until his June 23, 2009, resignation from that body. From 1999 through September 2008, SEMINERIO engaged in a scheme to defraud the public of his honest services by using a purported consulting firm, "Marc Consultants," to solicit and receive "consulting" payments from persons and entities having business before the State of New York. In fact, the Court found that SEMINERIO did not perform "any bona fide consulting services that fall outside the scope of activities an elected official could readily be expected to perform on behalf of his or her constituents." Instead, the Court found that he "solicited and received payments from a number of organizations and used his elected office to lobby state legislators and agency officials on behalf of those paying clients." Those entities included hospitals and related entities; a consulting firm associated with an educational institution; and a firm engaged in marketing supplemental insurance packages to public institutions.

Seminerio's Extortion of the Consultant

In 1999, SEMINERIO, among other things, approached ARLENE PEDONE, the founder of a Queens-based consulting company for whom he had previously worked and demanded a share of the company's revenue. When PEDONE resisted, SEMINERIO retaliated by writing and calling many of PEDONE's clients, telling them he was no longer associated with the firm, and pressuring some of them to stop paying PEDONE and instead hire SEMINERIO. As a result, PEDONE lost her client base and her company folded.

Seminerio's Extortion of a Non-Profit Executive

That summer, SEMINERIO also pressured ROBERT RICHARDS, the president of the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, which depended largely on New York State funding. SEMINERIO asked RICHARDS to become his consulting client, repeatedly advancing his request when RICHARDS refused to respond. In January 2000, SEMINERIO met with RICHARDS at SEMINERIO's Albany legislative office and warned that if RICHARDS failed to hire him, SEMINERIO would block RICHARDS's efforts in the legislature in Albany. After this meeting, RICHARDS agreed to hire SEMINERIO and paid a monthly fee for approximately two years to Marc Consultants.

Seminerio's Bribery Scheme with a Client Hospital

More recently, on July 10, 2008, SEMINERIO called DENNIS WHALEN, a senior New York State health department official, and assured him that he had "a friend of me in the Assembly." WHALEN mentioned that he had been speaking with CARL KRUGER, a New York State Senator who supported the acquisition of the Caritas Hospitals in Queens, New York, by Parkway Hospital, which had previously refused to pay SEMINERIO consulting fees. SEMINERIO replied that he would rather see Jamaica Hospital, a client that had paid him nearly a decade's worth of consulting fees, "get it." SEMINERIO did not disclose to WHALEN that Jamaica Hospital had hired him, nor did he disclose that Parkway Hospital had refused to do so.

JUDGE BUCHWALD rejected SEMINERIO's contention that his criminal activity was limited to a "single, isolated criminal act" of failing to disclose a conflict of interest to WHALEN during the July 10, 2008, call. The Court also rejected SEMINERIO's claim that his activities had been approved in 1996 and thereafter by the New York Legislative Ethics Committee. The Court criticized SEMINERIO's failure to disclose the true nature of his work to the Committee and rejected his reliance on the Committee's opinion as "a classic illustration of 'garbage in, garbage out.'"

In imposing the sentence, Judge BUCHWALD described in detail how SEMINERIO "accepted bribes and engaged in extortion as part of a decade-long scheme to use his office - both literally and figuratively - for personal gain and at the expense of the public trust." As the Court highlighted, SEMINERIO was secretly recorded providing his own view of what it means to be a public official: "It doesn't mean [expletive deleted]."

In addition to his prison term, Judge BUCHWALD ordered SEMINERIO to pay $1,000,000 in forfeiture.



U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said, "When an elected official such as Seminerio violates the public trust, it threatens the public's confidence in our democracy. Seminerio was elected to serve the people, not himself. Judge Buchwald's powerful words and sentence reaffirm the commitment to the fair and impartial exercise of governmental power. We will continue to work tirelessly to prosecute those who betray for private gain the people they are elected to represent."

Mr. BHARARA praised the investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case. The investigation is continuing.

The prosecution is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys DANIEL L. STEIN and WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON are in charge of the prosecution.

Anthony Seminerio's 30 years in office ends with 11 to 14 in prison

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/25/2009-06-25_anthony_seminerios_30_years_in_office_ends_with_11_to_14_in_prison.html#ixzz0ebvzzG0A

Ex-Queens pol Anthony Seminerio brags to FBI about LIRR job hookup:
Court hears
by Oren Yaniv, Daily News Staff Writer, October 22nd 2009, 4:00 AM

Disgraced Queens lawmaker Anthony Seminerio boasted to an FBI agent that he got associates jobs at the Long Island Rail Road in exchange for steering state funds to the agency, prosecutors said on Wednesday.

"Anytime that I would, ah, give them a $250,000 contribution or $500,000 for repair of the railroad, I need two jobs," he bragged to an FBI informant wearing a wire. "Even if I didn't have anybody, then I find two people and get them jobs."

During the former assemblyman's sentencing hearing in Manhattan Federal Court, prosecutors played an intercepted conversation in which he asks an LIRR official to get his son's pal a machinist position.

