The opinion from the New Jersey committees is short and well written and addresses most, if not all, the arguments I have been discussing regarding Avvo’s claims. Interestingly, Avvo was able to respond to the inquiry addressed by the committees before the opinion was issued and it seems it made the same arguments it has been making elsewhere and that I have discussed before. The opinion rejects them all for pretty much the same reasons I described in my article. Avvo claimed that the “marketing fee” is not a referral fee but an advertising cost, and because the “marketing fee” is a separate transaction, there is no improper fee sharing. The label and timing of the fee does not transform it into an advertising cost. This fee varies depending on the cost of the legal service provided, which is inconsistent with the essential elements of an advertising cost. Avvo defended the varying amounts of its “marketing fees” by stating that in the online market, bigger-ticket services should have bigger-ticket fees. It stated that it spends more to advertise the range of services and takes a bigger payment processing risk for more expensive services.
The Committees are not convinced that the sliding scale of fees for legal services rendered bear any relation to marketing. Finally, the opinion addressed Avvo’s contention that fee sharing with non-lawyers is not inherently unethical. According to this argument it is unethical only if it results in an interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment. Avvo further asserted that fee sharing is only unethical if it compromises the lawyer’s professional judgment. The Committees acknowledge that concerns about independent professional judgment undergird the prohibition on sharing legal fees with nonlawyers. The opinion also addressed certain services offered by LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer. It found they also violate the rules, but for other, easy to address, reasons. The opinion held that these programs are different than Avvo’s because they operate as legal service plans and that, therefore, New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the plans until they are registered with the Administrative Office of the Courts.
This is a setback for LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer, but one that should be easy to solve by registering the programs accordingly. Simple Justice has a comment on the New Jersey opinion here. My Shingle has a comment here. Above the Law comments here. The Law for Lawyers today comments here. Now back to the issues related to Avvo Legal Services, I want to reiterate something else I have stated in the past. Saying that participating in Avvo Legal Services would violate the rules is not the end of the debate. The more interesting question is whether the rules should be changed to accommodate what Avvo wants to do. That is not addressed by the New Jersey opinion. As I reported recently, though, it is under review in North Carolina and, perhaps in Oregon. In other words, I think Avvo is going at this all wrong. It should not be arguing that participating in its services does not constitute a violation of the rules. Given the current rules, that argument is weak. What it should be doing is arguing that the rules should be changed to allow it to do what it wants to do and to allow lawyers to participate. That is a better approach, which may yield better results for Avvo. What happens in North Carolina will tell.
In other cases, the trustee finds himself participating in a case of such public importance that he becomes a public figure whether he wants to or not. In my view, Irving Picard is an example of both. As the trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC, Mr. Picard became a player in one of the largest scandals of our time. A little more than two years into the job, the 69-year-old Picard, who was plucked from obscurity to recover the money, has become America’s most unlikely celebrity lawyer, and perhaps its most underrated. While Mr. Picard may not have consciously sought public figure status, any time you can be described as “America’s most unlikely celebrity lawyer,” you are one. Finally, the court’s discussion of the difference between defamation and hyperbole, while legally correct, is sadly ironic. What it says is that if you are going to attack someone, the more outrageous and unprovable your statements are, the less likely it is that someone could successfully file a defamation suit against you. An example. Let’s say that I have a case with bankruptcy trustee Ron Satija and get mad at him.
Ron Satija is an arrogant snot of a trustee who uses his East Coast education to oppress anyone he considers to be his social inferior. The elitist indoctrination he received at Columbia serves him well in destroying the lives of ordinary Texas citizens. In this example, the only factual statements are that Ron Satija is a trustee and that he was educated at Columbia which is on the East Coast. The rest is hyperbole and opinion. The factual statements are indisputably true because Ron is a trustee and he did attend Columbia. While the remaining content is calculated to make people think bad things about Ron Satija, they are protected under the First Amendment. At this point, I have made a factually provable statement. There either was a 341 meeting held for John Smith or there was not. The statement was either made or it was not. While the statement conveys the same sentiment as before, it is now making an assertion of objective fact. I guess that the lesson is that while we must all suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fate, we can only sue if those arrows are tipped with factually verifiable statements. Note: Ron Satija is neither an arrogant snot nor an East Coast elitist. He is a well-mannered and gracious individual. I used Ron as an example because he is a friend and fellow blogger.
