The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Abortion, Law and Reason

By Anthony S. Volpe
Special to the Legal

The unfortunate and disturbing revelations about the “medical” clinic in West Philadelphia has awakened all sorts of social and political monsters. The issue became so hot that politicians and officials felt the need to express outrage and even fire people. These actions may present the appearance of being active and in control.  In reality, they mean nothing and are intended to appease the various political factions.

Pro-life advocates can seize on this horror to argue that it reflects moral decay and the sin of murder. A passionate argument for sure, but wide of the mark. What happened is that “medical” clinic was engaged in a sin, but it was the sin of greed. Had the standard of care been met, it is likely that there never would have been the horrors. These tragic events were not about providing abortion services, but were about the money that could be made by running a factory like operation with unskilled labor.

Pro-choice advocates can seize on this horror to argue that its reflects the consequence of governmental interference in a woman’s right to choose. A passionate argument for sure, but wide of the mark. The victims of this “medical” clinic had the opportunity to choose, and they chose to have the abortions. So the government is not interfering with the right to choose.

State and local governments seize on the news to express horror and pled ignorance or the lack of funds. Neither is exculpatory. This governmental failure to act has the earmarks of social prejudice, not a prejudice based on race, color or origin.

Rather, it is a prejudice based on economics. Poor people just do not receive the same level of governmental protection when it comes to policing individuals operating with government-granted licenses. People expect that the licensing provisions, whether for doctors, nurses or other individuals in the medical field, mean that the holders are held to a standard of care. Likewise, they expect the local heath and welfare authorities to be vigilant about medical operations within their jurisdictions.

When, if ever, was the last health inspection of that clinic? As the tragedies of the children abused while in the DHS system clearly demonstrated, there needs to be constant oversight when the government is involved at any level, as the tendency to avoid issues by looking away is tremendous. Would either of these activities have been tolerated in wealthier neighborhoods?

As is evidenced by the recent and continuous coverage of a Central Bucks schoolteacher’s blog posting, government and social attention is focused more intensely on events that impact those in higher socio-economic standings. This presents a social snobbery that other people of a lower social standing do not care as much about similar events.

I suspect that all people hope to avoid a situation that finds them having to consider abortion. I also suspect that most find this situation to be confusing and life-altering. As such, there is little to argue for the position that anyone in that circumstance would choose to seek care at a filthy, poorly staffed and poorly run “medical” clinic. Unfortunately, for many in the west Philadelphia area served by the “medical” clinic, it was the only choice.

Reason argues that everyone, including governmental entities, pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates, should come together to enforce the exiting laws without regard to any political leanings. Pro-life advocates can do this while continuing to push for their legal position, and pro-choice advocates can do this while continuing to defend a woman’s right to choose.  Governmental authorities can begin to serve the affected populations by ensuring them that their medical service providers meet at least the minimum standards dictates by the relevant licensure requirements.

Reason does not accept the use of this tragedy as a basis for advancing a political agenda. We have a current state of law on the abortion issue and that law should and needs to be enforced! There can be no argument the victims got what they deserved for acting immorally by seeking an abortion. Likewise, there can be no argument that the “medical” clinic should exist as it is the only service provider the victims could afford. Reason argues that these events should join the parties in urging government to inspect and police such establishments so these horrors are not repeated.   

This butchery benefits no one except the greedy people who finance and operate these facilities that prey on society’s poorer member, because they are seen as poor and powerless.

Anthony S. Volpe is a founding partner of Volpe and Koenig. He can be reached at TVolpe@volpe-koenig.com.

Generic v. Brand Drugs -- Will There Be Different Federal Standards?

By Adrianne Walvoord
Special to the Legal

In an attempt to dispel misconceptions about generic drugs, the FDA posted Facts and Myths about Generic Drugs on its website.  Fact: approximately 70 percent of all prescriptions are for generic drugs. Fact: research shows that generics work just as well as brand name drugs. Fact: on average, the cost of a generic drug is significantly lower than the brand name product. One reason generic prescriptions are likely on the rise is due to the increase in patent expirations, which has opened the prescription drug market to generic counterparts. 

Despite these facts, Consumer Report surveys in 2009 and 2010 showed that more than 40 percent of people said they had concerns about generic drugs, fearing that they weren’t as safe or as effective as brand-name medications, had different side effects, or came under different federal standards. 

