MARCH MADNESS Happy Hour
Sponsored by the Westmoreland County Young Lawyers Association and the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division
March 19, 2009, 4:30 – 8:00 p.m.
Cedarbrook Golf Course Restaurant
215 Route 981, Belle Vernon PA 15012.
Phone: 724-929-8300
http://www.cedarbrookgolfcourse.com/
All PBA Young Lawyers are invited to join your peers from surrounding counties, for drinks, free appetizers and to watch the first round of March Madness.
Please RSVP to John Hauser at hauserlaw@gmail.com.
------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Law.com: The Smart Solo's Guide to Joint Ventures
The following article should help those attorneys contemplating the idea of a joint venture with one or more attorneys. The article was authored by Paul Schorn and originally published on Law.com.
awyers are like hounds on a hunt: Sometimes one just isn't enough. Some cases call for a team of lawyers to come at the problem from different directions to ensure success. Solos are well-suited to joint ventures by their tremendous flexibility. They can jump into working relationships without seeking approval from any committee and can form ad hoc alliances tailored to address specific disputes. This column will address some of the questions a solo practitioner should ask before teaming up.
1. Does a joint venture make sense?
Too many cooks can spoil the broth (or the closing argument), so do not enter into a joint venture unless it clearly helps the case. Co-counsel makes sense, for example, where a dispute straddles several substantive areas of the law, a party must bring a claim in an unfamiliar venue, or the resources required or the risks involved are greater than normal. If a solo has the knowledge, experience, time and money to handle a case, he probably ought to do it himself. This is especially true given that working within a joint venture increases the time and effort it will take to coordinate representation, as each decision must be (at least) communicated, and potentially involves disagreement, discussion and consensus building (anathema to many solos).
2. Who do I want on my team?
Quality counts. A solo should strive to work with lawyers who are better than she is -- smarter, more experienced, wiser. Character counts as well. A solo should not joint venture any case with someone unless she would feel comfortable standing next to that lawyer at the counsel table in open court.
Another tip: Avoid teaming up with your identical twin. Joint ventures work best when they involve lawyers whose strengths complement each other. Each attorney should bring something unique to the case. The classic example is a practitioner in a particular area of the law who teams up with a litigator to bring a case to trial. Similarly, a lawyer in one geographical area might join forces with local counsel in an area where the case is pending, or a solo might involve a lawyer who has already had conspicuous success with a specific type of claim to increase the chances of obtaining a reasonable settlement more quickly or winning the case at trial.
3. How should we divide the pie?
Joint venturers should be clear about the division of labor. Leave no room for confusion about who will draft pleadings, answer discovery, act as the primary client contact or negotiate with the opposition. Designate one lawyer as lead counsel, whether or not suit has been filed. Come to a general understanding about the kind of decisions that each attorney can make unilaterally and the kind that require agreement.
Make clear how lawyers will handle case expenses not covered by the client. It usually makes sense to have one attorney responsible for all such costs to avoid any I-thought-you-paid-that-bill confusion, though this might not be possible where lawyers formed the joint venture to cover especially large expenses. In such cases, divide costs by categories, i.e. "I'll pay for the filing fees, business records and court reporters; you pay for the expert witnesses, mediation costs and everything else."
Of course, division of the fee must also be crystal clear -- preferably equal shares for all. But this might not make sense where lawyers do not share equally the labor or risk. If one lawyer in a two-lawyer venture carries the case expenses, she probably should receive a greater share of the fee (say, 60 percent instead of half).
It makes sense to have a written joint venture agreement; however, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I've done 90 percent of my joint ventures on a handshake and never suffered a regret. It has always seemed to me that I shouldn't partner up -- even for a single case -- with anyone I didn't trust deeply.
4. What are the larger effects of teaming up?
A solo should also consider the effect of a joint venture on her practice. This type of partnership can allow a solo to work on more and bigger cases and earn larger fees. It can also increase the solo's stream of business, as battle-tested co-counsel often become strong sources of referrals. It is not uncommon for joint venture partners to become good friends -- no small consideration given the potential isolation of solo practice.
Solos who are fortunate enough to partner up with better known co-counsel when joint venturing cases can also increase their standing in the bar, like the poor farmer who entered his tired old mule in the Kentucky Derby. Told by race officials that his broken-down beast had no chance to win, the farmer replied, "I know, but I thought he'd benefit from the association."
Contrary to common perception, working as a solo presents endless opportunities for collaboration. Choosing joint ventures wisely is the key to success. Just because a solo is a lone wolf doesn't mean that, every now and again, he can't run with the hounds.