Lawyers in Greece are subject to the Greek Code of lawyers that entered into force in 1954, as well as the European legislation about lawyers (Lawyers code of conduct ). In order to become a lawyer in Greece, one must be a law school graduate of a Greek university or a foreign university. In the latter case, the foreign diploma must be recognized as equal by the Greek authorities, so that the graduate can be accepted as a bar member. As a first step, an eighteen-month practice period in a Greek lawyer’s office must be accomplished, during which the trainee lawyer must participate in 30 court hearings together with the supervising lawyer. At the end of the 18-month practice period, the trainee lawyer must take the bar exam, which is held twice a year. The board of examiners is comprised of judges and lawyers. A trainee is granted the title “lawyer” in Greece once this exam is passed, and a ministerial decree is published, which states which lawyers passed the exam and cam be registered as members of the bar.
Lawyers in Greece cannot litigate before courts out of their bar territory, without the participation of a lawyer of the other bar. This is about to change within the next years due to European directives, which enable the free exercise of any profession in the European Union without territorial restrictions. During the first 4 years of his career, a lawyer in Greece can only litigate before the courts of first instance, as well the local magistrate’s court. The latter are smaller courts which try claims of a value not exceeding 12.000 €. After four years of practice, the lawyer can apply to be granted a higher license, in order to litigate before the Court of Appeals. In another five years, the lawyer can also apply to be granted the right to litigate before the Supreme Court in Greece, called Areios Pagos, which is seated in Athens. Areios Pagos tries cases only of a pure legal nature, meaning that the rules of lower courts cannot be brought before Areios Pagos with the argument that they did not assess the evidence correctly. Lawyers in Greece are usually divided by their practice focus in 3 categories: lawyers that handle penal cases, lawyers that handle civil cases and those that handle commercial and corporate cases. In smaller cities, it is usual for a lawyer to handle all types of cases.
There is a lot of talk about the concept of “unbundling” of legal services these days. Unbundling usually refers to an agreement in which the attorney agrees to help the client with a distinct and limited task. For example, the attorney would agree to review a document that the client will use to negotiate a deal by himself. The attorney’s representation in such circumstances is “limited” to reviewing the document; not to negotiate for the client, not to represent the client in any proceeding, etc. Just reviewing the document. For everything else, the client is either on his or her own or will rely on other lawyers. So why all of a sudden are lawyers so worried about the needs of the poor? This was the underlying debate in the discussion on “ghostwritting” I posted recently (here and here). The underlying question was whether an attorney who writes a court document for a pro-se litigant should be required to disclose (in the document) that the lawyer helped the client prepare it. A recent ethics opinion in the state of New York concluded that attorneys could remain incognito. In response it has been said that anonymity can result in abuses and in lawyers taking advantage of the clients they are supposedly trying to help by unbundling the services. This debate is now before the Supreme Court of Illinois. It is considering some proposals to amend certain rules to regulate limited representation in the state. The proposals are available here. Interestingly, the proposal regarding “ghostwriting” is the opposite of the view adopted in New York. An attorney may assist a self-represented person in preparing a pleading, motion, or other paper.
To feel the touch of motherhood, arid couples are forced to step forward on the path of surrogacy. The term “surrogate” means substitute or in simple term it can be defined as alternate or proxy arrangement. With the startling stature of infertility, surrogacy in India is deeply rooting its paws in the present times. Late marriage, hectic lifestyle full of corpulence, constant trauma and several other reasons indeed play an important role in its alarming growth. This practice was made legal in 2002 in India with Supreme Court’s ruling determining commercial surrogacy to be a legal carry out. In 2008 the bill granted permission to the single parents having their children from surrogated mother but the surrogate will not have any right on the child born from this arrangement. The country possesses some legislative rules that guide and direct the process of surrogacy in India. In commercial surrogacy, the surrogate is remunerated to lug the child till maturity in her womb. But this form is usually practiced by upper income infertile couple who can easily manage to pay the rate in order to accomplish their trance of being parents. With rigorous increase in population and raise of high international demand the industry is reaching its peak and India undoubtedly has ready availability of poor surrogates. In much simpler term it can be defined to be “womb on rent” or the pregnancy can be said to be ‘outsourced’.
100 per hour, a move expected to increase costs for county governments throughout the state. The court’s decision granted part of a petition from a coalition of lawyers and judges who say Wisconsin’s current system for public defense attorneys is so underfunded, it’s facing a constitutional crisis. 40 per hour, the lowest in the nation. During public testimony on the petition earlier this week, several lawyers and judges said the pay for public defenders was so low in Wisconsin that it was hard to find attorneys in many counties. It was dire, they said, that some people who were charged with crimes were left to sit in jail for several weeks while they waited for representation. Several justices said at the time that they thought the current rate of pay for defense lawyers was too low, but they also questioned what the court could do about it. The court’s decision to increase pay for some lawyers and not others could lead private attorneys to refuse public defender assignments and instead hold out for court-appointed positions. Milwaukee defense attorney John Birdsall in an interview with Wisconsin Public Television. In addition to raising the rate for court-appointed lawyers, Wisconsin Supreme Court spokesman Tom Sheehan said justices denied a proposal to tie future increases to the rate of inflation. 32 million annual cost for raising the pay rate for court-appointed lawyers. That figure actually refers to the cost of raising state public defender pay.