I find the final point -- “different federal standards” -- to be most interesting. As I discussed in my blog last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that a generic drug manufacturer’s duty to warn under state law was not pre-empted by federal law.  This opinion was in keeping with the 8th Circuit in Mensing v. Wyeth and the 5th Circuit in Demahy v. Actavis. 

So now we have three circuits applying the same federal standard to generic drugs as the U.S. Supreme Court did to a brand drug in Wyeth v. Levine. The Supreme Court, however, has granted appeals in Mensing and Demahy, which could put the rulings of the three circuits in jeopardy. On March 30, 2011, the high court will consider whether the state law failure-to-warn claims are pre-empted by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, fondly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act in honor of the act’s two sponsors. 

The Hatch-Waxman amendments facilitated the availability of generics by greatly reducing the burden on manufacturers to get a generic drug approved for sale. A generic manufacturer can file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to get approval for an existing licensed medication or approved drug. A generic drug is comparable to a brand drug in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use; however, a manufacturer of a generic drug is generally not required to include preclinical and clinical data to establish safety and effectiveness. In essence, a generic manufacturer can ride the coattails of the brand. 

Although it’s unlikely for the everyday citizen to contemplate the federal standards of pre-emption when deciding between a generic and brand prescription drug, the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Mensing and Demahy appeals may give rise to real concern. Will the Supreme Court find that a generic drug manufacturer may have a duty to warn above a brand manufacturer?  Or will the Hatch-Waxman Act pre-empt a state failure to warn claim against a generic manufacturer that uses the same label as its brand equivalent?  Stay tuned. 

Adrianne E. Walvoord is an associate at Anapol Schwartz Weiss Cohan Feldman & Smalley handling pharmaceutical and medical device litigation involving complex medical, scientific, and legal issues.  She practices in federal court, as well Pennsylvania and New Jersey state courts. She also currently represents juveniles affected by the Luzerne County Juvenile Detention Center scandal. Contact her at awalvoord@anapolschwartz.com.

Surprise! U.S. Supreme Court Says Words Matter

By Joshua Wolson
Special to the Legal

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions about federal pre-emption that show how much statutory language matters. The cases are different, and the arguments among justices within each case are different. Together, though, the cases make an important point: When it comes to statutory interpretation, words must be parsed with care. 

On Tuesday, the court held in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act pre-empts state tort actions claiming that a federally approved vaccine suffered from a defective design. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent engage in a grammar-lover’s debate about the proper interpretation of the statute’s pre-emption clause.

The debate focuses on the meaning of the word “if” and the phrase “even though,” the grammatical structure of the pre-emption clause, including the use, structure and placement of the conditional clause introduced by the word “if,” and the difference between “coordinating junctions” and “concessive subordinate clauses.” The majority also cautions against reading too much into the fact that Congress could have written statutory language more tersely, so long as the interpretation gives effect to all the words in the statute.

On Wednesday, the court held in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America Inc. that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 -- a federal regulation promulgated pursuant to that act -- do not pre-empt state tort actions claiming that cars complying with Standard 208 were defective.

The act contains two potentially conflicting provisions: a pre-emption provision that bars states from adopting any safety standard different from federal standards; and a savings provision that says that compliance with a federal standard does not exempt any person from liability under common law. Although eight justices agreed that the state tort claims at issue could move forward (Justice Elena Kagan did not participate), they had very different rationales. 

Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s majority opinion looked at the interrelationship between the savings clause and the pre-emption clause. The opinion explained that the pre-emption provision might bar a tort action but for the savings clause, but the savings clause demonstrates Congress’s intent to exempt tort suits from pre-emption. At the same time, the court concluded that the pre-emption provision nonetheless means that state laws that stand as an obstacle to the execution of federal policy must yield to the act.

The majority devoted the rest of its opinion to whether or not the particular suit would have interfered with the execution of Standard 208. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas took a very different view of the act. According to Thomas, there is no reason to read the pre-emption provision in conjunction with the savings clause. Instead, Thomas made the savings clause the touchstone of his analysis. In his interpretation, the statute says that state law tort suits are not pre-empted, so they are not pre-empted. Nothing more is needed.

