Friday, July 18, 2008
WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY "BEST FIRM FOR CLASS ACTIONS"
   The 2008 edition of The Legal 500 U.S., self-described as "the world’s largest legal referral guide" providing corporate counsel independent, unbiased commentary on the leading law firms and lawyers, includes Wheeler Trigg Kennedy partners Malcolm Wheeler, Jack Trigg, and Michael Williams in the practice area of "Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense." Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Trigg are listed in the subsection for automotive matters. All three lawyers are listed in the subsection for consumer products.
Based on interviews with clients and other in-house counsel, The Legal 500 U.S. describes Wheeler Trigg Kennedy as "the best firm for class actions" in the United States.
DEUTSCH KERRIGAN REINSTATES JURY's "ZERO" VERDICT
  Robert E. Kerrigan Jr. and Isaac H. Ryan of Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles were enrolled as appellate counsel for a major insurance company after a Louisiana Court of Appeal overturned a jury's determination of $0 loss of future earning capacity and increased that award to $1.1 million. The defendants' sole option was to seek a writ of certiorari from the Louisiana Supreme Court. Mr. Kerrigan and Mr. Ryan successfully argued that the jury's determination of the amount, if any, of lost earning capacity is an issue of fact subject to the manifest error standard of review, and they showed that the jury's determination was supported by the evidence. The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed and found that the Court of Appeal inappropriately substituted its own judgment for the judgment of the trial court. The jury's verdict of "zero" was reinstated.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
COLORADO PLAINTIFFS’ LAWYERS HONOR CORPORATE DEFENSE LAWYER MICHAEL O'DONNELL
 The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association presented Michael O’Donnell, chairman of the civil litigation defense firm Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, with an award for "the highest standards of competency, ethics and professionalism." This is only the seventh time in its 55-year history that the CTLA, whose members are plaintiffs’ attorneys, has given this award to a defense lawyer. Mr. O’Donnell said, "I am honored to be recognized by my professional colleagues who I usually only see on the other side of the courtroom."
Mr. O'Donnell is listed in The Best Lawyers in America in four litigation categories, was voted one of the top ten lawyers in Colorado in 2007 by Colorado Super Lawyers, and is Chairman-Elect of the Colorado section of the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers.
Friday, June 20, 2008
SNELL & WILMER NAMED TOP LAW FIRM IN PHOENIX BY CORPORATE DIRECTORS -- Firm Receives Honor for Seventh Consecutive Year
 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. announced today that it has been recognized by Corporate Board Member magazine, a national publication covering corporate governance and boardroom issues, as the top corporate law firm in Phoenix for the seventh consecutive year, according to a survey of corporate directors. The publication released the results of its eighth annual survey in its July/August cover story: "America's Best Corporate Law Firms." The issue features the selected best firms to do business with throughout 25 major metropolitan areas as well as the top 20 national law firms.
To determine rankings, Corporate Board Member magazine, in conjunction with FTI Consulting, surveyed over 2,000 directors serving on boards of publicly traded companies listed with the NASDAQ Stock Market, New York Stock Exchange, or American Stock Exchange, and general counsels of publicly traded companies. Those surveyed were asked which firms they would recommend to assist their companies on a wide range of corporate legal issues.
"At Snell & Wilmer, we are committed to providing our clients with superior legal services on a timely, effective, and efficient basis – all while maintaining the highest standards of professional integrity," said John J. Bouma, chairman of Snell & Wilmer. "We are proud to once again be selected by directors and general counsels as the top law firm in Phoenix. This honor carries great significance as it comes from the decision makers who work with outside law firms every day."
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
GOODELL DEVRIES RANKED AS THE LEADING LAW FIRM IN MARYLAND FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEFENSE BY CHAMBERS USA
   Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP is recognized as the "top in the field of medical malpractice defense in Maryland" for 2008 by Chambers USA.
Partners Donald L. DeVries Jr., Craig B. Merkle, and Susan T. Preston are recognized as three top Leaders of Maryland’s medical malpractice defense law. Ranked as the number 1 medical malpractice attorney in Maryland for 2008, Donald L. DeVries, Jr. is regarded as the "top of the heap in medical malpractice" defense. Both Craig B. Merkle and Susan T. Preston were also honored for their medical negligence defense of hospitals and physicians by Chambers USA. This is the fourth consecutive year Craig B. Merkle has been recognized by Chambers USA. Susan T. Preston has been recognized for three consecutive years.
Chambers USA is an annual publication ranking law firms and attorneys based on in-depth interviews with attorneys, clients and corporate counsel. These 2008 rankings were based on peer interviews assessing "technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness and astuteness, diligence, commitment and other qualities valued by client respondents."
Friday, June 13, 2008
GREAT RESULTS FROM DEUTSCH KERRIGAN (NEW ORLEANS, LA)
Legal Malpractice
  William Wright and Charlotte Meade were successful in obtaining a summary judgment in favor of their client, a Florida law firm, who was sued by its former client in an adversary proceeding in Federal Bankruptcy Court in New Orleans. Plaintiff had hired the law firm to represent her interests in connection with a Business Services Agreement with two companies after those companies had filed for bankruptcy protection in the Eastern District of Louisiana in March 2006. In May 2007, the firm's client, on behalf of Plaintiff, filed an adversary proceeding against one of the companies alleging, inter alia, breach of contract. In January 2008, Plaintiff filed a Third Party Demand against its former counsel asserting that its advice caused her to incur substantial damages with regard to her violation of certain Bankruptcy Court orders. Mr. Wright and Ms. Meade filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending that at all times the firm properly advised Plaintiff of her duties and obligations under the Bankruptcy Court Order. The Judge agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the firm, and dismissing the Third Party Complaint.
Actuary Liability
William Wright and Charlotte Meade handled this actuary liability case where all claims, totaling $51 million in alleged damages, were dismissed after a four-day trial. Their client, an actuarial firm, was accused of breach of duty in regard to the management of a pension plan with $400 million in assets. The Plaintiff maintained that the actuary should have advised more conservative investments because the investors were maturing and should have advised not to implement additional benefits to the plan because they were too expensive. Wright and Meade successfully countered that the actuary did not have a duty to advise more conservative investments and had adequately advised as to the issue of benefits.
After obtaining a favorable verdict in March 2007, William Wright and Charlotte Meade successfully defeated an appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On appeal, Plaintiffs-Appellants argued that the lower court erred procedurally when it dismissed Defendants' Rule 52(c) motion, and granted in favor of Plaintiffs, before Defendants' argued their case in chief. Plaintiffs further argued that the lower court failed to conduct a proper comparative fault analysis under Louisiana law, and thus, Defendants should have been assigned some degree of fault. Briefs were submitted in the Fall of 2007. On March 4, 2008, Bill Wright conducted oral argument before the court. On May 6, 2008, the Fifth Circuit affirmed finding that both of Plaintiff-Appellants' arguments on appeal failed.
