Domestic Violence: Family Law Attorneys Can Get Caught in the Crossfire
October 14, 2005
Domestic violence probably impacts at least a few, if not several, of the clients you assist each year. In this Special Issue, we focus on some of the problems endemic to domestic violence: the plight of the victim when police protection is inadequate; the consequences to the perpetrator when Family Court issues impact on Criminal Court proceedings, and vice versa; and what can happen to attorneys who get swept up in their clients' problems to become potential victims of violence themselves.
Family and Criminal Courts: Overlapping Considerations
October 14, 2005
When accusations of domestic violence or child sexual abuse are brought in a family matter, the attorney for the accused party has a lot to think about. How to prove that no abuse occurred, that the client has reformed or that it was a one-time occurrence that won't happen again? Such issues can command a lot of the attorney's focus. But because matters surrounding spousal or child abuse accusations often are or will later become germane to a criminal case, family law attorneys have extra considerations apart from the outcome of the divorce or custody matter. How might criminal proceedings impact custody issues? Will the facts that come out in Family Court affect a later criminal prosecution? When admissions of criminal behavior are elicited in Family Court, do constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants attach?
New York: Law Enforcement Liability in Domestic Cases
October 14, 2005
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in <i>Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales</i>, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5214, the civil rights case that asked whether a court-issued domestic restraining order, whose enforcement is mandated by a state statute, creates a property interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision reversed the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' finding that the restraining order, coupled with the Colorado statute mandating the enforcement of such orders (<i>see</i> Colo. Rev. Stat. ' 18-6-803.5(3)), established a protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order which could not be taken away by the government without procedural due process.
CD: Lawyers and Their Clients: A Balancing Act of Understanding and Managing Expectations
October 07, 2005
Law firms are rapidly gaining an understanding about how much of a competitive advantage is achieved when they truly understand their clients' needs and align their services with those needs. But this is often easier said then done. This Web Audio Conference will be presented from a variety of perspectives -- a General Counsel of a major corporation, a partner in leading regional law firm who manages significant client relationships, and nationally known consultants from Hildebrandt International who serve both constituents (law firms and law departments).
For Defendants: Developing the Sophisticated User/Intermediary Defense
October 07, 2005
In defending silicosis claim lawsuits, defendants must try to demonstrate the knowledge and sophistication of the plaintiff. This can be challenging, however, when the plaintiff disclaims knowledge or claims reliance on specific information from his or her employer or suppliers. The "sophisticated user" defense generally focuses on the knowledge and sophistication of the employer as a corporate entity regarding the industry as a whole and the product or product's inherent hazards specifically.
Judge's Order Shows Contempt for Doctors' and Lawyers' Tactics
October 07, 2005
As anticipated, Judge Janis Graham Jack's written Order 29 in the <i>In re Silica Products Liability Litigation</i> multidistrict litigation ("MDL") was far from complimentary to the plaintiff bar. The order, dated June 30, addresses subject matter jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence and sanctions for some lawyers Judge Jack basically deemed charlatans. The order followed the defendants' presentation of evidence during a 3-day hearing in February in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, which showed that many of the claims under investigation were brought on the basis of faulty or nearly nonexistent medical diagnoses.
Silica Litigation Case Law and Tort Reforms: A State-By-State Overview
October 07, 2005
After seeing the effects of asbestos litigation on the courts and the economy — such as bankruptcy filings and the economic fallout that ensues — few want to see a repeat with silica litigation. On the federal level, a comprehensive bill has been introduced to address the current and future handling of asbestos, silica and mixed dust claims. The original proposal sought to create a $140 billion national trust fund for asbestos claims. A subsequent draft, which came out of committee May 26, added silica and mixed dust claims to the agenda.
News Briefs
October 07, 2005
Highlights of the latest silica news from around the country.
Silicosis: Breathing Down on California; Texans Charge into State with Sometimes Shady Silicosis Suits
October 07, 2005
Brent Coon sees the future of lung litigation, and it's far beyond his Beaumont, TX, headquarters. Right now, he's hoping it's in San Francisco. "California's just another expansion in our drive to become a one-stop shop," the plaintiff lawyer said recently as he prepared for his June 1 takeover of another Texas firm's San Francisco office and caseload. Coon's presence ' and the recent filing of about 35 suits by the East Bay, CA, plaintiff firm Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer in conjunction with a Texas firm ' are the latest signals that California is the Texans' testing ground for silicosis lawsuits.
The Sophisticated User Defense in Minnesota: Weighing Knowledge
October 07, 2005
Claims involving a failure to warn are often centered around what a reasonable manufacturer or supplier should have foreseen was necessary to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm. If a supplier is deemed to have a duty to warn, the duty can be fulfilled by calling the hazards of the product directly to the attention of the eventual user; for example, through product labeling. <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich.App., 2004). However, when, as is often the case, a product passes through the hands of multiple intermediaries between the supplier and the eventual user, the situation becomes murkier, and it becomes unclear who should shoulder the burden of the duty to warn. This is where the sophisticated user defense comes in.
