Litigation

Ethical prohibitions impact the common practice of almost every active trademark lawyer regarding his or her use of private investigators to collect information from third parties. However, the scope of permissible conduct is not always clearly defined. For instance, when a search report reveals one possible bar to your client's adoption of the mark, such as a nine-year-old federal registration by an individual who does not appear to have a Web site, can you or your investigator contact this person and devise some plausible explanation for the reason that you want to know if the mark is still in use? Or if you discover that a company appears to be infringing your client's trademark, can you send someone pretending to be a customer, but who asks all sorts of questions relevant to proving infringement that the ordinary consumer is highly unlikely to raise? Does it matter if the person you or your investigator makes contact with is a low-level sales clerk or the owner of the company?

In this writer's experience, the majority of medical malpractice cases involve a primary target defendant, usually a hospital or attending physician, often joined with multiple codefendants with less potential exposure. It is not uncommon to find three or more defense firms playing active roles in the discovery process, and, for purposes of this article, we shall refer to those defendants with lesser potential exposure as 'secondary defendants.'

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Jurisdiction in a matrimonial action has several statutory components requiring the repeated cross-application of the Civil Practice Law and Rules with the Domestic Relations Law (DRL). Knowledge of the statutes' interplay becomes especially essential to the matrimonial attorney when seeking to affect the status of the marriage and obtain jurisdiction over a non-resident.

A recent case for your review.

Over the years, matrimonial lawyers everywhere have increasingly embraced the concept of working with experienced, credentialed professionals who specialize in the financial aspects of divorce. Originally, most of these specialists were Certified Public Accountants and the work was mainly of a forensic nature. Recently, however, we have seen an increase in the involvement of professionals whose background is in the financial planning arena. Today, among other tasks, the planner is often retained to examine the longer-term impact of settlements and answer the client's question: 'Will I be okay financially?'

Two-and-a-half years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the remedial portion of its bifurcated decision in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that the system of federal Sentencing Guidelines established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 could pass constitutional muster only if the Guidelines were treated as having advisory, rather than mandatory, effect. But Booker left open the question of how much weight the now advisory Guidelines should henceforth be given in a district court's sentencing calculus. Last November, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in two cases ' Rita v. United States, and Claiborne v. United States, that seemed likely to resolve this question.

With its Feb. 21, 2007 holding in Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 127 S. Ct. 1105 (2007), the Supreme Court stepped in to resolve a Circuit Court split concerning a debtor's right to convert a Chapter 7 case to a Chapter 13 case under the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to ' 706(a) of the Code. On its face, ' 706(a) seems clear ' a debtor has an absolute, one-time right to conversion. Such clarity is, in the Supreme Court's view, hazy at best.