Personal Injury
 Bert Cass obtained a defense verdict for his client, a general contractor, who was being sued for millions in a serious personal injury suit. The sheet metal worker plaintiff alleged that the contractor had improperly placed and installed a safety gate, which he was opening from atop a ladder, when he fell eighteen feet, crushing his left heel, ankle, and left elbow. Four other defendants settled a week before the trial, leaving Mr. Cass to face three plaintiff's attorneys, their experts, and the plaintiff's co-workers, who testified that opening the safety gate while standing on the ladder was dangerous and who were critical of the gate's placement. After a jury trial that lasted from May 5-14, 2008, the jury found in the defendant's favor. The case was tried in Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, which is a notoriously unfriendly forum for defendants.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
SIX SUPER LAWYERS AGAIN AT CORR CRONIN
     
Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece is pleased to announce that once again six of its lawyers have been chosen by their peers as "Super Lawyers." Kelly Corr, Bill Cronin, Guy Michelson, Kevin Baumgardner, Josh Preece and Randy Squires were each selected for 2008. Fewer than five percent of the state's lawyers receive this recognition. Once again, both Kelly and Bill were also picked among the "Top 100" lawyers for the state. More than 27,000 lawyers practice in Washington.
Friday, May 23, 2008
BEIRNE MAYNARD FIRM WINS IMPORTANT FIFTH CIRCUIT DECISION REJECTING THE CONCEPT OF "UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION"
   On Wednesday, May 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt, which reversed injunctions granted by a Houston federal judge against the enforcement of the real estate licensing laws of the States of California and Florida. The lower court had ruled the California and Florida laws were unconstitutional as applied to the resale of timeshare condominiums by a Texas-based broker. The Fifth Circuit decision is the latest development after 10 years of litigation involving these parties.
Lawyers from several Texas law firms represented the California and Florida officials in the Fifth Circuit. Jeff Nobles, a partner at Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, was lead counsel for the State of State of California Department of Real Estate in the Fifth Circuit; partner Clint Corrie and associate John Broussard assisted in the appeal.
The case had drawn attention for its significance to the timeshare industry and for the constitutional issues raised by the effect of traditional state regulations on Internet-based businesses like Stroman Realty, a Conroe affiliate of ERA Realty, and one of the largest timeshare resale companies in the country. States have traditionally regulated real estate brokers to protect consumers, but Stroman Realty contended that its business model, based on the Internet, direct mail, and newspaper advertisements rather than a physical presence in other states, is immune from regulation in other states under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Lynn Hughes agreed, and enjoined California or Florida from enforcing their laws against Stroman, in an opinion available online here.
The Fifth Circuit decided the case on jurisdictional grounds. Stroman sued state officials from California, Florida, Arizona, and Illinois in Texas, its home state. Other Houston federal judges declined to exercise jurisdiction over Arizona and Illinois officials, but Judge Hughes entertained the suit against California and Florida officials. A Fifth Circuit decision affirming jurisdiction in Texas would have created a convenient litigation vehicle for businesses complaining of interstate regulations, while requiring state officials to defend their regulations in any state where the effects of their laws are felt. These concerns eventually led the attorneys general of 15 states and territories to file an amicus brief in support of the California and Florida officials.
The Fifth Circuit ultimately vacated the lower court's injunctions on the ground that Stroman could not be permitted to sue the California and Florida officials in Texas. The appellate court noted the practical effects of Stroman’s arguments would allow "an Oklahoma resident to sue a California state trooper in Texas for civil rights violations occurring in California," and rejected what it deemed "an attempt at universal jurisdiction, by a federal district court, for which there are no limiting principles."
Joel R. White, a solo practitioner in Austin, was lead counsel on appeal for the Florida officials, and was joined by Linda Broocks, of Ogden, Gibson, Broocks & Longoria.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
PFIZER PRESENTS WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY WITH PERFORMANCE AWARD
 Recently, Pfizer Inc presented Wheeler Trigg Kennedy with its P3 Award "for exceptional performance" in representing Pfizer in the two-year period 2006-2007. In choosing WTK for this recognition over more than a dozen other law firms that represented the company during that period, Pfizer explained that it based the award on WTK's work as national counsel on all litigation related to one of the company's leading pharmaceutical products.
WTK partners Malcolm Wheeler and James Hooper lead the WTK Pfizer team. Malcolm Wheeler, who has handled both trials and appeals for Pfizer, said, “It is gratifying to have a client publicly commend us for providing outstanding service, especially when the client is the world’s leading pharmaceutical manufacturer and when the other candidates for the award included many of the nation’s largest, most prominent law firms with offices throughout the world.”
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
SIX DEFENSE VERDICTS IN A ROW FOR WWHGD'S BOB TANNER
 Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC (WWHGD) partner Robert "Bob" Tanner is on a roll every trial attorney dreams of: Six defense jury verdicts in a row. Since late 2005, Mr. Tanner has successfully tried numerous medical malpractice cases—which include one in 2005 and two in 2006, 2007 and 2008—before juries across Georgia. (One additional case in 2006 settled during trial.)
Bob Tanner said the key to success is "hard work, getting to know your case in depth, your strengths and the other side’s weaknesses and presenting the case in a straightforward manner." While medical malpractice cases replete with technical terminology can be difficult for some juries to unravel, he said that his approach is to drill the case down to core issues and present the facts in a clear manner, enabling him to keep juries focused and to be highly persuasive. "Juries want information and they want you to get to the relevant information and sit down," he said. "If you do that they will listen and they will be focused on what you are saying. If they don't listen, they can’t be persuaded. When I stand up, I want the jury to know that I am going to talk for a short period of time and then I am going to sit down."
The cases Mr. Tanner has tried to a defense verdict have been in different venues and have involved a wide range of facts. In 2005, a jury in Farley v. Zellmer et al. in the U.S. District Court, Northern District, reached a verdict after three days of trial. In 2006, Mr. Tanner received a defense verdict in Shannon v. Mann in the Superior Court of Henry County. In 2007, juries in Harris v. Newnan Hospital, et al. in the Superior Court of Coweta County and Campbell v. McConnell, et al. in the State Court of Fulton County also returned defense verdicts. In 2008, he successfully tried two death cases, Craft v. Elbert Memorial Hospital before a jury in Elbert County Superior Court and Buchanan v. Price in the State Court of Carroll County, to successful conclusions.
LINDA WOOLF NAMED A 2008 MARYLAND SUPER LAWYER
 Linda S. Woolf of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann has been named by Maryland Super Lawyers magazine as one of the outstanding attorneys in Maryland for 2008. Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers. Besides being named in Maryland Super Lawyers magazine, Linda S. Woolf was also listed as a Top Attorney in Business Litigation in the Super Lawyers – Corporate Counsel Edition, a new publication from Key Professional Media that includes lists of top business and corporate lawyers who have been recognized by Super Lawyers from across the country.
The selections for Super Lawyers are made by Law & Politics, a division of Key Professional Media, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN. Each year, Law & Politics undertakes a rigorous multi-phase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by the Law & Politics’ attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check. Super Lawyers can be found online at superlawyers.com, where lawyers can be searched by practice area and location.
Friday, May 09, 2008
WEINBERG WHEELER SAVES CLIENT MILLIONS WITH TEN MINUTES TO SPARE
  Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC (“WWHGD”) partners Y. Kevin Williams and Carol Michel were called in exactly one week before trial to try a case involving a gruesome abduction, rape and murder in New Mexico. After trying the case for over two weeks, the jury had been deliberating for a day and a half, and the Plaintiff’s attorney finally engaged in serious settlement discussions given the time the jury had been deliberating. While reading the settlement on the record, there was a knock on the jury door and ultimately it was discovered that the jury had reached a verdict only minutes after the settlement was reached.