As we keep peeling the onion of Obamacare, here’s a new one: the language of the legislation very explicitly states that federal subsidies can be distributed only through state-run health exchanges. The law expands health coverage by providing subsidies to people buying health insurance through government-run health exchanges—online marketplaces intended to allow people to compare and purchase health plans. But the text of the law clearly states that those subsidies are only available to individuals who purchase insurance in exchanges erected by states. The Internal Revenue Service, however, has ruled that the subsidies will be also be available in the 34 exchanges run by the federal government. One argument by Obamacare backers is that Congress wouldn’t be so stupid to add a “poison pill” to its own legislation. So the work-around is to say “never mind” in exactly the same way they insisted the individual mandate was not a tax before arguing at the Supreme Court that the mandate was contained in the government’s power to tax.
According to the IHR sources, Vahid Mazloumin and Mohammad Esmaeel Ghasemi who were hanged on economic corruption charges were among them. Eight others were executed on murder charges. Vahid Mazloumin, dubbed the “sultan of coins” by media, was a trader accused of manipulating the currency market. Mohammad Esmaeel Ghasemi was allegedly part of Mazloumin’s network and had been involved in the sale of gold coins, Mizan reported. Of note, Iran Human Rights (IHR) had strongly condemned the executions for the charges of economic corruption. Among those who were executed on murder charges, IHR could identify four as Saman Yamini, Ali Iranshahi, Ali Amindokht and Sam Sagvand. The Iranian media outlets have not published news related to the aforementioned executions on murder charges so far. According to IHR sources, Milad Nouri was hanged on the morning of November 12, 2018. IHR could not yet obtain information about what he was accused of. Baluchi civil activist, Habibollah Sarbazi, told IHR, “a night before the execution, authorities called his family to go to the prison for the last meeting. According to the Baluchi Activists’ Campaign, Milad Nouri was a married man with two children. He was arrested around a year ago by security forces. The Iranian media outlets have not published news related to the aforementioned execution so far. ⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: firstname.lastname@example.org. Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running!
Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. Anderson said Congress “consciously abandoned common sense decades ago” when drafting some of the nation’s immigration laws. But in practical terms, it’s not a decision that affects “that many people because only a fraction of permanent resident and undocumented residents have ever been accused of a felony,” she said. According to Associated Press reports, the case turned on a decision from 2015 that struck down a similarly worded part of another federal law that imposes longer prison sentences on repeat criminals. The 2015 decision “tells us how to resolve this case,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the court. The government argued, among other things, that Dimaya could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law. Immigration officials relied on a section of immigration law that lists crimes that make people eligible for deportation.
Immigration judges would have allowed Dimaya to be deported, but the federal appeals court in San Francisco struck down the provision as “unconstitutionally vague.” The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling Tuesday. Kagan wrote that conviction of a crime of violence makes deportation “a virtual certainty” for an immigrant, no matter how long he has lived in the United States. Anderson said for most lawful permanent residents, deportation is a far greater punishment than any criminal penalty for the exact same offense. Gorsuch did not join all of Kagan’s opinion but he agreed that the law could not be left in place. The decision does not, however, interfere with the government’s ability to deport people who are convicted of clearly violent crimes, including murder and rape, as well as drug trafficking and other serious offenses. The ruling is limited to a category of crimes that carry a prison term of more than a year, but do not otherwise comfortably fit in a long list of “aggravated felonies” that can lead to deportation. The case was initially argued in January 2017 by a court that was short a member because of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and the refusal of Senate Republicans to act on former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. The court deadlocked 4-4 so the justices scheduled a new round of arguments once Gorsuch joined the court.
When finances get robust and you want entry to credit score, which comes in the kind credit cards and Texas payday loans, emergency situations don’t have time to wait for traditional financial institution loans or lenders. If you want a monthly repayment loan you can borrow with dangerous or no credit history, one option is to strategy direct installment loan lenders that are not unsecured lenders. Final month, a B.C. Supreme Court judge certified class-action lawsuits towards three payday lenders alleging that fees they cost quantity to illegal interest. These unsecured loans although assure the borrower to support funds within quick span of time but by no means bask in customs which can reduce probabilities of mortgage gaining for the borrower. The regulatory adjustments announced Monday comply with amendments the federal authorities made to the Felony Code in 2007, allowing provinces to set their very own charges for payday lenders.