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!"