The settlement, which represented a fraction of the verdict, was a hard-fought victory for Williams and Michel. “This was a difficult case for us because we were called in only 7 days before the case when to trial,” said Williams. “We didn’t have a lot to work with because a lot of the defense theories to the Plaintiff’s claims hadn’t been developed. However, we were able to keep the jury out for a long time and the Plaintiff’s attorney blinked. The Plaintiff’s attorney thought she had a slam dunk case with an enormous verdict,” Williams continued. “By keeping the jury out, she got nervous and sent over a settlement offer that started the negotiations. If the jury hadn’t been out for so long, the settlement wouldn’t have been reached.”
The case was an uphill battle from the start. The Plaintiff was a single mother who was working as a night shift clerk in privately-owned convenience store in Hobbs, New Mexico. On January 16, 2002, the Plaintiff was working the night shift alone and it was only her second day on the job. The Plaintiff’s claimed the convenience store was poorly lit, had no video surveillance and was located on a remote stretch of road where few traveled in the darks hours of the night. At approximately 2:30 in the morning, the Plaintiff was abducted from the store and removed to a remote location where she was raped and stabbed 57 times.
The Plaintiffs argued the regional convenience store chain had a history of leaving lone females to work the graveyard shift, in spite of the fact that almost 1,000 crimes had been committed in the stores, including violent crimes against store clerks. In fact, the Plaintiffs showed crimes had become so rampant, particularly in the town where the Plaintiff worked, that six months prior to this incident, the Hobbs Chief of Police had called the president of the company to complain that the store was off the charts for felonies and needed cameras, lights and at least two clerks working overnight or, in a hauntingly accurate prediction, it was “setting itself up for someone to be killed.” Also, the Plaintiffs showed the convenience store chain had even sued its own insurance company a few years prior for excessive payouts for claims and injuries, including workers’ compensation claims, arguing that the insurance company had not provided sufficient training for avoiding these types of allegations. The convenience store was awarded $17 million but Plaintiff’s claimed they did not use the money to correct the lighting and security problems.
“The firm in New Mexico that was handling the case knew us and knew our reputation,” said Williams. “We got the call about a week before trial and it was an extremely busy week to say the least.” Williams said that the defense theory was to focus on the fact that there are some insane, evil people who commit horrific crimes even in the face of sophisticated security measures. After lengthy jury deliberations, the Plaintiff’s attorney began to doubt her bargaining position and initiated settlement talks that culminated in a binding agreement mere minutes before the jury returned with a verdict. “The Plaintiff’s attorney was obviously extremely disappointed when she looked down and saw the numbers on the verdict form,” said Williams. Since this incident, New Mexico has enacted regulations that now require convenience stores to staff two clerks for all overnight shifts and maintain video surveillance of their premises.
GOODELL DEVRIES WINS DESIGN DEFECT CASE
  Thomas J. Cullen, Jr. and Renée N. Sewchand of Goodell, DeVries, Leech and Dann, LLP won a defense verdict for Crown Equipment Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Plaintiffs sued on a strict liability product defect theory and on negligence for damages resulting from a severe crush injury sustained in a workplace accident.
Plaintiffs claimed that the design of defendant's stand-up rider forklift was defective and that it worsened the injury.
Plaintiffs argued that an alternate design for stand-up rider forklifts (fully enclosed with latched operator compartment doors to protect lower appendages when hitting fixed object) would have prevented the injuries.
Crown presented biodynamic testing, medical evidence, and testimony from mechanical and biomechanical engineers to establish the reasonableness of Crown’s open operator compartment design.
After almost two weeks of evidence, the jury deliberated for less than 90 minutes before unanimously reaching a full defense verdict. The jury entered a verdict in favor of Crown on the product defect claim, and found Crown not at fault on the negligence claim.
SANDBERG PHOENIX OBTAINS DEFENSE VERIDICT IN NURSING HOME NEGLIGENCE CASE
 Stephen Strum of Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard obtained a defense verdict in a nursing home negligence case tried in St. Louis in April 2008. An 80 year-old resident was removed from her ventilator by an unlicensed Respiratory Therapist, and died four days later. The plaintiff alleged that no physician had ordered her removal from the ventilator. The Respiratory Therapist was charged and entered a plea of involuntary manslaughter as a result of the incident. Plaintiff's counsel sought $4.0 million from the jury. The jury rendered a verdict against the nursing home for $26,000 (the amount of the medical specials).
Monday, May 05, 2008
FOUR VICTORIES FOR DEUTSCH KERRIGAN
  Robert Kerrigan and Ike Ryan of Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles took a summary judgment in a complicated cataract surgery litigation. Plaintiff claimed that an Alcon Infiniti Vision System failed during her surgery causing a loss of vision in her left eye. That was the first-ever product liability case involving that product, a state-of-the-art phacoemulsification system used in the removal of more than one million cataracts per year. The defense team demonstrated that there was no manufacturing or other defect in the product, and that the machine acted as one would expect given the physician's customized surgery settings. The case against the manufacturer was dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff is pursuing medical malpractice claims against the physician and surgery center before a Louisiana medical review panel. (Brunet v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USDC-EDLA 07-CV-3618.)
Robert Kerrigan and Ike Ryan also successfully defended SunGard, a provider of "hotsite" computing services, in a case arising out of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bank of Louisiana claimed that Sungard failed to assist Bank of Louisiana in its time of need, requiring that the bank outsource all of its data processing operations. Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $900,000. After discovery revealed that plaintiff failed to execute even the most basic aspects of its "disaster recovery plan" (e.g. none of the plaintiff's IT staff returned to work, and its backup tapes were never located), the court granted summary judgment in favor of SunGard. In addition, judgment was also taken in favor of SunGard on an $80,000 counterclaim for unpaid invoices. (Bank of Louisiana v. Sungard Availability Services, Inc., USDC-EDLA 07-CV-1228.)
 Following a five and a half week jury trial, Robert Kerrigan and Jonathan Walsh took a defense verdict on all claims brought by three employees of Gaylord Chemical/Container against a trucking company alleged to have delivered and moved four stainless steel trailers at Gaylord Chemical's Bogalusa plant. Plaintiffs' alleged that their injuries and damages were caused by nitrogen tetroxide that leaked from the trailers in the days prior to the October 23, 1995 explosion. Because the cause of action accrued in 1995, plaintiffs were allowed to pursue punitive damages in addition to their $40 million claim. The jury was out 45 minutes before bringing in a verdict for the trucking company and against the plaintiffs, dismissing all claims with prejudice, and at their cost. (In re Chemical Release at Bogalusa, No. 73,341, Div. "C.")
Robert Kerrigan and Jonathan Walsh also won an appellate decision in favor of the firm's clients (a district judge's minute clerk and the Clerk of Court for the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court) for what plaintiff claimed was his "unjust incarceration." The court accepted the firm's statute of limitation and judicial immunity arguments and granted judgment for defendants plaintiff had filed suit more than five years after the alleged erroneous minute entry, plaintiff had notice of his cause of action and thus should have filed a civil lawsuit within one year of learning of the alleged mistake). Also the firm argued that even if the plaintiff's claims were timely, they were barred because the clerk was protected by judicial immunity. The trial court and a 2-1 majority on the appellate court agreed. (Averel Jackson v. Rose Phillips, et al., 07-CA-963, La. App. 5th Cir. April 15, 2008.)
