DLA Piper

Another student commits suicide over massive student loan debt:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/571489,CST-NWS-SUICIDE24.article

"When he graduated in summer 2006, he was unable to find a job despite sending out dozens of resumes. Meanwhile, he watched his loan balance grow. He moved back in with his mom, who lives in a small trailer home in Normal. When the collectors called, they asked him, 'When are you going to pay? Can't you get your mom to sell her house? Late last month, in the middle of the night, Yoder apparently let himself into the ISU lab. Then he hooked up a tube to a nitrogen valve and ran it inside a plastic bag around his head.

Before his death, although Jason helped set up a fledgling tea room his mother runs with her sisters, he was wary of taking a job outside of his field because he feared his wages would be garnisheed. That could tip potential employers to his credit woes. Collinge said many employers won't hire people with bad credit."

Which sort of reminded me of DLA Piper's highly intrusive background check in which they "need" to know if you have any defaults, bankruptcies, or credit issues all for a friggin TEMP JOB!

Quinn Emanuel

Lexolution is looking to herd another flock of sheep into the Quinn Emanuel project next week. Apparently, they want to cook up another batch of roasted sheep meat. Be careful, be very careful. Don't say you weren't warned.

Fraudulent Fraud

At the suggestion (almost a threat, really) of David M. Gottleib, Esq., I'm reposting a comment of mine from the previous entry. An anonymous insurance defense attorney asked: "Provider fraud should NEVER be waived. When did fraud stop being fraud?" I said:

The better question is actually: when did fraud start being fraud? Answer: when catchphrases got the better of good lawyering.

You won't find the word "fraud" anywhere in the majority or concurring opinions in Central General Hosp. v. Chubb, 90 N.Y.2d 195 (1997). You'll find a single variation of the word, namely "fraudulent" in Presbyterian Hosp. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 274 (1997), but only in the majority opinion, and not in the way carriers like: "The tradeoff of the no-fault reform still allows carriers to contest ill-founded, illegitimate and fraudulent claims, but within a strict, short-leashed contestable period and process designed to avoid prejudice and red-tape dilatory practices." New York's seminal no-fault cases don't create a solid foundation for anything that should be referred to as a "fraud defense."

Indeed, "fraud" isn't the word you want to use if you're a good insurance defense attorney. You want to say "lack of coverage." The Appellate Division, Second Department has reminded us a few times of this distinction, but it still goes basically unnoticed. Then again, "lack of coverage" isn't a catchphrase that instills fear in anyone's heart.

All of that said, I think there's a solid lack-of-coverage argument to be made in the carriers' favor in Fair Price. Nevertheless, the defense bar is getting itself wrapped up too much in the language of fraud, and to the detriment of their clients' interests.
--
As an addendum to those comments, I'd recommend that eager defense attorneys begin their research with App. Div. decisions such as Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Davis, 22 A.D.3d 846 (2d Dep't, 2005). There, regarding an allegation, made as part of a petition to stay a UM arbitration, that an alleged collision was fraudulent in nature, the Court held: "When a petition raises an issue of fact as to whether the automobile collision giving rise to the underlying request for arbitration was deliberate or intentional, the issue of fraud is subsumed under the coverage issue. Evidence of such fraud should be considered in determining the broader coverage issue." Id. (internal citations omitted).

Law School Fraud - Contact Attorney General Cuomo

Yesterday's WSJ article provided compelling evidence and raised serious questions as to whether law schools are deliberately fudging their post-graduate career statistics.

I urge you to e-mail Attorney General Cuomo (or your own State Attorney General), and ask him/her to extend their probe of the student loan industry to include an examination of the marketing and recruitment practices of institutions of higher education.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/

Wall Street Journal Cover Story: The Dark Side Of The Legal Job Market

"For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from long-term economic trends are suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don’t score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can top $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market.

That’s the subject of a page-one story in the Journal Monday. The story includes lots of data and real-life examples showing how life outside BigLaw has gotten tougher, and how some law schools are doing their best not to let the word out. The 2,300-word story even has a shout-out to the infamous Loyola 2L, who has been beating a drum of discontent about the legal market around the legal blogosphere.

The culprit appears to be, in part, a slack in demand: Growth in legal sector has lagged the broader economy since the late 1980s. At the same time, more lawyers are entering the work force with greater and greater amounts of debt, thanks to hefty tuition hikes. The story cites surveys and government data showing wage stagnation for lawyers across the nation.

The only employment data that many prospective law students see come from school-promoted surveys that provide a far-from-complete portrait of graduate experiences. For example, Tulane University (pictured) reports that its law-school graduates entering the job market in 2005 had a median salary of $135,000. But that is based on a survey that only 24% of that year’s graduates completed, and those who did so likely represent the cream of the class, a Tulane official conceded.

Some law-school academics are calling for the distribution of more-accurate employment information. “Prospective students need solid comparative data on employment outcomes, [but] very few law schools provide such data,” says Andrew Morriss, a law professor at the University of Illinois who has studied the market for new lawyers."

