Recent revelations about corporate greed and wrong-doing have significantly altered juror attitudes, says Dr. Noelle Nelson, a California trial consultant and author of the booklet, "101 Winning Tips: How to Give a Good Deposition & Testify Well in Court."
Jurors who may have once rationalized, 'What the heck, everybody does it,"are now holding lawyers and their corporate clients to a higher standard,"notes Nelson. "Taking advantage of others by virtue of contractual technicalities and loopholes was viewed as flaky but an ordinary way of operating in the business world. Now, it's seen as an unacceptable moral failing. "
Nelson is finding jurors are favoring lawyers who express sincerity and genuine belief in their client's cause and who are respectful towards the legal process and all involved. "Jurors are less convinced by lawyers who focus on the 'letter of the law' and more persuaded by those who incorporate the 'spirit of the law' into their arguments. It's a subtle but important shift. Jurors are more likely to discredit lawyers' arguments if they appear to justify unethical behavior."
Nelson continues, "Jurors do not appear to be looking for perfection, or favoring only those 'without sin,' but are looking for honesty and other quintessential American ideals--ideals that in many jurors' minds have been sorely lacking in business and society in recent years."
No area of the law or regulation creates more controversy and passion then anything linked to dogs, cats and other domestic pets and the lawsuit brought by Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC) against the City of Los Angeles over their mandatory spay and neuter regulations is no exception. Last year they filed a lawsuit to over turn the mandatory spay and neuter regulations imposed on all dog owners in the City, in which set dates for spay and neuter are established, civil and administrative penalties are outlined and entire categories of dog breeders, owners and hobbyists now fall under increasingly strict laws and oversight.
The questions raised in the suit look at the constitutional right of free association, the body of law in California regarding the right of the state to regulate animal ownership and standards and whether these regulations over reach in their goals to reduce the number of dogs and cat’s euthanized in shelters through out the city. We asked Attorney John Jensen, who is bringing this case to join us in studio along with Cathie Turner, the chairperson of CDOC to explain why they brought this suit, the perceived issues at stake and the relative merits of their case. We are also joined by David Frie, the voice of the annual Westminster Kennel Club dog show to discuss the historic roles of breed and kennel clubs in protecting dogs, avoiding needless euthanization of animals as well as a look at some of the issues surrounding this growing national movement to increasingly regulate dog ownership.
In this three video series, the Legal Broadcast Network examines an area of the law that is growing in importance and relevance to not only lawyers, but law makers, dog owners and breeders, that being the move by certain political and special interest groups to make mandatory spay and neuter laws part of the normal process of animal regulation in cities and states across the United States. While we touch on the motivation of these laws and the powerful lobby’s behind them in this series, we are more concerned at the network with the legal discussion of whether or not these laws, while well intended might in fact infringe on the rights of ordinary dog and pet owners to decide whether or not they wish to spay or neuter their animals.
It might seem like a fringe or novelty area of the law, but over 150 of the law schools in the United States now teach on animal law and given the American love affair with their pets, and the passionate advocacy on both sides of these issues, this looks to be a topic that is increasingly litigated in local, state and federal courts for years to come.
Video number one is Attorney John Jensen on the legal argument of the specific case of CDOC vs The City of Los Angeles.
Video number two is Cathie Turner, chairperson of Concerned Dog Owners of California discussing the legislative battle they are waging against the State of California and Senate bill 250 and their contention that these laws do not in fact save dogs from needless deaths, but in addition add substantial compliance and administrative costs to cities and towns at the very time when they are struggling with budget issues.
Video number three is David Frei of the Westminster Kennel Club, a long time dog breeder and advocate of responsible dog ownership discussing how mandatory spay and neuter laws can have unitended negative consequences on the dogs, responsible breeders and actually encourage “puppy mills” which is something breed clubs work to eliminate
Jerome Kowalski, a legal consultant who tracks the New York Market discusses why major law firms are shrinking with LBN host Scott Drake. Kowalski says “The mood at White & Case — and at probably 15 or 20 more firms in New York — is kind of like sitting at a deathbed and watching a close relative wither away. It’s like you’re right there in the I.C.U. with the patient and you know that the condition is terminal.”