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
BILL CRONIN SELECTED AS A FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS
Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece is pleased to announce Bill Cronin has been selected as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Fellowship is by invitation only and is limited to the top one percent of lawyers in any state. The lawyer must be an outstanding trial lawyer considered among the best in the state. In addition, he or she must adhere to the highest ethical standards and have excellent character.
Bill joins Kelly Corr and Randy Squires as the third member of the firm to be selected to the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Friday, April 18, 2008
BLAKES BULLETIN ON LITIGATION: Litigation of Material Adverse Change Clauses
 As noted recently in the Financial Post, both Wall Street and Bay Street are closely watching the next court ruling which may assist in providing parameters of how and when a party may lawfully terminate a contract based upon a material adverse change clause. Given the high stakes which are often involved, few of these cases go to trial but there may be more litigation arising as a result of the current credit crisis.
To access this bulletin, please click here.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
HOOD LAW FIRM DEFENSE VERDICT FOR PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL
  On March 21, 2008, the trial team of Molly H. Craig and Diedra Wilson Hightower of the Hood Law Firm (Charleston, SC) obtained a defense verdict for a local psychiatric hopsital in a False Imprisonment/Assault/Invasion of Privacy/Loss of Consortium case involving the involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital for one night and the emotional damage suffered as a result. On May 2, 2005, Plaintiffs reported to the wife’s treating psychiatrist that she self discontinued her psychotrophic medications, had not slept for days and had been experiencing suicidal ideation. They agreed that she needed to be admitted to a mental health facility for in patient treatment and calls were made to the Defendant to notify staff that Plaintiff had been experiencing suicidal ideation and would be arriving at the facility for in-patient treatment. She arrived, accompanied by her husband, and they were interviewed by a Mental Health Counselor, who was informed that she had been experiencing suicidal thoughts and appeared to be manic. She presented Plaintiff with “Consent For Treatment Forms,” and she refused to execute the documents. A call was made to treating psychiatrist to report same and as a result, she was involuntarily committed. The psychiatrist examined her the following day and she was discharged. Plaintiffs contended that she was not a candidate for involuntary admission, that she was mentally stable and rational because she had the necessary thought process to seek help through a voluntary admission. Additionally, Plaintiffs contended that Defendant violated the statute governing involuntary commitments, specifically, South Carolina Code Annotated §§44-17-410, since she was committed without an in person examination by a licensed physician prior to commitment. Plaintiff tried the case as a false imprisonment case while the Defendant argued it was a medical negligence case. The Court allowed the jury to decide whether the statute had been violated.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
60 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL TO ATTEND NETWORK'S MAY 1-4, 2008
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT SUPERCOURSE XLIII
limited space remains available
Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, Florida
May 1-4, 2008
In-house general counsel and senior litigation managers will attend two days of cutting-edge litigation management CLE provided by The Network of Trial Law Firms next month at our 43rd Litigation Management Supercourse. This Spring's program will take place at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort in Naples, Florida.
Comments from past attendees include:
"Excellent presentations. The 20-minute time frame keeps them substantive, tight and to the point. The morning just flew -- yesterday and today."
"Excellent panel!!"
"A very good program. Every presentation was top-notch. The level of expertise is highly impressive."
"Excellent panel on counsel selection."
"Very insightful comments from all your speakers in fast-moving format."
"The class action presentation was first rate."
"Very good program and speakers."
"Another great program - lots of useful information in an entertaining style."
"Technology was terrific - even better than before."
"Written materials on CD is also very helpful."
"Counsel selection panel was a great session. Excellent break-out session on litigation management. Chairs did a great job."
"Excellent day of CLE. Very informative and interesting. Quite a lot of information that will be useful in my practice for my employer."
"Excellent topics and presentations as usual. It's good to be back."
"Best presentation I've seen in e-discovery."
"A very good collection of presentations -- Thank You!"
"Panel discussion on partnership management of important litigation was superlative - I wanted more."
"Hope to see more in the future."
   Network chair, David Harris, a senior litigation partner at Lowenstein Sandler in New Jersey, said "this program continues the Network's 15-year history of delivering highly entertaining cutting-edge CLE programming in the litigation management area."
Warren Platt, Network vice chair, and a senior litigation partner at Snell & Wilmer in Arizona, noted that the topics are varied, focused and decidedly to-the-point, each speaker limited to 20 minutes. "If a trial lawyer can't make his/her point in that time, he/she ought to consider another field."
Long ago the Network moved to concise rapid-fire speaking slots accompanied by heavy use of demonstratives and PowerPoint slides to get a lot of information across in a limited time. "The audience, most of which is pretty sophisticated, likes it better and appreciates the respect shown for the commitment they make of their time to attend," said Tony White, a senior litigation partner at Thompson Hine in Ohio and vice-chair elect of the Network.
Attorneys interested in attending are invited to contact any attorney at one of our 23 member law firms, or contact Ellis Mirsky, General Counsel and Executive Director of the Network.
For the agenda, speakers and other details see the Network's website.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
BLAKES BULLETIN ON LITIGATION: Supreme Court of Canada Denies Compensation to Third Party for Costs of Complying with Production Order
In 2004, amendments to the Criminal Code were enacted to permit law enforcement agencies to issue production orders compelling innocent third parties to produce documents and data for use in criminal investigations. The financial burden imposed on the third party to comply with these orders can be tremendous, particularly for companies in the financial services and communications sectors who may be called upon to respond to several orders in a particular fiscal year.
To access this bulletin, please click here.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
BEIRNE MAYNARD WRAPS UP RAPPER'S INFRINGEMENT CLAIM
   Roger McCleary (a/k/a Raj MC Cleary) together with Jackie Houlette and Bruce Wilkin of the Network's Texas member firm Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, took a summary judgment for entertainment industry client Koch Entertainment in federal court earlier this month.
Seems Louis Hayes, who with Top Rank Boyz distributed his song, “Where You From”, claimed that Koch’s work, released by Master P., infringed his copyright. However, an earlier release by Master P. used the same title. And all three rap songs feature the same non-PC refrain (see opinion).
The court noted that the titles, although similar, are “categorically not protectable” and no less than 10 rap groups have songs by that name or some variant (The Dogg Pound, Young Buck Feat E.S.G., Skull Duggery, DJ Kayslay, Trick Daddy, Ghostown, Grenshaw Mafia Bloods, DJ Chipman & The Buckwheat Boyz, Carol City Cartel Ft. Rick Ross, and T.I.). He also said that “[a] composer may copyright a song – a whole song. He may not protect words, phrases, names, titles, and slogans. Common sayings and customary phrases are open to all; they must be combined in a unique expression to be owned.”
The court noted that “where you from” “appears to be a common phrase in the subculture that yields rap music.” He said that “it is used in the music because it was used elsewhere first.” “Where you from” is no more protectable than “do you love me”? The court denied Hayes’ claim and rendered a “take nothing” judgment.