These back-to-back decisions both arise in the context of pre-emption. But they also provide a roadmap to interpreting all statutes -- and even many contracts -- based on the text and grammatical structure that was used. And they remind us all too clearly of a simple maxim: Words matter. 

Joshua D. Wolson is a partner in the litigation department at Dilworth Paxson. He can be reached at 215-575-7295 or jwolson@dilworthlaw.com.

Contested Construction Contract Slows Progress on Phila. Family Courthouse

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

While the state's public works developer is moving ahead with plans to develop a new family courthouse in Philadelphia, the process has been slowed while the office responds to a protest to its decision on awarding the electrical contract for the building, a state Department of General Services spokesman said.

DGS spokesman Troy Thompson said Hampton Technologies Inc. filed a protest Jan. 22 to DGS's decision to award the electrical contract to the Farfield Co. of Lititz, Pa.

DGS's process in response to protests to its contract awards is to have its contract officer file a response, to have the protesting party file a reply to the contract officer's response, and then to have the DGS secretary or the secretary's designee make a decision on the protest, Thompson said.

The matter is pending until a decision is made by DGS Acting Secretary Sheri Phillips or her designee, Thompson said.

All of the contracts have to be in place before the project moves ahead because all of the ultimate contractors need to be involved in the planning process, Thompson said.

The construction contracts also must be fully executed before DGS buys the real property at the courthouse site at 15th and Arch streets as part of the bankruptcy settlement of private developer Northwest 15th Street Associates, Thompson said.

Northwest filed for bankruptcy last year because the original Family Court deal structure unraveled upon the revelation that the court's tenant representative had struck a codevelopment agreement on the other side of the transaction with Northwest.

But in the settlement of Northwest's bankruptcy, the state plans to buy the air, surface and developments rights at 15th and Arch streets from Northwest, which has a mortgage for those rights from the Philadelphia Parking Authority. The settlement will not be considered finalized until the sale of the real property rights closes.

Court leaders were worried that Gov. Tom Corbett would not support a project championed by former Gov. Edward G. Rendell, but the project has received Corbett's support, The Legal previously reported.

The four contracts that DGS awarded in January for general contractor, mechanical, plumbing and electrical would equal $122,447,000, $60 million less than the $200 million budgeted to construct the courthouse.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be contacted at aelliott-engel@alm.com.

Can an Employer Legally Refuse to Hire a Smoker?

By Eric B. Meyer
Special to the Legal

Recently, The New York Times ran a story discussing how some employers are refusing to hire smokers. The article warns, "Smokers now face another risk from their habit: it could cost them a shot at a job." 

But is this legal? Can an employer really refuse to hire someone who smokes?

Many states have laws prohibiting discrimination against smokers. Much to the chagrin of Nick Naylor (a character in the 2005 film, “Thank You for Smoking”), 29 states (including New Jersey) and the District of Columbia have passed laws forbidding employers from refusing to hire smokers.

Does that mean that employers in the other 21 states -- which include Pennsylvania and Delaware -- can refuse to hire (or decide to fire) all smokers? Well, just because state law doesn't forbid it, doesn't mean its legal.

The ADAAA may preclude a company from refusing to hire smokers.

Consider this: under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer may not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. In 2008, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (ADAAA), which effectively made it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

Additionally, the ADAAA makes it so that an employer may not take a prohibited action against an individual based on an actual or perceived impairment that is not transitory (lasting or expected to last for six months or less) and minor. That is, an employer cannot discriminate against anyone it "regards as" disabled.

Given that the ADAAA construes the definition of "disability" in favor of broad coverage, under the ADAAA, smokers may be considered disabled because they may have difficulty breathing or because they have a nicotine addiction. Consider that an alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, most smokers are able to performs their essential job functions without any sort of accommodation. Therefore, a smoker who is fired may have a difficult time proving that the employer fired the smoker because s/he smoked.

But what about an employer that has a policy of refusing to hire smokers? Presumably, this policy would cut down on insurance rates because employers would, on average, be hiring healthier employees.

However, could a rejected smoker (or class of rejected smokers) argue that the employer refused to hire them because the employer "regarded them" as disabled? I would not be surprised to see that argument presented in the future.

So should employers implement smoker-free hiring policies? Good question.

Maybe hiring smokers is just a cost of doing business. Employers must ask themselves whether limiting the applicant pool to preclude smokers will save enough in health insurance rates to overcome the cost of potential lost talent (and litigation).