(NY Times)
While the legal industry is hardly battling the existential threat that is facing, say, the newspaper trade, Big Law — especially in competitive New York — is facing a potential paradigm shift as fundamental as the one that has hit investment banks and the auto industry. Big, as a business model (let alone as an expression of the national mood), seems bound for obsolescence.
The Hildebrandt index found, for example, that at the nation’s 20 top-grossing law firms — 12 of which are in New York — average profit per partner and revenue per lawyer both dropped in the first quarter of 2009, for the first time since 1991.
At the root of the law-firm crisis, legal experts say, is the credit crisis, which has pulverized the need for traditional practice areas like structured finance, mergers and acquisitions and private-equity transactions — the very things that have always kept a high gleam of polish on the city’s whitest shoes. The downward trend has been unrelenting: fewer Wall Street deals mean fewer Wall Street lawyers.
“I hear the stories all the time,” Mr. Kowalski, the consultant, said. “Real estate lawyers are honing their skills playing solitaire. Younger lawyers are gossiping all day and scaring the crap out of one another. The head of the corporate department of a major firm just told me that he hasn’t billed a minute’s worth of work in the last two weeks,” he added.
(Boston Globe) A class-action lawsuit that seeks to repay Massachusetts Turnpike toll-payers hundreds of millions of dollars and provide future relief from what their lawyers call "illegal taxes" now includes 1,650 plaintiffs from 21 states, according to the lead attorney.
The plaintiffs, who include residents from 212 Massachusetts cities and towns, argue that their tolls are unfairly being used to pay for the Big Dig, rather than for the cost of using the turnpike, said Jan R. Schlichtmann, who gained fame through the book and film "A Civil Action."
Schlichtmann's legal team has also expanded to include Scott Harshbarger, a former state attorney general; Daniel B. Winslow, the chief legal counsel to former governor Mitt Romney, and Donald Griswold, a Washington-based partner in the international law firm Reed Smith LLP.
"This is a simple case of fairness and equity," Harshbarger said yesterday. "It's time for the courts, the Legislature, and the governor to fix this inequity and provide financial relief to toll-payers."
The lawsuit, filed last month in Middlesex District Court, argues that the Massachusetts Turnpike Author ity must reimburse as much as $300 million to toll-payers and change how it uses the tolls it collects. The lawsuit asserts that 58 percent of Mass. Pike tolls are used to finance Big Dig roads.
To pay for the returned tolls, the state would have to choose between raising taxes, imposing tolls on Interstate 93, or requiring the Turnpike Authority to sell some of its real estate, they said.
"We have to figure out how to make amends for the past," Schlichtmann said.
Turnpike Authority officials declined to comment.
Harshbarger and Winslow said they were drawn to the case because they think toll-payers who commute from the west and the North Shore have unfairly borne the brunt of Big Dig costs.
"The turnpike's diversion of toll receipts is part of a disturbing trend we're seeing across the country," Griswold said. "This is another desperate cash-strapped state using illegal and unconstitutional means to raise badly needed revenues."
The lawyers are calling for Beacon Hill to pass reforms that would mandate that the turnpike's tolls be used for maintenance, capital expenditures, and operating expenses of the road on which they are collected.
Such a provision has been approved by the House in a budget amendment, but it was not included in the final version of the bill the Senate passed. The differences are being worked out by a conference committee.
"Without this provision, the legislative efforts to reform are mostly moving boxes around on the organizational chart," Winslow said.
Next week, the lawyers will argue in court that the judge should attach all the authority's real estate assets to the lawsuit, so they cannot be sold or liquidated before the case is resolved.