Friday, March 21, 2008
NIXON PEABODY HOSTING WEB SEMINAR ON DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTS
  Melissa Tearney and David Vicinanzo of Nixon Peabody's Government Investigations and White Collar Practice Group are hosting a web seminar on Deferred Prosecution Agreements and their effect on the bio/pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The free seminar will take place on Monday, March 31, from 3:00 - 4:00 pm. A description, which includes a registration link, appears below. Please feel free to share this information with any clients or prospects that you think might benefit from attending this presentation. Note this program qualifies for 1 general CLE credit.
Overview and Registration Information
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
NIXON PEABODY'S ANNUAL RHODE ISLAND CLE PROGRAM
Thursday, April 3, 2008 -- The Westin, Providence
This is a complimentary program for the clients and friends of Nixon Peabody and a great opportunity for you to receive Rhode Island CLE credits before the June 30 deadline. This full program will qualify for 8 hours of CLE credit.
We hope you can join us for this informative program, which includes a complimentary lunch and post-seminar networking reception.
Topics Include:
Going Green? The Role of Your Legal Department
Environmental Law Update
Workplace Privacy — You Don’t Need A Warrant
Ethical Considerations Guiding the Actions of In-House Counsel
Ethical Considerations for your Organization as the Client
Diversity and Affirmative Action
In-house Attorney-Client Privilege
TIP 101 — What Is Your IP Portfolio
Registration Information
Thursday, March 13, 2008
CRAIG B. MERKLE ADMITTED TO AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS
Craig B. Merkle of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann (Baltimore, MD) has become a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier legal associations in America.
The induction ceremony at which Craig B. Merkle became a Fellow took place recently before an audience of approximately 800 persons during the recent 2008 Spring Meeting of the College in Tucson, Arizona.
Founded in 1950, the College is composed of the best of the trial bar from the United States and Canada. Fellowship in the College is extended by invitation only and only after careful investigation, to those experienced trial lawyers who have mastered the art of advocacy and whose professional careers have been marked by the highest standards of ethical conduct, professionalism, civility and collegiality. Lawyers must have a minimum of fifteen years trial experience before they can be considered for Fellowship.
Membership in the College cannot exceed one per cent of the total lawyer population of any state of province. There are currently approximately 5,661 members in the United States and Canada, including active Fellows, Emeritus Fellows, Judicial Fellows (those who ascend to the bench after their induction) and Honorary Fellows.
Mr. Merkle is a 1981 graduate of the Duke University School of Law. He is one of the founding partners of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP. His practice is concentrated in the areas of medical malpractice and medical drug and device defense.
Monday, March 10, 2008
WEINBERG WHEELER'S AL MAXWELL CHAIRS ACI'S FOODBOURNE ILLNESS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
 Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC (“WWHGD”) partner Alan M. “Al” Maxwell recently chaired and spoke at the American Conference Institute’s Foodborne Illness Litigation Conference, February 28th and 29th, in Phoenix. Al has developed a foodborne illness practice that is quickly garnering national attention. Al has defended more foodborne illness personal injury claims than any attorney in the country. He also heads WWHGD’s Foodborne Illness Practice Group. In that capacity, he represents clients throughout the country in a broad range of matters, including defense of personal injury claims, insurance issues and regulatory compliance.
Foodborne illness litigation has become increasingly prevalent as regional and national outbreaks from food contamination have grabbed headlines, raising concerns about the safety of the Nation’s food supply among consumers and lawmakers. Foodborne illness and food contamination creates an enormous social and economic burden on communities, their health systems and the companies that produce and sell these products. Federal and state investigators and enforcement agencies are aggressively pursuing and prosecuting companies that are identified as introducing contaminated food products into consumer distribution channels.
Al is currently involved as counsel for parties or insurers involved in the 2006 spinach E. coli outbreak, 2006 Taco Bell E. coli outbreak, 2007 Botulism outbreak, 2006 and 2007 Salmonella outbreaks (peanut butter and pot pies) and several recent outbreaks associated with intact cuts of meat and ground beef. As of March 2008, Al has handled more than 400 claims stemming from the spinach and Taco Bell E. coli outbreaks. In excess of 20,000 claims have been presented in the Salmonella cases in which Al is involved.
Al is also a leading speaker on foodborne illness litigation. Al will be a guest speaker at “Who’s Minding the Store” Food Safety Symposium on April 11th and 12th hosted by the Seattle University School of Law. Al also will participate as a speaker at the 4th Annual Food Safety Management Conference, Canada’s premier conference on food safety, June 17th and 18th in Toronto. Finally, Al has been invited to speak at the China International Food Safety & Quality Conference in Beijing China, which takes place on September 24 and 25, 2008.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
THOMPSON HINE PRODUCT LIABILITY UPDATE: OHIO SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OHIO'S STATUTE OF REPOSE
Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Ohio’s Statute of Repose
  
Elizabeth B. Wright, 216.566.5716, Elizabeth.Wright@ThompsonHine.com
Timothy J. Coughlin, 216.566.5523, Tim.Coughlin@ThompsonHine.com
Dean C. Williams, 216.566.5542, Dean.Williams@ThompsonHine.com
A manufacturer’s liability for injury resulting from one of its products is now definitively limited to 10 years from the date the product was delivered to its first purchaser.
In a 70-page opinion dealing primarily with workers’ compensation subrogation, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed yet another piece of Ohio’s tort reform legislation. In line with its recent decision in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, ___ Ohio St. 3d ___, 2007-Ohio-6948 (2007), to uphold the limits on noneconomic and punitive damages in tort actions, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the 10-year statute of repose in product liability claims.
In Groch v. General Motors Corporation, ___ Ohio St. 3d ___, 2008-Ohio-546 (2008), the court upheld the statute that protects manufacturers and suppliers of products that are more than 10 years old. Groch involved an employee of General Motors who was injured while operating a trim press.
On June 2, 2006, the employee brought, among other claims, a product liability action against the manufacturer of the press that had been delivered to General Motors more than 10 years before the accident. The manufacturer invoked the statute of repose that was enacted on April 7, 2005, as part of the Ohio General Assembly’s most recent attempt at tort reform. The federal district court certified several questions to the Ohio Supreme Court, including whether the statute of repose violated provisions of the Ohio Constitution.
Using Arbino as its backdrop, the Court found the statute of repose constitutional on its face. The Court reiterated its deference to the role of Ohio legislature to refine tort laws to meet the needs of Ohio citizens. The Court also outlined the reasoning of the General Assembly that “a manufacturer or supplier lacks control over the product, over its uses, and over the conditions of its use.”
Focusing primarily on the principle that a plaintiff does not have a “vested right” in a product liability case until an injury occurs, the Court held that the statute of repose does not take away any existing rights, but merely defines what claims exist under Ohio product liability law. The Court emphasized the practical application of statutes of repose and explained that plaintiffs are not necessarily left without a remedy — they may still pursue claims against those who controlled the product and who may have negligently altered it.
While the Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute of repose, it found that the statute was unconstitutional “as applied” under the specific facts in Groch. The plaintiff in Groch was injured 34 days before the statute of repose was enacted.
Even though the legislature specifically intended retroactive effect, the Court ruled that the statute unconstitutionally imposed an unreasonable time
limitation for plaintiffs to bring claims, if those claims accrued within two years preceding the enactment of the statute. In that context, the Court noted that the statute of repose impermissibly operates purely as a statute of limitations.