Paul Schorn is a solo practitioner with offices in Lockhart and Austin, Texas.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202428476148
-------------------------------------------------
awyers are like hounds on a hunt: Sometimes one just isn't enough. Some cases call for a team of lawyers to come at the problem from different directions to ensure success. Solos are well-suited to joint ventures by their tremendous flexibility. They can jump into working relationships without seeking approval from any committee and can form ad hoc alliances tailored to address specific disputes. This column will address some of the questions a solo practitioner should ask before teaming up.
1. Does a joint venture make sense?
Too many cooks can spoil the broth (or the closing argument), so do not enter into a joint venture unless it clearly helps the case. Co-counsel makes sense, for example, where a dispute straddles several substantive areas of the law, a party must bring a claim in an unfamiliar venue, or the resources required or the risks involved are greater than normal. If a solo has the knowledge, experience, time and money to handle a case, he probably ought to do it himself. This is especially true given that working within a joint venture increases the time and effort it will take to coordinate representation, as each decision must be (at least) communicated, and potentially involves disagreement, discussion and consensus building (anathema to many solos).
2. Who do I want on my team?
Quality counts. A solo should strive to work with lawyers who are better than she is -- smarter, more experienced, wiser. Character counts as well. A solo should not joint venture any case with someone unless she would feel comfortable standing next to that lawyer at the counsel table in open court.
Another tip: Avoid teaming up with your identical twin. Joint ventures work best when they involve lawyers whose strengths complement each other. Each attorney should bring something unique to the case. The classic example is a practitioner in a particular area of the law who teams up with a litigator to bring a case to trial. Similarly, a lawyer in one geographical area might join forces with local counsel in an area where the case is pending, or a solo might involve a lawyer who has already had conspicuous success with a specific type of claim to increase the chances of obtaining a reasonable settlement more quickly or winning the case at trial.
3. How should we divide the pie?
Joint venturers should be clear about the division of labor. Leave no room for confusion about who will draft pleadings, answer discovery, act as the primary client contact or negotiate with the opposition. Designate one lawyer as lead counsel, whether or not suit has been filed. Come to a general understanding about the kind of decisions that each attorney can make unilaterally and the kind that require agreement.
Make clear how lawyers will handle case expenses not covered by the client. It usually makes sense to have one attorney responsible for all such costs to avoid any I-thought-you-paid-that-bill confusion, though this might not be possible where lawyers formed the joint venture to cover especially large expenses. In such cases, divide costs by categories, i.e. "I'll pay for the filing fees, business records and court reporters; you pay for the expert witnesses, mediation costs and everything else."
Of course, division of the fee must also be crystal clear -- preferably equal shares for all. But this might not make sense where lawyers do not share equally the labor or risk. If one lawyer in a two-lawyer venture carries the case expenses, she probably should receive a greater share of the fee (say, 60 percent instead of half).
It makes sense to have a written joint venture agreement; however, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I've done 90 percent of my joint ventures on a handshake and never suffered a regret. It has always seemed to me that I shouldn't partner up -- even for a single case -- with anyone I didn't trust deeply.
4. What are the larger effects of teaming up?
A solo should also consider the effect of a joint venture on her practice. This type of partnership can allow a solo to work on more and bigger cases and earn larger fees. It can also increase the solo's stream of business, as battle-tested co-counsel often become strong sources of referrals. It is not uncommon for joint venture partners to become good friends -- no small consideration given the potential isolation of solo practice.
Solos who are fortunate enough to partner up with better known co-counsel when joint venturing cases can also increase their standing in the bar, like the poor farmer who entered his tired old mule in the Kentucky Derby. Told by race officials that his broken-down beast had no chance to win, the farmer replied, "I know, but I thought he'd benefit from the association."
Contrary to common perception, working as a solo presents endless opportunities for collaboration. Choosing joint ventures wisely is the key to success. Just because a solo is a lone wolf doesn't mean that, every now and again, he can't run with the hounds.
Paul Schorn is a solo practitioner with offices in Lockhart and Austin, Texas.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202428476148
-------------------------------------------------
Second Amendment Absent in Supreme Court Gun Ruling
(the following was authored by Tony Mauro and article appears on Law.com)
In spite of its recent support for an individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court on Tuesday adopted an expansive reading of the federal law that bans possession of firearms by those who have been convicted of felonies or of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
The meaning of the phrase about misdemeanors was the issue in United States v. Hayes, decided by a 7-2 vote in a decision available here.
West Virginia resident Randy Hayes was prosecuted under that section of the law in 2005. The predicate crime that triggered the law in his case was a 1994 state conviction on charges of battery, where his victim was his wife.