Scott Drake interviews Jan Schlichtmann in this video:
Brad Bannon's writes about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings in this commentary from US News and World Report:
Scott Drake interviews Brad Bannon in the accompanying video.
Brad Bannon is president of Bannon Communications Research, a political consulting and polling firm that works for Democrats, labor unions, and progressive-issue groups.
Sonia Sotomayor is exactly the person that the Supreme Court needs. She is a distinguished jurist and will be the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. As a bonus, she will improve female representation on the Court and, because of her background as a poor kid from the Bronx, she will give voice to the millions of Americans who are struggling economically to keep their heads above water.
President Obama's appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court will also begin the culture wars in earnest.
Actually, the first shot in the culture wars was President Obama's response to antiabortion advocates who boycotted his appearance at Notre Dame University's commencement ceremony. In his speech, the president tried to find common ground between the pro-choice and pro-life forces. His attempt to moderate the culture war contrasts with his economic program, where the president has gone full steam ahead without compromises that would lessen Republican opposition.
The contrast between the president's approach to social and to economic policy reflects Democratic confidence in its strength on bread-and-butter issues and a defensiveness on cultural issues.
Even though Democrats usually win battles on the economic front, their track record in culture wars are not nearly as good. Since the 1960s, Republicans have successfully used the social issues to drive a wedge between blue-collar union members and the Democratic Party with a steady diet of guns, God, and gays. And even now, after getting Congress to pass his stimulus program, the president not been able to prevent NRA supporters in the Senate from attaching pro-gun riders to important pieces of legislation.
But after three months of focusing on the economy like the proverbial laser beam, the Sotomayor confirmation hearings will force the president to fight the culture wars whether he wants to or not. Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage four years ago, the focus of the culture wars has moved from abortion to gay rights.
This week, the California Supreme Court upheld the voter ban on gay marriage that passed last year. This case is likely to get to the Supreme Court, so the Republicans in the Senate will probably focus on Judge Sotomayor's positions on same-sex marriage. The judge will probably be noncommittal on the subject to avoid prejudicing future cases, but the left and right will press her on the ramifications of the California case.
The GOP is chomping at the bit for a fight over Judge Sotomayor, even though Republicans know they will lose the confirmation battle. They will fight the nomination anyway because it energizes the base, helps them raise money, and puts Democrats, including the president, on the defensive. So expect the Senate Republicans to fight Judge Sotomayor tooth and nail.
But the GOP should be wary of the demons that fly out of Pandora's box during the confirmation hearings. Although the culture wars have not been kind to the Democrats in the past, they may become an advantage for the party.
Support for gay marriage has increased significantly in the last few years and a clear majority of Americans under 40 support same-sex marriage. As the millennial voters make up more of the electorate, support for gay marriage will increase. Voters under 30 voted for Barack Obama last year, and the GOP is in danger of losing a group that could give Republicans fits for a whole generation. Young voters are very liberal socially and GOP opposition to gay marriage will drive a wedge between the party and the fasting-growing segment of the voter pool.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for four years and it clearly has not shaken the cultural foundations of the state. As more and more states like Vermont and Iowa legalize same-sex marriage, more and more voters will get used to the idea.
Cultural issues have backed the GOP into a corner. The problem for Republicans is that the party's base is shrinking because of moderate defections. As moderates leave the party, it becomes even more conservative, which in turn causes the GOP to lose even more moderates. So the GOP's focus on cultural issues during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation battle will make the party appear even more conservative and drive even more millennial voters out of the party.
If Republicans don't stop this vicious circle and get their act together, they party will go into the wilderness where Democrats have spent most of the last 40 years. The GOP's challenge starts with its handling of confirmation battle over Judge Sotomayor.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 10:43AM 
says Dr. Noelle Nelson, a California trial consultant and author of the booklet, "101 Winning Tips: How to Give a Good Deposition & Testify Well in Court."