As a result, under Groch, the statute of repose does not apply to product liability cases where the claims accrued between April 7, 2003, and April 7, 2005, when the statute was enacted. Although the Court did not address an exception in the statute for exposure in toxic tort cases, the statute does provide that, to bring an action for an injury that is diagnosed later due to alleged exposure to a toxic substance, the plaintiff must have been exposed to the substance within the 10 years after it reached the hands of the first purchaser.
Ultimately, this opinion continues the trend of upholding the General Assembly’s attempt to rein in Ohio tort law and provides manufacturers and suppliers with some closure, in opposition to what previously had been an indefinite exposure to liability for a product long after it had left their control.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
$0 DEFENSE VERDICT FOR DEUTSCH KERRIGAN
 Robert Kerrigan and Jonathan Walsh of the Network's Louisiana firm, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, successfully defended a Louisiana trucking company against three personal injury claims totaling $34 million following a consolidated six week-long jury trial in Louisiana's 22nd Judicial District Court. The three claims for permanent lung damage and total disability brought by former employees of Gaylord Chemical Company and Gaylord Container Company were alleged to have been the fault of Andrews Transport, Inc., a company that delivered stainless steel trailers into which Gaylord Chemical attempted to transfer contaminated nitrogen tetroxide. The three plaintiffs claimed that Andrews was strictly liable and that the plaintiffs were entitled to punitive damages due to Andrews' alleged "reckless and wanton" disregard for public safety. They and their families further claimed injuries ranging from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, loss of consortium and paraplegia. Following the unanimous verdict of the jury and the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims at their cost, Mr. Kerrigan sais, "It is gratifying to have obtained such a favorable result for our client after extremely lengthy and technical testimony. This may have been one of the last jury trials involving punitive damages arising from the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials in Louisiana. We are happy to have closed this chapter of our legislature's misadventure into punitive damage law, since repealed."
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER TEAM KEEP "SOPRANOS" CREATOR FROM GETTING WHACKED
    Lowenstein Sandler attorneys Peter L. Skolnik, David L. Harris, Michael A. Norwick and Matthew Savare were awarded a striking victory in federal court while representing David Chase, the creator of the "The Sopranos," against Robert Baer's claims that he helped Chase develop the iconic television series.
The eight-member jury found unanimously that Chase owed nothing to Baer, a New Jersey lawyer and former municipal court judge.
 After a five-day trial, the jury deliberated a mere 82 minutes before rejecting Baer's claim that sought monetary compensation for driving Mr. Chase through familiar areas in his native state, and introducing him to a mob-wise waiter and small cadre of detectives, as Mr. Chase was developing the pilot script for “The Sopranos" in October 1995.
The trial team, led by Peter Skolnik and David Harris, convinced the jury that Baer did so solely in the hope that he might obtain future opportunities in the entertainment business through David Chase.
 Peter Skolnik said, "Mr. Baer started out making extravagant allegations that he was a co-creator of 'The Sopranos.' Before the trial, we had whittled this lawsuit down to a single claim, which a jury has now rejected, quickly and decisively." David Harris added, "The jury verdict adopted explicitly our central theme that this supposedly aspiring screenwriter was looking to ingratiate himself with Chase for career advancement in the television business. Chase tried to help him, but even David Chase can't help a writer who stops writing."
ICE MILLER DEFENSE VERDICT IN CAMPUS SHOOTING DEATH CASE
 Ice Miller LLP's Brad Williams together with co-counsel Scott Shockley of Muncie, IN and John Kautzman of Indianapolis, IN obtained a defense verdict in Federal court in favor of a young campus policeman against whom claims had been brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case involved the death of a college student who was shot when the policeman was responding to an intruder call in the very early hours of the morning.
ICE MILLER DEFENSE VERDICT FOR HOSPITAL IN WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT
  Ice Miller LLP's, Kelly Pitcher and Jody DeFord obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital in a medical malpractice wrongful death suit. The decedent, who was very critically ill, died following an attempted placement of a chest tube. The plaintiff alleged malpractice in the placement of the chest tube led to excessive bleeding that caused the death. The defense argued that the bleeding was a known complication from the placement of the chest tube which was a last ditch effort to attempt to save this critically ill patient.
ICE MILLER DEFENSE VERDICT FOR CASE MANAGEMENT COMPANY IN BURN INJURY CASE
  Ice Miller LLP's Angela Krahulik and Nate Uhl successfully defended a case management company against whom, along with co-defendants the State and a residential care provider, a claim for personal injuries had been brought as a result of burn injuries to a severely handicapped adult man. The burn injuries occurred when the plaintiff's ward came into contact with bathwater that caused first and second degree burns on both legs below the knee. It was alleged that steps to prevent the bathwater from being too hot were not taken. A verdict was returned against the co-defendants for $1.5 million dollars.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATOR SCOTT GROSS JOINS WILDMAN HARROLD
Scott Gross, previously a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, counsels companies on employment liability and litigation. He has served as lead counsel in dozens of class and individual cases before federal and state courts, as well as federal agencies such as the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He regularly defends and advises clients on matters involving employment practices and discrimination disputes, ERISA claims, union-management disputes, Sarbanes-Oxley and other whistleblower suits, workplace harassment, the Family and Medical Leave Act, drug- and alcohol-testing programs, executive contracts and non-competition agreements and corporate acquisitions and restructuring.
Gross has also been in-house with Bridgestone/Firestone Corporation from 1995-97 working on retail labor and employment issues. He assisted in developing and litigating policies related to human resources management, including the handling of problem employees, and in developing and implementing mandatory mediation and arbitration programs for Bridgestone/Firestone employees.
“Scott’s reputation as a trial lawyer and trusted client advocate make him a natural fit for our employment litigation team,” said Craig M. White, chair of the firm’s Litigation Department. “His experience before a variety of courts and agencies, as well as his specific knowledge of the key labor and employment issues facing today’s companies, are a true asset.”
“I’ve always been impressed by the dedication that the Wildman Harrold employment litigation team members bring to their work with clients, including their counseling of clients to help them avoid litigation,” said Gross. “I’m looking forward to serving with this group of professionals.”
Gross holds a J.D., with honors, from Boston College Law School and a B.A., with honors, from Harvard College.
Friday, February 15, 2008
FORMER APPLIX, INC. CEO CLEARED OF SECURITIES FRAUD CHARGES BROUGHT BY SEC
Nixon Peabody Lead Counsel Represented CEO In Trial
 
February 15, 2008 (Boston, MA) – A federal jury today vindicated former Applix, Inc. Chief Executive Officer, Alan C. Goldsworthy, despite civil fraud charges brought by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC alleged two schemes to inflate revenue in the software company’s financial statements in 2001 and 2002.
After four weeks of trial but only one day of deliberations, the jury determined that Goldsworthy engaged in no wrongdoing.
When the lawsuit was commenced, the SEC highlighted the case as the first instance of its new policy to settle with companies who reported violations, but then to aggressively pursue what the Commission called “the individual wrongdoers.”