Eric B. Meyer is a partner in the labor and employment group at Dilworth Paxson. He also has his own labor and employment law blog, The Employer Handbook, and readers can e-mail emeyer@dilworthlaw.com and follow him on Twitter.

From Inside Out to Outside In: Seeing Your Case from a Different Perspective

By Melissa M. Gomez
Special to the Legal

In one of the highlight moments as a jury consultant, one of my clients, with whom I was giving a CLE, said to the crowd, “Jury consultants like Melissa can give us a different perspective on the case. She essentially lets us know if we have a good case or if we are just absorbed in our own BS.”  Regardless of the fact that I had to chuckle at this particular client’s description of my job, he made a good and important point that I think all attorneys should consider when taking their case to trial.

The fact of the matter is that after years of being involved in a case, you are no longer outside of it. Instead, by the time a case makes it to trial, the team has typically been so involved in the nuts and bolts and minute details of the legal and factual issues that it can get stuck inside its own perspective. It can be extremely difficult to step back outside and understand what someone may perceive viewing the case for the first time and from a 10,000-foot view. Extremely difficult, but critical if you are to present your case in front of a jury.

Does this mean you need a jury consultant for every single case you have going to trial? No, not at all. What it does mean, though, is that you should get some sort of outside perspective -- whatever form that may take. 

Do I recommend using a jury consultant? When it is warranted, sure I do.  Jury consultants are trained to provide an unbiased perspective (unlike your mother or spouse, who wants to encourage you … usually). The perspective of a good jury consultant is focused on people who do not know the law; who may not be those who you, as a lawyer, encounter in your day-to-day life, but who would be the ones showing up to the courtroom on the day of your jury selection. 

The best outside perspective, of course, is from potential jurors themselves. To get this viewpoint, we conduct mock trials or focus groups in which you present the case to a representative sample of eligible jurors. In the right case, when there is a lot at stake, the perspective from members of your venue’s community can be extremely valuable and eye-opening.  There is no better way to take a step outside of yourself than to hear a group of people discussing their opinions of your case and your arguments. 

In essence, finding a way to turn your vantage point of  your case from inside to outside could very well be the difference between making a winning argument and … being “absorbed in your own BS” (his words, not mine). 

Melissa M. Gomez is a jury consultant and owner of MMG Jury Consulting. She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Her experience includes work on hundreds of jury trials in Philadelphia and across the country, with a focus on the psychology of juror learning, behavior and decision-making. If you have questions regarding jury psychology that you would like to see addressed in this blog, contact Gomez at melissa@mmgjury.com or call 215-292-7956.

Automobile Accidents and the Practice, on 'The American Law Journal'

Twenty years ago, every personal injury practice included a fair share of auto accident cases. Not so today. Aside from significant insurance options, what else has changed the face of this area of practice?

On Monday, Feb. 21, at 7 p.m. on Philadelphia CNN-News affiliate WFMZ-TV 69, "The American Law Journal" presents “Auto Accident Claim? No Thanks.” Host Attorney Christopher Naughton welcomes defense counsel James C. Haggerty of Swartz Campbell, plaintiffs lawyers Jamie L. Sheller of Sheller P.C. and J. Robert Bratman of Stark & Stark, and Harris T. Bock of The Dispute Resolution Institute.

The program examines the critical decisions consumers must make before and after an accident and the approach of lawyers in auto-related legal matters today.

“I can tell you that we are not taking cases today that years ago we would have taken,” said Bratman. Sheller concurred, “People are ending up not getting justice.”

"The American Law Journal" is the weekly talk-feature program on the CNN-News affiliate WFMZ-TV 69 and streaming on www.WFMZ.com. View programs, schedules, lawyer profiles and more on the new website, www.LawJournalTV.com or on Facebook, www.facebook.com/AmericanLawJournal. Next week: “Accelerating Your SSD Claim.”

More Million-Plus Awards Out of Philly in 2010

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff
 
There were a few other cases involving awards over $1 million that The Legal couldn't fit into the print version of the story, "FJD's Million-Plus Awards Increase by One-Third." So here are the details, including three cases not yet reported in The Legal:

-- A jury awarded $1 million, including $250,000 for pain and suffering, $75,000 for loss of consortium, and $675,000 for future economic damages, in the case of Seving v. Chollak on Oct. 15 on its finding that plaintiff Carolyn Seving developed a foot drop because of a nerve injury that occurred after her total hip replacement. The plaintiff’s complaint said that Seving was placed into an exercise sling after her surgery, but her narcotic pain medication diminished hercapacity to feel pain in her right leg or any pressure that was exerted on her nerves because of the sling.