But Hayes claimed that since the crime was simple battery, and was not specific to battery against a family member, it should not have triggered the firearm possession law. Hayes lost at the district court level, but the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the law comes into play only when the predicate crime has "as an element a domestic relationship." In other words, even though Hayes' victim actually was his wife, the appeals court said it does not count as a predicate crime because the crime was not specific to domestic violence.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the 4th Circuit's approach would "frustrate Congress' manifest purpose" in including domestic violence crimes among the crimes that would result in loss of firearms. "If the Fourth Circuit were right in its analysis of the controlling legislation," Ginsburg said in announcing the ruling from the bench, "Congress' enactment would have been a dead letter in the majority of states from the very moment of its passage." Congress added the domestic violence provision in 1996.In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said that "right off the bat," the law should be read to require that a domestic relationship be an element of the predicate offense. Roberts also said that implementing the majority's view will entail "significant problems," requiring prosecutors to research the relationships in past crimes, rather than simply going by the category of the crime.The case drew interest in part as a test of the strength of the right to bear firearms in the wake of D.C. v. Heller, last year's landmark declaration of an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment Foundation filed a brief in the Hayes case, urging the Court to adopt the narrower interpretation and to allow states leeway in defining crimes.
But, as Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman points out on his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, neither Heller nor the Second Amendment played a role in Hayes. "The Second Amendment and Heller do not even get mentioned by the dissenters, even though the majority's ruling would seem to provide a green light to jurisdictions looking for pretty easy ways to functionally work around the rights supposedly championed in Heller."
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence applauded the decision. "In its first gun case since the landmark Heller decision, the Court wisely upheld this reasonable restriction, said center president Paul Helmke. "Today's ruling is the right one for victims of domestic abuse and to protect law enforcement officers who are our first responders to domestic violence incidents."
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202428547434
This article first appeared on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.
-------------------------------------------------
In spite of its recent support for an individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court on Tuesday adopted an expansive reading of the federal law that bans possession of firearms by those who have been convicted of felonies or of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
The meaning of the phrase about misdemeanors was the issue in United States v. Hayes, decided by a 7-2 vote in a decision available here.
West Virginia resident Randy Hayes was prosecuted under that section of the law in 2005. The predicate crime that triggered the law in his case was a 1994 state conviction on charges of battery, where his victim was his wife.
But Hayes claimed that since the crime was simple battery, and was not specific to battery against a family member, it should not have triggered the firearm possession law. Hayes lost at the district court level, but the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the law comes into play only when the predicate crime has "as an element a domestic relationship." In other words, even though Hayes' victim actually was his wife, the appeals court said it does not count as a predicate crime because the crime was not specific to domestic violence.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the 4th Circuit's approach would "frustrate Congress' manifest purpose" in including domestic violence crimes among the crimes that would result in loss of firearms. "If the Fourth Circuit were right in its analysis of the controlling legislation," Ginsburg said in announcing the ruling from the bench, "Congress' enactment would have been a dead letter in the majority of states from the very moment of its passage." Congress added the domestic violence provision in 1996.In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said that "right off the bat," the law should be read to require that a domestic relationship be an element of the predicate offense. Roberts also said that implementing the majority's view will entail "significant problems," requiring prosecutors to research the relationships in past crimes, rather than simply going by the category of the crime.The case drew interest in part as a test of the strength of the right to bear firearms in the wake of D.C. v. Heller, last year's landmark declaration of an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment Foundation filed a brief in the Hayes case, urging the Court to adopt the narrower interpretation and to allow states leeway in defining crimes.
But, as Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman points out on his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, neither Heller nor the Second Amendment played a role in Hayes. "The Second Amendment and Heller do not even get mentioned by the dissenters, even though the majority's ruling would seem to provide a green light to jurisdictions looking for pretty easy ways to functionally work around the rights supposedly championed in Heller."
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence applauded the decision. "In its first gun case since the landmark Heller decision, the Court wisely upheld this reasonable restriction, said center president Paul Helmke. "Today's ruling is the right one for victims of domestic abuse and to protect law enforcement officers who are our first responders to domestic violence incidents."
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202428547434
This article first appeared on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.
-------------------------------------------------
PBA Judicial Evaluation Commission Releases Fourth Round of 2009 Judicial Ratings
HARRISBURG (Feb. 4, 2009) - The Pennsylvania Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Commission (PBA JEC) today released its fourth round of ratings for potential judicial candidates seeking election to the state's appellate courts in November. The ratings released today are for Republican candidates who were evaluated by the Commission last week, and the ratings are being issued prior to the Republican State Committee meeting this weekend. Ratings for Democratic candidates evaluated by the Commission last week were issued last Friday, just prior to last weekend's meeting of the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee.