Deborah L. Thaxter, was lead attorney on the legal team representing Mr. Goldsworthy. Applix, Inc., which was an international software company based in Westborough, Massachusetts, was acquired by Cognos, Inc. in October 2007 which, in turn, was acquired by IBM.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
AKERMAN ATTORNEY'S E-DISCOVERY "BLOOK"
E-Discovery: Current Trends and Cases -- Geared to Legal and IT Professionals, Explains the Subject in Readable Form, Includes Comments and Replies Direct from Author's Blog
 Akerman Senterfitt attorney Ralph Losey has written the world's first legal blook, "E-Discovery: Current Trends and Cases," based on his popular weekly blog, "e-discovery Team". The American Bar Association published the book and describes it as the world's first legal 'blook'. (A blook is a book derived from a blog and is a new trend and genre in mainstream publishing where several non-fiction bestsellers recently have been derived form the author's blogs.) The blook has already been cited in an opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
"E-Discovery: Current Trends and Cases" explains in a clear and easy-to-read way latest trends and cases, and outlines the new interdisciplinary team approach to e-discovery problem solving. Topics include the new ethical standards for e-Discovery, new federal rules of civil procedure, search and review of ESI (electronically stored information), and new technologies. It is also the first book on e-discovery to include the opinions and analysis of many leading experts in the field, not just those of the author.
Mr. Losey has 30 years of experience with computers, 28 years of experience with commercial litigation and over 70 published opinions. He authored a law review article in 2007 on the mathematics underlying e-discovery that has been praised by academicians and e-discovery industry insiders.
The book has received several positive reviews to date, including: "Ralph Losey's book is an e-discovery tour-de-force. For every litigator who thinks he or she has heard enough about e-discovery already, I suggest that the book will be eye-opening. For every CEO and CIO who hasn't heard about the e-discovery tsunami engulfing the profession, I recommend that he or she be given a copy as a holiday present this year."
--Jason R. Baron, Esq., Editor in Chief of The Sedona Best Practices Commentary on The Use of Search and Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery
"Ralph's book is a terrific resource for the litigator about to dive into the seemingly murky waters of electronic discovery. He not only summarizes the key issues in the field, but provides valuable insights based on his practical experience in the area. His writing style is straightforward (and humorous at times). In other words, unlike much lawyer-authored material, it's actually readable! An excellent tool for the practitioner."
--W. Lawrence Wescott II, Electronic Discovery Blog
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
PFIZER'S 5TH CIRCUIT VICTORY: BEIRNE MAYNARD & PARSONS LEAD COUNSEL
 Beirne Maynard & Parsons' Joseph Cohen, as lead counsel representing Pfizer Inc. won affirmance of a summary judgment against a plaintiff's claim that her brain tumor was caused by an oral polio vaccine allegedly manufactured by Pfizer.
In Garcia v. Pfizer, No. 06-40703, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that (1) the plaintiff did not offer sufficient proof that Pfizer made the vaccine alleged to have caused the injury; (2) Pfizer and the other defendants offered sufficient proof to rebut any inference that Pfizer could be responsible for the plaintiff's injury; and (3) Texas law, applicable to the case, has not adopted any of the alternative liability theories the plaintiff sought to apply to the case.
Joe also authored the article, "Texas Sets Pace in Drug Tort Reform Drug Discovery and Development".
Monday, February 11, 2008
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(B)(2)(B) AND "REASONABLE ACCESSIBILITY": THE FEDERAL COURTS' EXPERIENCE IN THE RULE'S FIRST YEAR - ARTICLE WRITTEN BY GEORGE MURR OF BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS
 In this article, George Murr of The Network's Texas firm, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, reviews court decisions over the past year dealing with discovery of electronically stored information under the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
PHILIP LADING JOINS SANDBERG PHOENIX
 Philip J. Lading has joined the firm of Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C., as a shareholder. Phil received an undergraduate degree in 1996 from Illinois Wesleyan University and a Juris Doctor degree in 1999 from Saint Louis University School of Law. He has extensive experience in municipal, local and state law, business and commercial litigation, insurance defense litigation, insurance coverage disputes and family law. Phil serves as the City Attorney for Staunton, Illinois, and Village Attorney for New Douglas, Illinois. He was formerly a partner with the law offices of Roth, Evans & Lading, P.C. Phil is licensed to practice law in the States of Illinois and Missouri and before the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Thursday, January 17, 2008
 BLAKES ADDS TWO CORPORATE COMMERCIAL LAWYERS IN VANCOUVER
VANCOUVER (December 27, 2007) – Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (Blakes), one of Canada’s leading business law firms, today announced that George D. Burke and Sharon Dos Remedios have joined its Business Group in Vancouver. They will be starting on January 1, 2008.
“It is my pleasure to welcome George and Sharon into the Blakes partnership,” said Jim Christie, Chairman of Blakes. “Their combined experience will contribute significantly to the development of our corporate practice, both nationally and internationally.”
Mr. Burke’s practice focuses on corporate and commercial law with a special emphasis on mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, venture capital financing and ship finance. He has led acquisitions in a broad range of industries, has been extensively involved in project finance and the construction and financing of ships internationally, and regularly negotiates international business transactions in many parts of Asia, Europe and North America. He is ranked in The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2007 in the areas of Corporate Commercial Law and Corporate Mid-Market. Prior to coming to Blakes, he was a partner at Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP in Vancouver and the firm’s managing partner from 1995 to 1998.
Ms. Dos Remedios practises business law in many different industry sectors, including transportation and technology. She assists clients with private corporate and commercial transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, equity and debt financings, and corporate structurings. She also provides advice in respect of general commercial and contract law, corporate law, competition law and transportation law issues. She was a partner at Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP before coming to Blakes.
“George and Sharon are very well connected in the Vancouver business community and internationally, and they will significantly strengthen our depth and breadth of practice immediately,” said Bill Maclagan, Office Managing Partner in Vancouver.
BLAKES STRENGTHENS SECURITIES AND TAX PRACTICES
VANCOUVER (January 15, 2008) – Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (Blakes), one of Canada’s leading business law firms, today announced that senior practitioners William Sirett, Bruce Sinclair and Robert Kopstein have joined its Vancouver office.
“The addition of Bill, Bruce and Robert will result in Blakes having the pre-eminent securities and tax practices in Vancouver,” said Jim Christie, Chairman of Blakes. “And with the recent additions of George Burke and Sharon dos Remedios announced at the end of December, Blakes is now clearly positioned as one of the top business law firms in Vancouver.”
Bill Sirett has a national practice in the areas of securities and corporate law with an emphasis on corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations and privatization transactions. He advises public corporations and their boards of directors and special committees with an emphasis on regulatory compliance, corporate governance, directors’ duties and responsibilities, and transaction structuring. He also has extensive experience in the fields of structured finance, asset monetizations, income funds and real estate investment trusts. Mr. Sirett is named in Legal Media Group’s Guide to the World’s Leading Capital Markets Lawyers, in The 2008 Lexpert/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada and ranked in The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2007.