"I have a dear friend of the family," Seminerio, 74, said before offering to meet the official to discuss future projects.

Seminerio, who resigned in June, faces up to 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to taking secret payments from Jamaica Hospital officials.

The defense will present its arguments next week, and then the judge will determine his sentence.

Is the Art Market Gaining Traction?

Breaking the record for the sale of art at an auction, an unidentified buyer purchased "Walking Man 1" by Alberto Giacometti (see image at http://www.suite101.com/view_image.cfm/499373) at a Sotheby's auction in London on February 3rd. It sold for $104,327,006. At the same auction a Klimt landscape sold for $43,208,606. The total auction yielded a record high $235.7 million. Add to that a a hearty return from Sotheby's Old Master and 19th Century European Art sale in New York last week and Christie's London sale of impressionist and surreal art totaling $149,607,659 and you have signs that the art market may be gaining traction.

A Barren Wasteland

I was wondering if you know anything about the DC contract attorney market? Feel free to address this only in your blog, but I'm starting to wonder what's going on.

At least three of the 14 temp firms I signed up with last year have closed their DC offices, and one now appears to be placing only JDs rather than licensed attorneys. Colleagues with years of experience are finding only 1-2 week projects, and I haven't had a nibble since November 2, and that was for $25 an hour.

Is it even worth it to renew my bar dues? Is the market here dead? Or should I try to figure out if maybe this is just me and I had a bad review or something from one of the firms where I worked last year?

2010: The Year of the Renter?

SCORES of stalled construction projects can be found scattered around New York City, but one category of building that doesn’t seem to have been sidetracked by the recession is the luxury apartment rental.

continue

2009 Most Profitable Year Ever For The Paul Weiss Slave Drivers

Stuffing hundreds of heavily leveraged law graduates (earning $21 an hour without benefits) into cockroach infested basements, forcing them to slave away for 14 hour days, and then mass firing them the minute the economy takes a downturn is certainly a sure way to make oodles of money. God bless biglaw, the big banks, the ABA, and America!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/paul_weiss_chairman_says_2009_was_the_most_profitable_ever/

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/what_did_paul_weiss_just_say.php

More Fallout From ABA President Carolyn Lamm's Spin Piece

Tom the Temp

[I wrote this as a Letter to the Editor to the Los Angeles Times on Thursday, January 27, 2010. They apparently were not interested in publishing this in their forum.]

I am the author of “Third Tier Reality,” a blog dedicated to informing potential law students of the risks inherent in going to law school. I am writing in this forum to weigh in on Mark Greenbaum’s opinion piece to the Los Angeles Times on January 8, 2010, and the response from the president of the American Bar Association, which was featured on Above the Law.

Carolyn Lamm asks Mr. Greenbaum to look at the number of students, as opposed to the number of law schools. Fine, let’s do that. We will look at the sheer number of U.S. law students enrolled for the 2008-09 academic year:

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%208.pdf

By the ABA’s own numbers, ABA-approved law schools had a cumulative enrollment of 142,922 students in 2008-09. There simply is nowhere near such a demand for lawyers, to justify such massive enrollment.

Now let’s look at the number of annual law graduates. According to the NALP, ABA-accredited law schools produced 43,587 graduates for the Class of 2008. The ABA reports 43,588 JDs for the same year.

http://nalp.org/uploads/08SelectedFindings.pdf (page 2)

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%207.pdf

The fact remains that American law schools are producing far too many graduates. Simply put, there are nowhere near this many available attorney positions in a given year – even in a good economy.

While we are at this, let’s look at some more numbers. Let’s take a peek at the average amount of student debt for law students.

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%2020.pdf

For the 2007-08 academic year, the average amount borrowed for students attending public law schools was $59,324. For those attending private law schools, this amount was $91,506. For the 2001-02 academic year, these respective figures were $46,499 and $70,147.

Carolyn Lamm is incorrect in alluding to the consent decree between the Department of Justice and the ABA, as a reason why the ABA cannot limit the number of law schools or available seats. The suit originated due to the ABA requiring law schools to pay their professors at a certain level. Furthermore, the consent decree expired – by its own terms – on June 25, 2006. The parties have chosen to abide by this lapsed agreement.

Carolyn, if your organization is so concerned about violating antitrust law, you may want to ask the American Medical Association how it manages to accredit only 131 U.S. medical schools.

http://www.aamc.org/medicalschools.htm

http://services.aamc.org/memberlistings/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.search&search_type=MS&wildcard_criteria=&state_criteria=CNT%3AUSA&image=Search

Or you may want to confer with your counterparts at the American Dental Association to see how they are able to keep the number of ADA-approved member schools down to 58 – without violating antitrust laws.

http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/programs/search_ddsdmd_us.asp

Could it be that those professional schools actually care about protecting the significant investment of their practitioners and students? Carolyn, your organization simply needs to own up to the fact that it does not care about current law students or recent law graduates.

Nando

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com

"Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education."
Bertrand Russell