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/24/the-dark-side-of-legal-job-market/

Article here - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119040786780835602.html

Demented Santa

It was a dangerous summer to be a young attorney in NYC. Not only did we have someone jump off a skyscraper, not only were dozens of people put at risk of being roasted alive at Lexolution's state of the art document review torture chamber, but now it is apparently okay to physically assault your employees in toilet law. For those of you that haven't heard, here is what went down:

"OH, sorry, forgot to explain how this whole thing truly started: The short version is this: So they hired a summer associate and shoved him in my closet, I mean office. The boss abuses me on a regular basis. Obviously, if you put someone in the office w/ me they are going to see this 1st hand. Also, of course, I'm going to talk shit about the boss (who resembles a demented Santa) because of this. The summer associate turned down the "offer" they made him. (It was $45K). He said it was the money. However, the partner thinks it's all my fault.

Then, he was in the midst of berating me for billing 165 hours for the month of July. I was explaining how, if you count in July 4th, a holiday, thus couldn't be billed, and that I took two days off for a family members funeral (true, not a close family member, but still), then I would have been in the 190's. He thought my math was wrong, thus I was dyslexic.

Truth is, he tosses crap around his office so often that occasionally it hits people. This particular time, we were yelling at each other back and forth. He claimed I was a "dyslexic idiot" and said "read this you moron", which is when the book was tossed in my direction, although, maybe in hindsight he didn't mean to hit me in the face, but the fact is he did. Gotta love it......

It's the fact that "professionals", or ANYONE who has a shred of humanity, should not act like that. This is what "law" has become. The Animal (my pet name for the partner), likely thought he could do whatever he wanted since I'd never leave, as there are no jobs out there. After he tossed the book. I yelled at him (can't recall exactly what I said), and walked out."

- "Wally"

What should have "Wally" done?

A) Throw the book back in the partner's face?

"As probably 1/2 dozen other posters mentioned, there was nothing to be gained from "defending" myself. So you people are seriously suggesting that after I got hit in the face w/ the book, I should have walked behind his desk a punched a 60+ year old upside the head?! Yeah, that looks great.

Just like another poster said; After someone called the police, who do you think they would have believed? The guy who looks a little bit like a demented Santa Clause, or the 20-something year old attorney?

This wasn't a street/bar fight. I still believe, if if no one else does; that you should at least attempt to act professional. Just because someone-else doesn't shouldn't push you to act like an animal. You simple stoop to their level. Also, like I said, I was in a bit of shock. Don't you even think of telling me anyone of you people wouldn't have been. Its not every day an old-man busts your nose with a book for not calculating billables using Enron math."

B) Report him to the bar?

"Face it folks, once you have that Esq. placed next to your name and once some prick bastard firm hires you, you have become a N----- who is subject to the fickle beyatch like whims of massa partner(s) and there ain't shit you can do about it.

Suppose Wally would have thrown something back or would have hit the prick. Might have made Wally feel like he grew some balls all of a sudden.. . Might have felt justice and euphoria........BUT, prick boss can do what any white beyatch can do in the street when a black kid steals her purse, point at any black kid walking by and say "that ------ stole my purse" and that kid gets arrested on white chick's word only.

Wally's prick partner boss can call the cops and say, "I was in my office and Wally, my -------, I mean associate, for no good reason, throws a fucking book at me and hits me with it." Cop, will believe the white person, uh I mean partner who is older, is a businessman, who the cop might even know for god's sake!. The ------'s word, uh...I mean Wally's word will count for nothing. Same thing goes for telling the Bar but even worse. Who will they believe? Some entry level ------ like Wally or one of their long time dues paying prick bastard friends who helps them perpetuate the B.S. law setup as it is now? What if his boss actually sits on various bar committees? One of my abusive ex-bosses sat on many state bar commitees, had lunch and dinner and played golf with various court judges."

C) Sue him?

"I'm not going to sue or really do anything. I know, I know, everyone here says I should, but seriously, would you? How would I benefit from it? Would I win/settle for a great deal of $? No. Should any firm hear of this, will they want to hire me, regardless of fault? No. It's nearly impossible do get a decent job as it is; Do I really need the stigma of suing a former boss? No."

D) Seek out Witnesses?

"Someone mentioned something about witnesses above. The guys secretary was in the other room and heard the whole thing. She asked if I was ok, got me a papertowel for my nose and called the other partner to tell her what happened. However, as the previous poster said, she wouldn't put herself in a position to say something against the guy for fear of losing her $35K a year secretary job. Neither would the non-equity partner. These shit-hole ID places are really just solo-practices w/ "non-equity" partners under the head guy."

E) Call him out on a blog?

"Don't do it Wally. If you honestly don't believe there will be a benefit from naming names, don't. First off, ID in NYC is a close-knit group, even though there are 100's (likely thousands) of us, we all talk. The story will get out sooner or later and you don't want to be the guy who started it. I have a sinking feeling I know who your talking about, although maybe I'm wrong. I still think you should keep it to yourself, for no other reason then it sets a bad precedent for sites like these. Anyone remember JDJive? Don't name names unless you have to."

Ultimately, "Wally" did nothing.

More and More Appealing

In a move that likely fell under most radars, the Appellate Division, 2d Department has granted the defendant's motion for leave to appeal their decision in Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 42 A.D.3d 277 (2d Dep't, 2007) to the Court of Appeals. The App. Div. has posted the motion decision.

I have a feeling that the judges are going to get less and less sympathetic to the defendant's position the higher up the appeal goes on the food chain. Personally, I don't see the Court of Appeals reconsidering the underlying rationale of Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 (1997), no matter how much some of us would like that to occur in light of the state of things ten years on.