Each candidate requesting an evaluation by the PBA JEC is eligible to receive a rating of "Highly Recommended," "Recommended" or "Not Recommended."
The PBA JEC's ratings completed during the fourth round of evaluations are as follows:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Recommended
Judge Jacqueline O. Shogan, Allegheny County
Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Highly Recommended
Judge Judith F. Olson, Allegheny County
Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Recommended
Sallie Updyke Mundy, Tioga County
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania - Recommended
Kevin Brobson, Dauphin County
Judge Patricia A. McCullough, Allegheny County
For all of the PBA recommenations and ratings, visit:
http://www.pabar.org/public/news%20releases/pr020409.asp
------------------------------------------------
Each candidate requesting an evaluation by the PBA JEC is eligible to receive a rating of "Highly Recommended," "Recommended" or "Not Recommended."
The PBA JEC's ratings completed during the fourth round of evaluations are as follows:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Recommended
Judge Jacqueline O. Shogan, Allegheny County
Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Highly Recommended
Judge Judith F. Olson, Allegheny County
Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Recommended
Sallie Updyke Mundy, Tioga County
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania - Recommended
Kevin Brobson, Dauphin County
Judge Patricia A. McCullough, Allegheny County
For all of the PBA recommenations and ratings, visit:
http://www.pabar.org/public/news%20releases/pr020409.asp
------------------------------------------------
WBA Tech Tip of the Week: Accessing Microsoft Office 2007 Documents
Accessing Microsoft Office 2007 Documents
With the release of Office 2007, Microsoft introduced new file formats for
Word (Docx), Excel (Xlsx), PowerPoint (Pptx), and Access (Accdb). Many users
receiving these documents via email or disk can¹t open them because they
have an older version of Microsoft Office or use WordPerfect for their word
processing.
Individuals using Office 2000, Office XP, or Office 2003 can download and install the Office 2007 File Converter software, available free from Microsoft¹s website. Go to www.microsoft.com, access the link for the Microsoft Download Center, and search for the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack. Or, type Œdownload Microsoft office compatibility pack¹ in a Google search and follow the links. Download and install the software, and from now on you¹ll be able to open Office 2007 documents using your earlier versions normal File, Open dialog box.
WordPerfect¹s latest X4 version can access Office 2007 documents directly.
If you have an older version of WordPerfect, a pre-2000 version of Microsoft
Office, or don¹t have Office at all, you can also download and install
Microsoft¹s Word Viewer 2007 utility (again, either from Microsoft¹s
download site or, in Google, search for ŒWord Viewer 2007 download). You
need both the Word Viewer program and the File Converter software. Once both
are installed, you load Word Viewer, locate and open the 2007 document,
click Edit, Select All and then Edit, Copy.
Then bring up your older version of Office or WordPerfect (or any other Windows based word processor) and click Edit and Paste.
-------------------------------------------------
Monday, February 16, 2009
WBA Tech Tip of the Month: Arrange Your Start Menu Icons Alphabetically
Arrange Your Start Menu Icons Alphabetically
In Windows XP, when you click on Start and then Programs or All Programs, you first see your most recently accessed programs; if you then click on the double-down arrows to see all of your programs, they’ll appear in a haphazard order, typically in the order in which they were installed (Note that in Windows Vista the system automatically displays your program shortcuts in
alphabetical order).
To arrange your Start Menu icons alphabetically, click on Start and then on Programs (for the
Classic XP Interface, or All Programs for the ‘New’ XP Interface). Right-click on any one of the
items listed (it isn’t necessary to click on the double-down arrow here) and select ‘Sort by Name’. The next time you view your programs they’ll be arranged in alphabetical order with folders first (alphabetically), then individual program shortcuts (another difference with Vista, which lists the individual programs first, then the program folders).
Courtesy of Erie County Bar Association and Richard D. Vasil, Vasil Consulting
------------------------------------------------
In Windows XP, when you click on Start and then Programs or All Programs, you first see your most recently accessed programs; if you then click on the double-down arrows to see all of your programs, they’ll appear in a haphazard order, typically in the order in which they were installed (Note that in Windows Vista the system automatically displays your program shortcuts in
alphabetical order).
To arrange your Start Menu icons alphabetically, click on Start and then on Programs (for the
Classic XP Interface, or All Programs for the ‘New’ XP Interface). Right-click on any one of the
items listed (it isn’t necessary to click on the double-down arrow here) and select ‘Sort by Name’. The next time you view your programs they’ll be arranged in alphabetical order with folders first (alphabetically), then individual program shortcuts (another difference with Vista, which lists the individual programs first, then the program folders).
Courtesy of Erie County Bar Association and Richard D. Vasil, Vasil Consulting
------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