Dr. William Chollak, who conducted the hip replacement at Chestnut Hill Hospital, was voluntarily dismissed from the case after jury selection was commenced. Chollak also permitted the plaintiff to use Chollak's neurology expert to testify on the behalf of the plaintiff, which gave them a neurology expert when they had none before, Chestnut Hill Hospital's post-trial motion for relief said.

The hospital also said in its post-trial motion that Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Joseph Papalini spoke with the jury and reported to counsel that the jury members said they believed Chollak was at fault for Seving's injury, but that since Chollak, who was not on the verdict sheet, had worked for the hospital for many years, he “was essentially Chestnut Hill Hospital.”

The defense argued that Seving’s nerve injury occurred during surgery, while the plaintiff argued that her nerve injury occurred because she was placed in a sling post-surgery, court papers said. Plaintiffs attorney Laura Feldman, of Feldman & Pinto in Philadelphia, said that while the purpose of the sling was to exercise in bed, the nurses thought its purpose was to immobilize Seving. Defense attorney Fred J. Hughes, of McCumber Daniels Buntz Hartig & Puig in Eagleville, declined comment.

-- A jury awarded $1 million, including $750,000 and $250,000 in loss of consortium, in Brogin v. Sovereign Distributors on Nov. 22 on plaintiff Ira Brogin’s claim that a chair in a furniture retail store collapsed out from under him and caused Brogin to have neck and lower back pain that interferes with his daily life.

The plaintiffs said in their pretrial memorandum that the chair, purchased by Sovereign Distributors (doing business as Avalon Carpet, Tile and Flooring) from distributor Raymour & Flanigan, was defectively designed in the bracket attaching the chair legs to the chair seat. According to the docket, the jury found Sovereign Distributors 15 percent liable, Raymour & Flanigan 15 percent liable and chair designer Douglas Furniture of California 70 percent liable.

Plaintiffs attorney Samuel J. Pace Jr., of Dugan Birinkmann Maginnis & Pace in Philadelphia, said there was a confidential high-low agreement entered with at least one of the defendants. There will be no appeal, he said, unless Raymour & Flanigan appeals against the chair’s importer.

While the defense argued that Brogin’s pain was related to pre-existing problems, the jurors said they found Brogin and his experts credible, Pace said. The event itself was captured on surveillance, Pace said. Douglas Furniture of California defense counsel Elizabeth F. Walker, of Kennedy Campbell Lipski & Dochney in Philadelphia, and Raymour & Flanigan defense counsel Patrick J. Hasson, of Baginski Mezzanotte Hasson & Rubinate, did not respond to requests for comment.

-- In the largest judicial finding not yet reported in The Legal, Judge Arnold L. New awarded $1.5 million in Turnkey Construction Services Inc. v. Allied Preet Management on Oct. 29.

Turnkey Construction Services said in its complaint that defendants Gagandeep Lakhmna, Allied Preet Management and Creating Real Estate Solutions contracted with Turnkey to improve the defendants’ loft building located at 717 N. American St., Philadelphia. But Lakhmna had set up a “labyrinth of under capitalized companies ... to work in concert to secure loans and construction services and to avoid payment” to the plaintiff and other companies, the complaint said. In their answer, the defendants denied making misrepresentations to the detriment of the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs attorney John J. Delany III, of Delany & O'Brien in Philadephia, did not respond to a request for comment. Jeffrey S. Saltz, of the Law Office of Jeffrey S. Saltz in Philadelphia and originally defense counsel in the case, said he withdrew his appearance before the case went to trial and the award was entered via default judgment.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be reached by e-mailing aelliott-engel@alm.com.

Former WCJ Joins Pond Lehocky as Of Counsel

By Zack Needles
Of the Legal Staff

Peter E. Perry Jr., a former judge and judge manager of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Adjudication, Southeastern District, has joined Philadelphia-based workers' compensation boutique Pond Lehocky Stern & Giordano as of counsel.

