Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Novel Approach to Fee Collection
Lawyers whose clients refuse to pay their fees routinely file lawsuits and win judgments against them. Attorney Ellen Marshall's disputes with a former divorce client, however, have been anything but routine. Then again, Warren Matthei is no ordinary client. Matthei, a millionaire stockbroker from Summit, NJ, spent nearly a decade in jail ' first for refusing to pay child support to his ex-wife, and later for refusing to pay Marshall's attorney fees. Marshall obtained an $85,000 judgment against Matthei, but court records show she has all but given up on getting the money from him. Instead, in a separate lawsuit, Marshall is pursuing RICO claims against lawyers in Pennsylvania and London, England, who, she claims, have assisted Matthei in hiding his assets from her.
Now a federal judge has refused to dismiss the lawsuit in a scathing opinion that says 'this dispute exemplifies why there are reports of the public's disdain for lawyers.' In her 46-page opinion in Marshall v. Fenstermacher, U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter dismissed Marshall's federal RICO claims, but found that she may nonetheless have valid RICO claims under New Jersey law against attorney Ronald Fenstermacher and his firm, High Swartz Roberts & Seidel, in Norristown, PA, and British attorney David Burgess and his London law firm, Hetherington & Co. To understand Marshall's claims against the Norristown and London lawyers, one first needs to understand Marshall's long history with Matthei.
History of the Case
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?