Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
By the time all of you will be reading this, we will be in a new year and a new year brings new projects and new challenges, all of which are exciting and fulfilling. Here's what we have planned for this promising new year...
Down economy. Incipient recession. Sub-prime credit crunch. Those are excuses that smart marketers don't use. They're catch-phrases that aggressive business developers never rely on. They're facts of life that do not impinge on the agendas of street-smart lawyers.
Features
In 2007, we learned a lot from myriad authors and our fabulous regular columnists. As with past practice, I am going to give our readership the pleasure of having the opportunity to enjoy reading one article from each of the past 12 months. In this issue we will feature January up to and including July. The February issue will continue highlighting one article from each of the August to December issues.
A recent ruling of importance to you and your practice.
Because custody evaluators are typically appointed by the court rather than separately retained by the parties, many lawyers and judges assume that the resulting work product is neutral and unbiased. This is not a valid assumption. A mass of behavioral science research clearly reveals that all human beings, whether mental health professionals, lawyers, judges, or candlestick makers, are subject to an array of biases that can severely distort the decision-making process. This article explores the insidious role of bias in custody evaluations.
In our era of fast-paced technological development, you may know that a GPS-enabled cell phone could allow you to trace your teenager's steps, but did you know that you could track your schnauzer through his GPS-enabled dog collar? Inventive product designers are finding new ways for us to enjoy the government-run Global Positioning System all the time.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Two Pennsylvania law firms have filed class action suits against toy company Mattel Inc. The suits were filed in an effort to compel Mattel, the importer of millions of Chinese-made toys that have been recalled recently due to lead paint and small magnets, to pay for lead testing for children who may have been affected by the toys.
The saga of a Texas product liability law firm can serve as a lesson to other firms in Texas, and perhaps, throughout the nation. In September, an arbitration panel ordered John M. O'Quinn's firm to pay a class of 3,450 former breast implant clients nearly $42 million because the fee contracts did not include language permitting the firm to charge for general expenses.