Can you say “Privacy Lawsuit?”
via youtube.com
This item speaks for itself. Class Action lawyers … enjoy!
Archive for the ‘courts and’Category
Law.com Puts the Spotlight on a Bad Apple
May 4, 2010 – Law.com
Scott Rothstein ran what appeared to be a wildly successful law firm but turned out to be a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. Prosecutors asked District Judge James Cohn to execute a vast forfeiture plan last month seeking ill-gotten gains in the form of cash, real estate, and other goods. Meanwhile, the lawyers for Herbert Stettin, the Trustee overseeing the estate of Rosenfeldt Adler (Rothstein’s law firm) feel the Government’s reach is too broad and that something should be left over for their client to administer. “I know the intersection of federal forfeiture law and federal bankruptcy law is a treacherous one,” said Paul Singerman, the Berger Singerman partner heading the trustee’s legal team. He said forfeiture laws were designed to take race cars away from drug dealers, but “this is not that type of case.” Not so long ago, prosecutors put the bad guys away, and bankruptcy attorneys and receivers recovered money for fraud victims. But the Justice Department has expanded its mission in the past decade, and the federal docket is littered with actions such as U.S. v. One Ancient Egyptian Wooden Sarcophagus or U.S. v. $13.9 million from Wachovia. When asked whether any money will be left, once prosecutors are done with claims from fraud victims, to pay creditors of the firm, Singerman responded, “We absolutely believe there will be.” Right now, however, not a lot of money has been recovered on the bankruptcy end. Singerman told U.S Bankruptcy Judge Raymond B. Ray in April that only about $3 million has been recovered by the trustee. What makes Singerman so optimistic, however, is negotiations with bankruptcy litigation targets, such as Banyon Income Fund, which claims a $775 million investment in Rothstein’s fake settlement financing scheme, and attorneys at the firm who received bonuses or loans. Singerman has told Ray that a settlement with a major player is forthcoming, and Banyon would be a juicy target. Stettin might be looking for any money Banyon received back from the Ponzi scheme, Tew said, but the Fort Lauderdale investment company reportedly lost $300 million and positioned itself as the leading creditor. << Read the Full Story >>
04
05 2010
Opinion: Zelotes v. Rousseau (Total Attorneys Case)
Download now or preview on posterous
Zelotes v Rousseau et al 09-0412 Memorandum of Decision.pdf (497 KB)
At issue in this case was whether Chicago-based lead-generation service Total Attorneys was violating ethical rules by doing business Lawyers in the State of Connecticut. The answer apparently was no. At least, not based on the complaint brought by this Attorney-Plaintiff. The opinion is seen as a victory for free enterprise as opposed to the grip of local bar associations, which routinely monopolize Attorney-Referral Services, which are a source of profit.
I’m not saying the decision actually is a victory for anyone (other than Total Attorneys) but even the most cynical observer will admit that the idea of preventing lawyers from saving money and reaching prospective clients so that bar associations could maintain their monopoly … I mean, ensure the clients’ best interests – was heavy handed and backward-looking.
Prove me wrong. I dare you.
09
02 2010
7th Circuit E-Discovery Program
This month’s installment from Cybercontrols is about the E-Discovery Pilot Program run by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Pilot runs from Oct. 1 ’09 to May 1 ’10 and is intended to motivate informational exchanges between counsel relating to electronically stored information (ESI) through a proposed standing order that select district judges, magistrates, and bankruptcy judges in the Seventh Circuit have already agreed to use. The principals set out in the proposed order go beyond the 2006 ESI amendements to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to include subjects such as
Zealous Representation. Principle 1.02 specifically addresses the zealous representation excuse for obstructionist behavior – the principles state that “An attorney’s zealous representation of a client is NOT compromised by conducting discovery in a cooperative manner.” (Emphasis added)
Proportionality. Principle 1.03 calls attention to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), which permits objections to discovery requests where the burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit considering such things as the resources of the parties and the amount in controversy.
Meet and Confers. Principle 2.01 specifically references Fed. R. Evid. 502. If the pilot project can find a way to minimize the amount of attorney time spent in pre-production privilege reviews it would have made a huge contribution to achieving the overall goal of securing the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”
E-Discovery Liaison. Principle 2.02 contemplates the appointment of an e-discovery liaison for the purpose of meeting, conferring or attending court hearings on e-discovery issues. The liaison may be an attorney but can also be a third party consultant or an employee of the party. The liaison needs to know or have access to the people who are familiar with a party’s electronic systems and capabilities, as well as the technical aspects of e-discovery
Preservation. Principle 2.03 explicitly disfavors broad requests for preservation and encourages the exchange of specific information to help determine appropriately specific preservation agreements.
Scope of Preservation. Principle 2.04 covers the scope of preservation. 2.04(b) requires a party seeking information regarding the other party’s preservation and collection efforts to confer with the other party before initiating such discovery. 2.04(d) enumerates types of information that would NOT ordinarily be preserved, e.g. deleted, slack, fragmented or unallocated data.
Identification of ESI. Principle 2.05 encourages parties to discuss such things as treatment for duplicative ESI, filtering based on file type, date ranges, etc, and use of keyword searching, topic or concept clustering or other advanced culling technologies.
Production Format. Principle 2.06 states that ESI and other tangible or hard copy documents that are not text-searchable need not be made text searchable, meaning, evidently, that scanned paper documents would not need to be OCR’d.
Education. Principle 3.01 states a judicial expectation that counsel will be familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing electronic discovery. Considering that the ESI rules have been in effect for three years as of December 1, 2009, and they were much publicized prior to their adoption, that hardly seems unreasonable or overreaching.
Seventh Circuit E-Discovery Pilot Program: 7th Circuit E-Discovery Program
CyberControls E-Discovery Request Considerations: E-Discovery Request Considerations
CyberControls specializes in electronic discovery and production, computer forensics, and integration of computer technology in civil litigation. Visit www.cybercontrols.net.
Tags: 7th Circuit
10
11 2009
social-media time management
17
10 2009
Better late than never?
Once more the Old Gray Lady has demonstrated how old and gray she is; this time by publishing this piece about lawyers who post on blogs, Facebook, or Twitter, could risk a reprimand or censure from oversight authorities like the Bar or State Supreme Court.
I know what you’re thinking. Could anyone at the Times actually think this was news? But be fair. If you lived in a time warp, you too might think that bland observations like this one amount to journalism:
Sean Conway found himself hauled up before the Florida bar, which issued a reprimand and a fine for one of his blog posts. But as an officer of the court lawyers like Conway face special risks. Their freedom to gripe is limited by codes of conduct.
The rest of the article is equally insightful. My theory is that the author swiped every single point in the piece from the blogging policies I developed in 2004. Way to stay cutting edge NY Times.