Bruce Sinclair is a senior chartered accountant and tax practitioner. He has a national and international profile and practice, and is widely regarded as one of the country’s best mining tax practitioners. He works extensively with clients in domestic and international settings on tax and associated accounting and financial matters related to mergers, acquisitions and structured financings. Mr. Sinclair has an extensive list of professional affiliations including the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants in British Columbia, the Canadian Tax Foundation and the International Fiscal Association. He is a former governor and a member of the Executive Committee of the Canadian Tax Foundation. He writes extensively, including articles for the Canadian Tax Journal, and is co-author of Taxation of Canadian Mining Income for Carswell publishers. He also lectures regularly at regional and national conferences. He is ranked in The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2007.
Robert Kopstein practises in the domestic and international tax fields with a particular emphasis on Canada-U.S. cross-border transactions. He also has a national practice, and has extensive experience in corporate finance, structured finance, and mergers and acquisitions involving public and private companies and governmental agencies. Mr. Kopstein has lectured and published papers on a variety of topics to various regional and national organizations. He also co-authored the book Mergers and Acquisition of Privately Held Businesses, contributed to a United Nations’ study on tax treaties between developed and developing countries, and assisted the Attorney General of B.C. with drafting certain amendments to the Company Act relating to limited liability companies. He was principal adviser to the B.C. government on the creation of the B.C. Unlimited Liability Company legislation. He is also ranked in The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2007, The Best Lawyers in Canada 2007 and Chambers Global: The World's Leading Lawyers for Business 2008. Mr. Kopstein is called to the bar in B.C., Alberta and Ontario. He has an LL.M. in taxation from the University of Florida.
Before coming to Blakes, Bill Sirett, Bruce Sinclair and Robert Kopstein were partners with Borden Ladner Gervais.
“The additions of Bill, Bruce and Robert add greatly to our already strong team. We look forward to having them on board,” said Bill Maclagan, Office Managing Partner in Vancouver.
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS 2008 PRO BONO PUBLICO DAY OF GIVING
 A dozen attorneys and staff members from Beirne, Maynard & Parsons participated in a citywide Day of Giving in which Houston law firms and corporate legal departments gave free legal counsel to low-income residents at ten locations around the city. More than 1,000 area residents consulted with attorneys on family law, wills and probate, consumer, landlord/tenant, bankruptcy, immigration, and employment issues.
Beirne, Maynard & Parsons personnel were based at the Fifth Ward Multi-Purpose Center on Market Street. The Day of Giving was sponsored and organizad by the Houston Bar Foundation.
 
Photos: BMP attorneys Scott Davis, Brannon Dillard (left), and Gary Alfred (right) providing free legal advice at the HBA Day of Giving January 12.
AKERMAN RANKS #2 AMONG 193 MAJOR LAW FIRMS WITH THE HIGHEST MINORITY EQUITY PARTNER LEVELS
Diversity & The Bar Releases Survey Results
 Akerman Senterfitt ranked second on the list of Law Firms with Highest Minority Equity Partner Levels, as published in the September/October 2007 issue of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association's (MCCA) magazine, Diversity & The Bar. The list is based on data from 193 major law firms appearing in the 2007 edition of the Vault/MCCA Guide to Law Firm Diversity Programs.
In the July/August issue of Diversity & The Bar, Akerman was ranked #9 on the list of Leading Law firms for Women Equity Partners. The firm's diversity was also recognized in 2007 by the Minority Law Journal, which published the results of its Annual Diversity Scorecard in July. The firm ranked #27 out of 255 firms surveyed nationwide, compared with its #36 ranking in 2006.
Akerman's long-standing commitment to diversity has gained increasing recognition in recent years, including:
· Akerman's Diversity Committee Chair, Joseph Hatchett presented with the Spirit of Excellence Award from the American Bar Association's Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession (2007)
· The Thomas L. Sager Award for diversity leadership, presented by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (2006)
· Top Law Firm for Hispanic Americans for the second year in a row by MultiCultural Law magazine (2005, 2006)
· Diversity Award from the Greater Miami Society for Human Resource Management, recognizing local organizations that foster an inclusive work environment in which all employees are inspired to contribute their best, strengthened by their different perspectives, backgrounds and life experiences (2006)
· Diversity Chair Joseph Hatchett inducted into the National Bar Association Hall of Fame, in recognition of his more than 40 years of dedication to the cause of justice and equality before the courts of the United States of America, and on behalf of the African-American community. (2005)
The Akerman Senterfitt client list includes nearly 100 corporations that belong to the "Call to Action – Diversity in the Legal Profession." These companies have made a commitment to actively look for law firms that distinguish themselves in diversity issues, and to end or limit relationships with firms whose track records reflect a lack of meaningful interest in diversity.
The Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) was founded in 1997 to advocate for the expanded hiring, retention, and promotion of minority attorneys in corporate law departments and the law firms that serve them. MCCA accomplishes its mission through the collection and dissemination of information about diversity in the legal profession.
Monday, January 07, 2008
GOODELL DEVRIES VICTORY IN COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
 The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed summary judgment obtained by Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann's Craig B. Merkle and Marianne DePaulo Plant in favor of their client, an obstetrician/gynecologist, in a wrongful death claim based on alleged medical malpractice. In the underlying proceedings, plaintiffs asserted that the defendant doctors failed to timely diagnose their patient's endometrial and ovarian cancer. However, during discovery depositions, plaintiffs' medical experts were unable to articulate the impact of this alleged delay in diagnosis, and conceded that even after the alleged delay the patient had a fifty to sixty percent likelihood of surviving her cancer. GDLD moved for summary judgment at the close of discovery. In opposing GDLD's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs submitted the affidavits of two experts containing previously-undisclosed opinions on cause of death. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County struck the affidavits for materially contradicting the experts' prior sworn testimony, and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The Court of Special Appeals reviewed and affirmed both rulings, stating that to recover under the wrongful-death act, a plaintiff in Maryland must prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the wrongful death of another. The Court observed that none of plaintiffs' experts testified in deposition that the death was caused by the defendants, and that a causal connection could not be inferred from the testimony of these experts. The Court further held that proof that the defendants’ alleged negligence reduced the decedent’s chance of survival by twenty to thirty percent (i.e., from eighty percent to between fifty and sixty percent) did not show a ‘probability’ that the alleged negligence caused the decedent to die.
Friday, December 21, 2007
ABA JOURNAL WEBSITE RECOGNIZES TRIAL.COM BLAWG
 The Network of Trial Law Firms' Blog, or Blawg, has been listed on the ABA Journal website and Blawg Directory. The site, http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/trialcom/, includes a way to subscribe to TRIAL.COM's RSS Feed and features recent posts.
The Network's Blog is one of the first continuously-published online legal blogs.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
 DEUTSCH KERRIGAN No. 1 BEST PLACE TO WORK IN BIG EASY
 Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles is THE NUMBER ONE Best Place to Work in New Orleans according to New Orleans CityBusiness which puts the firm on top of its 2007 list of best places to work in New Orleans (Large Business Category). This is the first year the firm has topped the list although it has made the list for the past three years.
This year’s honorees were selected based on a survey of benefits offered, including average salary, health care, paid time off and employee programs, coupled with a brief employee survey.
KATRINA SUPER STAR:
In recent years, the firm distinguished itself during the Katrina aftermath by pulling all of its employees together early in the crisis through a backup website and Internet communications system that went into action almost immediately following the disaster linking employees who had spread out over more than a dozen states and, most importantly, continuing salary and other benefits until people could return to work.
PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT KEY:
|