Perry, who retired from the bench in January 2010 to join private practice, said he contacted Pond Lehocky partner Samuel H. Pond after hearing about the break-up of Pond's former firm, Martin Banks Pond Lehocky & Wilson, last July.

Originially, Perry said, he just wanted to talk to Pond about beginning a referral relationship, but the talk quickly turned to Perry joining the firm on a part-time basis.

"He’ll be an active litigating attorney in the office," Pond said.

Accoring to Pond, the firm felt Perry's experience as a WCJ would make him "a perfect fit" and was attracted to his "no nonsense" approach to law.

"He has the unique perspective of someone that sat on the bench for close to 30 years in workers' compensation cases," he said, adding that Perry also has experience in the area of Social Security disability.

Perry agreed his time on the bench has given him an advantage as a lawyer.

"It helps me now to turn around and try cases on behalf of individuals," he said. "I know what to look for, what the burdens of proof are and what judges expect to hear as far as evidence and presentation of cases."
Pond said that in addition to his decades of experience, the firm also hopes to utilize some of Perry's political relationships.

According to Pond, Perry, a longtime Northeast Philadelphia resident, has already been able to use some of his professional connections in the region to establish a book of business.

"He has a pretty good network of sources where he has already begun that process of becoming a source of business," he said. "In the Northeast Philly area, he's really well respected and has a lot of relationships."

Zack Needles can be contacted by e-mailing zneedles@alm.com.

7 Ways to Increase Your Desktop Productivity

By Neen James
Special to the Legal

You spend incredibly long hours at your desk, so to make the most of every day at your firm, you need to focus on creating an environment conducive to work. By establishing a productive desk environment, you are guaranteed to improve your efficiency and achieve more in your day.

The paperless desk: I know, you think I am crazy! But removing all paperwork from your desk will allow you to focus on the client file that is most important or the closing you are trying to prepare for! Establish files for projects -- reference folders for information you need to access regularly; a reading file for articles, reports, journals and FYI documents; and a daily file for administrative, miscellaneous and day-specific tasks -- and keep these on shelves or in drawers. Don’t allow yourself to be overwhelmed by paper!

The only thing on your desk at any point in time should be information relating to the client or project you are currently working on. Before you move on to the next task or project, file your paperwork and ensure you only have items relating to the new task on your desk.

Out of sight, out of mind: Remove your in-box from your desk or get rid of it altogether if you can! Keep it out of sight so the contents don’t distract you and so that people don’t drop new items into it without you noticing.

Having an overflowing in-tray in front of you can make you feel guilty and tempt you to get distracted from the task at hand. Educate your colleagues to leave documents for you on your desk, where you will see and either action or file them as they arrive, rather than having them get lost in your in-tray.

Avoid double-handling: Many people believe you should only handle paper once.  This is not always practical, but if you get into the habit of making "action notes" on each piece of paper, your time will be well invested. Either write directly onto the paper or use Post-it notes to remind yourself of what action needs to be taken on that paper. This way, you will avoid handling the paper multiple times.

Stationery drawer: Keep stationary in cupboards or drawers rather than on your desk. Get rid of all the clutter and keep your desk clear for essential items relating to the current piece of work you are doing. It will help you focus to remove some of that clutter!

Set up a comfort zone: Take time to set up your PC, monitor, phone, chair and other vital tools properly. Make sure they are within easy reach and positioned for comfortable use.

Inspire yourself: Surround yourself with positive images. Keep a photo or phrase that motivates you in view to remind you of and motivate you toward continually striving for your goals. It could be a holiday destination you want to visit, a photo of your family or a quote that inspires you. Remind yourself why you work so hard and such long hours at the firm.

Shut down: Take 10 minutes at the end of everyday to clear your desk: wash your coffee cup, empty your water bottle, put away pens and note pads, file documents and lock away confidential information. Leave each day with a clear desk and start each new day afresh.

Neen James, MBA CSP, is the President/CEO of Neen James Communications, LLC. An international productivity expert and native born Aussie, Neen delivers engaging keynotes that have educated, and entertained audiences with real-world strategies that apply in all roles, whether at work or in life. Neen also provides one-on-one consulting and mentoring to women on a variety of business issues and topics. To find out more about Neen, visit her at www.neenjames.com/bio or e-mail neen@neenjames.com.