Estate of Shepherd
Van der Loos v. Van der Loos
Van der Loos v. Van der Loos
Janczewski v. Janczewski
Judge Disqualifies Firm in Matrimonial Case After It Hired Counsel Who Once Represented Foe
The People v. Burkhardt, 00850/2017
LORI A. JANCZEWSKI, ap, v. ADAM A. JANCZEWSKI, res
K.M. v. C.R.
PL v. RL
Uwadiegwu v. Deptartment of Social Services of the County of Suffolk, 15-1091
Mitev v. The Suffolk County Police Department, 13-29121
Mitev v. Suffolk County Police Dept.
Miranda M. Malone, etc., et al., respondents v. County of Suffolk, et al., defendants, Stan Xuhui Li, etc., appellant, 4112/12
Panel Finds Doctor Should Be Dismissed From Suit
MARY BETH LOMBARDI, ap, v. VITTORIO LOMBARDI, ET AL., res
Naudia Reid, o/b/o Roz. B., an infant, Plaintiff Naudia Reid, o/b/o Roz. B., an infant, Plaintiff v. v. Freeport Public School District,
Skylar Intravaia, by her parents and natural guardians, Jennifer Intravaia and Robert Intravaia, individually, Plaintiffs v. Rocky Point Union Free School District, Michael F. Ring, Superintendent, David Pearl, Esq., Defendants, 12-CV-0642
J. Kokolakis Contracting Corp., Plaintiff v. Evolution Piping Corp., The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Defendants, 062727/2014
Matter of MJM v. MM
People v. DeMille
Long Island Federal Judge Says Parents May Sue School, Classmates Over Alleged ‘Disturbing Racial Attack’
Ajamu Uwadiegwu, Plaintiff v. Department of Social Services of the County of Suffolk, John F. O’Neill, Acting DSS Commissioner, Individually and in his Official Capacity, the County of Suffolk, John Harder, and certain caseworkers and/or employees of the County of Suffolk, and/or DSS, currently unknown but identified herein as John Does 1-3, Defendants, CV 14-3219
In the Matter of a Proceeding for Custody/Visitation M.S., Petitioner v. W.S., Respondent, [Index Number Redacted by Court]
Past the Bar
By Vess Mitev
Although “lean” has a less favorable connotation in the academic world than in practice, a new report indicating that law schools across the country but especially in New York are in “belt-tightening mode” is actually good news for the profession.
New York’s new rule requiring 50 hours of pro bono service prior to admission to the bar threatens to displace small firm and solo practitioners out of even more areas previously handled by lawyers, albeit for smaller fees.
Removing a minimum on law school student-to-faculty ratios, as an ABA committee has recently proposed be done is a step in the right direction of ensuring that law schools maintain their prime directive – graduating candidates that can pass the bar exam.
In an age where many, many trained lawyers (especially young practitioners) are still looking for work months and years after graduation, allowing non-licensed, untrained advocates into the practice – even if it is limited to certain areas – would further undercut the quality of representation.
Consider, most, if not all practitioners at one lawyer shops and small firms make every effort to work with clients who do not or cannot pay, including cutting down on their bill as a courtesy, or offering discounted retainers.
For all the handwringing it brings about, bill churning is about the most common accusation lawyers hurl at each other. The crux of the problem is not, per se, the model of billing, rather, it’s the equivocation of cost, price, and value when discussing legal services in general.
They say sunshine is the best disinfectant, and in the age of Twitter and video feeds, a legislative proposal to allow cameras back into New York courts. So many times the transript of proceedings is simply insufficient for the purposes of capturing the conduct that transpires within the four walls of the Court.
A new proposal to shave off one year from the New York three-year law school requirement and allow students with sixty hours of study at an accredited law school to sit for the bar and practice law would only continue an already broken model and foster a caste system in the practice.
My challenges were not perceived as having any real gruel; they were simply ghost stories that younger lawyers tell each other over a few drinks, spectres of trouble that surely would not come to haunt him, or worse, they appeared to sound like caustic refrains from a disillusioned practitioner.
As TV cop shows have evolved from “Just the facts, ma’am,” deadpans to animated gore set to blaring rock anthems from The Who, so too has changed the way that litigators must tell their stories to jurors. But leave the $2,000 sunglasses home. Judges don’t like that.
The recent Court of Appeals decision upholding nine out of ten disciplinary charges against Long Island lawyer Peter Galasso, for failing to detect his brother’s multi-million dollar misappropriation of escrow funds, was a sobering reminder that out of all the ways an attorney can practice law correctly, even the slightest error in the escrow account can lead to disaster.
While touted as a victory for JDs who work non-traditional jobs, a federal decision last week directly undercuts the premise that law graduates are highly specialized professionals.
For practicing lawyers, supervising a law student’s pro bono work would seem to offer little other than internal satisfaction (which is undisputedly valuable). But small firms and solo attorneys are rarely in the position to be able to donate their time. However, offering those who make the sacrifice CLE credits would likely offset some of the reluctance of practitioners to join up.
In a business where so much of reality is perception, for better or worse, litigation is a spectator sport. As one judge put it, clients want to see their lawyer put out the other lawyer’s eyes with hot pokers. A client may perceive anything less, even an objective win, as a loss.
Iowa’s new state bar plan of pairing solo practitioners with law students they can mentor made nationwide news recently. The media angle depicted the program as a sort of expose on what happens to those who can’t land that dream big-firm job. But the truth is that even in the Big Apple, most lawyers are either solos or work at small firms.
A new push by the State Bar to make the unauthorized practice of law a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, is trumpeted as helping protect the public by increasing the risk of dispensing unlicensed advice.
One of the great stock questions of any interviewee (but especially a young lawyer) looking for a job is the always reliable, “And how much emphasis does your firm put on client contact?” The answer, of course, is always (delivered enthusiastically): “A lot!”
For the thousands of recent law school graduates about to take the bar exam in the hardest job market in decades, the beginning of July takes on a whole new meaning.
New York’s passage of a no-fault divorce law nearly two years ago also heralded a new era for matrimonial practitioners, due to the change in calculating and awarding temporary alimony and a change in the law allowing for a “rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse.”
Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Gustin Reichbach’s recent pro-medical marijuana op-ed piece, while limited to advocating for the legalization of medical marijuana to help those seriously ill deal with their debilitating illnesses, underscores the inherent difficulties of defining an act as criminal in only some circumstances and only by some people.